Give examples of how globalization has helped or harmed individual nations and the world economy.
The topic of globalization is an important one. At one point people seemed to see only the benefits of globalization, but there are also some weaknesses.
Here are some benefits:
First, globalization offer a global marketplace. It also gives a global workforce. These points are no small benefits. They can make production extremely effective and at the same time maximize profits. From this perspective, globalization is great.
Second, globalization creates networks of friendship. This can be a deterrent when it comes to war and international conflicts. The reason for this is simple - everyone stands to lose in a global meltdown.
There are some downsides as well.
If most of the manufacturing is sent out (for example), then domestic manufacturing goes down. This will entail the loss of jobs and in this economic climate, we need more jobs.
Second, as the price of transportation grows, globalization forces the greater consumption of oil, which is running out and can be very expensive. There is something to be said about the need for local markets.
people often apply for approval in order for them to visit some other countries to see animals that belong to that region only
Here is a real example of the effects of globalization, which in this case means the movement of money, capital, labor, or natural resources.
Chicken of the Sea cans tuna. The company had a plant in American Samoa, which employed 2000 workers. The company moved the canning plant to Lyons, Georgia where they employ 200 workers. The workers in Georgia earn higher wages, but that is offset by the investment in capital which requires fewer workers.
A change in minimum wage laws prompted the move. Samoa had been exempt, but that recently changed. Aside from being an example of the effects of globalization, this is also an example of how minimum wage laws cause unemployment.
Focusing more on the impact on culture:
The increase in Globalisation clearly opens up opportunities for the smaller less developed countries to enter into the global market place. To enter into this market place they must to conform with a 'global norm' or 'standardised global culture' that has emerged, predominantly from the western nations.
In my opinion this directly harms the domestic culture as they are forced, voluntarily and involuntarily, into conforming with the global culture we have forced upon them.
This is emphasised by multi-national corporations moving into LEDCs and actually imposing the organisational culture on the country. An extreme example of this is Britain drastically changing Indian culture with the East India Corporation dominating so much of the country and employing so many thousands of people. India has, and never will, return to the un-industrialised culture that they had before hand.
A lesser extreme is firms such as Coke Cola and McDonalds imposing a western culture on other countries. Slowly this organisational culture of impersonality, co-operations and 'no-nonsense' will bond irreversibly with the domestic and national culture.
This leveling in culture into a 'one size fits all' global frame of mind greatly aids the efficiency of business and trade, while also allowing communications between countries so much easier. The cultural differences will be less extreme, thereby making communication more efficient as the need to be accommodating decreases.
Here are just a few opinions, but obviously it is a subject that will require many more words than my short blog post to answer.