Globalization can be positive. After all, you pay less for your TV than you would if it was made here by American hands. That way more people can afford TVs sold in American stores, spurring on the economy. On the other hand, it can be negative. Since no American hands made that TV, all of those hands have no jobs or are getting paid little, and the economy sputters.
Globalization allows small production operations, like small farmers or manufacturers, to compete on the world market. In this sense, globalization is positive. It also allows further avenues for exploitation of lands and ecosystems in remote underdeveloped areas by American and other corporations. This is positive for the corporation, but negative for the local people. Nigeria in recent years has been battling this negative effect of globalization regarding energy plants. It also allows underdeveloped areas to focus on cash crops (readily renewed crops that have world-wide market value), though at the risk of neglecting sustenance food crops. This is positive globalization for the underdeveloped area but will lead to negative results in future if food production isn't equally focused on. Globalization is a two-sided situation.
I would want to differentiate between the haves and the have nots in response to this question. It appears that broadly speaking, the effects of globalisation have been wonderful for the haves of this world. However, with a few exceptions, globalisation has not necessarily helped the have nots. It has only made them more vulnerable and more easily exploited by the haves as they gain ever greater amounts of money.
In terms of economics the benefit of globalization is that it allows countries to trade, network, share, buy and sell easier than before thanks to the ease of communication. This, in turn, is supposed to create more jobs and possibilities of growth in the market.
The cons of globalization (which should not be, but exist) is the danger of monopoly from the part of newly-organized and powerful organizations that wish to get a hold of a great part of the new global market. Some businesses can be extremely ambitious and may want to take over the smaller "fish". For that reason, it is imperative that we maintain a good balance in the world's economy and that way we can all benefit.
One thing that is negative about globalization is the fact that not all countries have the same protections for the environment and for workers in place. Countries without these protections are often able to produce goods more cheaply. Since the balance between regulation and freedom to do business varies from one country to the next, globalization can provide a way to avoid regulation. For example, many US companies have moved their factories to other countries, where there are fewer environmental and worker protections, as a way to cut costs, but then they bring the finished goods back into the US to sell them at a higher profit. This means the company is enjoying the advantages of existing in the US without sharing in the costs of doing so.
On a general level, they're positive. Look at the great progress that has come to the economies of many countries that used to be "Third World." The most obvious of these, of course, is China, but it's not the only one. Globalization has allowed more countries to become relatively well-off than was the case a generation or two ago.
On a more specific level, it can be bad. Globalization hurts specific populations like manufacturing workers in rich countries or farmers in poor countries. They get outcompeted in ways that would not have happened before globalization. So it's some good, some bad.
there are several forms of globalization. economic globalization is very keen subject in it. regarding effects of ecnomic gloabalization, i assume the following consequences:
- global corporations,
- global production, global outsourcing, global competition and global competition.