Better Students Ask More Questions.
How far do you agree with the view that globalisaiton had only served to entrench and...
Topic: Social SciencesHow far do you agree with the view that globalisaiton had only served to entrench and worsen the economic woes of the world?
How far do you agree with the view that globalisaiton had only served to entrench and worsen the economic woes of the world?
7 Answers | add yours
I do not agree with this view to any great extent at all. The major point that I would use as evidence is that the era of globalization has hardly been one of constant "economic woes."
Globalization has, of course, been occurring for centuries. However, it has sped up rapidly in the last 30 years or so. During this time, the world has not exactly been living in the Great Depression. For example, it is globalization that has led to the great rise of Chinese economic power. While this may bother people in the West, Chinese people would surely not feel that globalization has caused "economic woes" for them. Even here in the United States, globalization has generally increased our standard of living. The fact that globalization makes it cheap and easy for us to buy many kinds of goods has allowed the majority of Americans to enjoy a relatively high material standard of living.
Globalization certainly leads to some economic dislocations as people lose jobs that have gone overseas. This is no small matter. But it is hard to say that globalization has been a net loss for the world when so many people in both rich and poor countries have benefitted.
Posted by pohnpei397 on July 13, 2011 at 10:34 PM (Answer #2)
Middle School Teacher
I am not in agreement with this idea. I think that there are a couple of reasons behind why I feel this. On one hand, I think that globalisation has served to open more doors than to close them. If we look at the emergent nations that are economic players in the global marketplace now as opposed to say twenty years ago, I think that we see more people having benefitted from globalization. When Zakaria writes about "the rise of the rest," he is writing from a globalized point of view. Nations like China, India, and Brazil are economic forces now only because of globalization. Another point I would make is to wonder what globalization can be seen as worse as. What I mean here is that if globalization is bad and has entrenched "the economic woes of the world," what would the option be? Going back to a Cold War paradigm did not benefit much of the world, being carved up by two superpowers. If the argument is pointing to the current economic crisis, I don't think that this was a result of globalization. If anything, globalization has helped to decrease the worldwide effect of the current economic crisis because the world is not solely dependent on one economic power. It used to be that if the United States failed, everyone else went down for the count with her. While this is true to a certain extent, globalization has opened up more markets to people and nations so that economic progress can still continue while economic powerhouse nations experience contraction. My final point is that the information technology boom that has coincided with globalization has created more avenues of help and positivity than negative despair. The fact that you can get answers to this question from "experts" all over the world represents a globalized solution to the problem of seeking advice and input. In this, more people benefit than suffer.
Posted by akannan on July 13, 2011 at 10:41 PM (Answer #3)
High School Teacher
I am not entirely in agreement with this idea, but I do think that there is some truth in it. I think if we look at history it becomes clear that globalisation is not a new phenomenon, but that globalisation does give those who have power the ability to exploit and enrich themselves at the expense of those who don't have power. I understand that this might be a minority view, but if we look at the activities of insitutions such as the World Bank and the IMF, some would argue that they have worsened global inequalities through trying to help whilst giving richer countries the opportunity to benefit from the poverty of others.
Whilst I agree with #3 that we have seen the rise of other world powers thanks to globalisation, critics would argue that the rich-poor divide in these new powers has only worsened thanks to globalisation, creating a new generation of haves and have nots.
Posted by accessteacher on July 13, 2011 at 11:07 PM (Answer #4)
High School Teacher
Posted by brettd on July 14, 2011 at 6:17 AM (Answer #5)
Middle School Teacher
Posted by litteacher8 on July 14, 2011 at 9:00 AM (Answer #6)
Elementary School Teacher
I'd agree with this only slightly. There are some situations in which exploitation has become more entrenched as the programs are backed by the IMF and other powerful organizations, but there are conversely situations where new markets have opened up to the citizens of developing countries, providing them with new and greater opportunities.
Posted by kplhardison on July 29, 2011 at 8:23 AM (Answer #7)
It might be possible to argue that globalization has negatively affected such once-prosperous countries as the United States, although advocates of globalization could claim that in fact it has been a huge boon for countries such as the U. S. American opponents of globalization, however, often point to the loss of manufacturing jobs and the erosion of the U. S. industrial base.
Globalization has arguably been highly beneficial to developing countries, such as China, whose economic power seems to be growing as American economic power seems less secure than it once did. Certainly the Chinese are better off today, by and large, than they ever were under Mao.
Posted by vangoghfan on September 5, 2011 at 3:28 PM (Answer #8)
Join to answer this question
Join a community of thousands of dedicated teachers and students.