Globalisation is the way forward for both rich and poor. To what extent do you agree with this statement? Explain your reasoning.

Authors Avatar
MANAGEMENT ASSIGNMENT:

Question 1: "Globalisation is the way forward for both rich and poor." To what extent do you agree with this statement? Explain your reasoning.

Word Count: 1498

Introduction

What is globalisation? Definitions vary from one source to an other, and are usually too narrow, i.e., they consider just one aspect of globalisation, and most often, the economic side solely. A comprehensive definition of "globalisation" could be the following: "Globalisation refers to increasing global connectivity, integration and interdependence in the economic, social, technological, cultural, political, and ecological spheres." (Wikipedia)

Is this a new phenomenon? No, is it not. Evidence of this was found in old writings, some of them dating back to 60 AD ! In fact, the roman stoic philosopher Seneca was already criticising an early type of "globalisation" (even though this word didn't exist yet) : "Our ancestors have known the time of innocence, they were without malice, they were staying at home peacefully, they were growing old on the fields of their ancestors (...) Back then the world was multiple (...) Barriers have been moved, on the virgin lands towns have been edified, the world is etched with pathways, everything moves, nothing stayed the same." (Edee, Seneca)

The word "globalisation" appeared when globalisation expanded rapidly due to the creation of new technologies thanks to which information, products and people can travel faster and cheaper, e.g., aircraft, the Internet, cellular phones, etc. As the Wikipedia definition states, there are several aspects to globalisation, all of which have to been to be taken into consideration to be able to assess the different outcomes of globalisation for the rich and the poor.

) The economical aspect of globalisation

One of the main economical factors is international trade/investment, which has been both the cause and the outcome of globalisation. It has expanded rapidly, e.g., the number of tonnes of goods traded has increased sixteen-fold since 1950, according to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace organisation. Governments have cooperated to deregulate or liberalise international trading, in the aim of stimulating countries' domestic economies. In fact, this liberalised trade (or sometimes even free trade, like in the EU) had injected money in the circular flow of income of many countries, increasing their GDP, namely their production, and therefore enhancing employment, e.g., China's GDP has gone from "$1460 a head in 1980 to $4120 by 1999" (Globalisation Guide). However, it seems that the process of liberalising exchanges has been unfair: 'South' countries pay "tariffs on their exports which are four to five times higher" than those paid by 'North' countries, making free trade the benefit of the developed countries, and globalisation the new way for rich countries to exploit the poorest. (all this actually depends on politics and to what extent they intervene in the economy, see "the political aspect of globalisation below)
Join now!


This increase in exchanges has also promoted competition, and therefore increased research and the average quality of the goods available, as well as decreasing prices. This contributes to widening consumers' choice. However, competition had negative effects on both developed and developing countries, mainly because of their substantial difference in the cost of living:

* The opening of market barriers has led to job losses in developed countries, as labour is cheaper in developing or new developed countries (e.g., Indian labour costs £5 a day compared to £5.40 an hour in the UK), e.g. in 2003, Waterford Wedgewood ...

This is a preview of the whole essay