Homework Help

How far do you agree with the view that globalisaiton had only served to entrench and...

user profile pic

cytosine12 | Student, Undergraduate | (Level 3) eNoter

Posted July 13, 2011 at 10:13 PM via web

dislike 1 like
How 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

user profile pic

pohnpei397 | College Teacher | (Level 3) Distinguished Educator

Posted July 13, 2011 at 10:34 PM (Answer #2)

dislike 0 like

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.

user profile pic

Ashley Kannan | Middle School Teacher | (Level 3) Distinguished Educator

Posted July 13, 2011 at 10:41 PM (Answer #3)

dislike 0 like

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.

user profile pic

accessteacher | High School Teacher | (Level 3) Distinguished Educator

Posted July 13, 2011 at 11:07 PM (Answer #4)

dislike 0 like

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.

user profile pic

brettd | High School Teacher | (Level 2) Educator Emeritus

Posted July 14, 2011 at 6:17 AM (Answer #5)

dislike 0 like
I agree to a limited point.  it is true that globalization leveled the playing field between workers in the industrialized and developing worlds, which was bad for the former and good for the latter.  Economies in, for example, countries like Mexico, Vietnam and China were able to expand their manufacturing and agricultural export industries, which was, of course, good for the people there overall.  Hundreds of thousands of those same jobs left the United States and that has had a long term, negative effect on our economy. Furthermore, the world's resources, especially in terms of oil, fresh water and rare earth metals are in increasingly short supply and cannot sustain a large increase in the world's consumptive middle and upper classes for long.
user profile pic

litteacher8 | Middle School Teacher | (Level 1) Distinguished Educator

Posted July 14, 2011 at 9:00 AM (Answer #6)

dislike 0 like
There are two sides to this. On the one hand, diversification strengthens an economy. The more countries available for trade and the easy it is, the more money everyone makes. On the other hand, countries do become dependent on one another and their economies are closely interlinked and woven. A crisis in one country can quickly spread. That's nothing new though- look at the aftermath of WWI!
user profile pic

Karen P.L. Hardison | College Teacher | eNotes Employee

Posted July 29, 2011 at 8:23 AM (Answer #7)

dislike 0 like

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.

user profile pic

vangoghfan | College Teacher | (Level 2) Educator Emeritus

Posted September 5, 2011 at 3:28 PM (Answer #8)

dislike 0 like

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.

Join to answer this question

Join a community of thousands of dedicated teachers and students.

Join eNotes