The apartheid regime in South Africa during the mid to late 1900s led to the collapse of the South African economy and international trust abroad. The white minority oppressed the African majority, by denying them their rights and forcing them to relocate. While this regime lasted for several decades, its collapse was inevitable. The South African government became alienated from the international sphere and was sanctioned by other nations. This led the unequal nation to lose economic power and trade capabilities. Nations with inequality are destined for failure. These nations become unglobalized and are isolated from the outside world. South Africa had to become globalized in order for it to succeed. In the world today, globalization can work for struggling nations, but there are many risks and downfalls to globalization. The economic gap between the rich and the poor can increase. That being said, a country that is globalized has a much greater chance of succeeding than a country that isn’t globalized. Even though this is true, we cannot let globalization take over the world today if we are not ready for it.
Perhaps the most significant reason why globalization can be considered good is because of aid to poor or developing countries. Poor or developing nations, if controlled on a global system, rather than a national system, have potential to achieve and be successful. If a country rejects globalization, then that country will lose aid from other nations and as a result will fall. Because of globalization, it will be easier to monitor struggling nations and as a result the richer nations can aid these poorer nations. But can these poorer nations actually benefit from this?
While globalization gives poor countries an alleyway to success, undeveloped and poor nations may not even have the capacity to be globalized. This is evident in chapter 5 of the Foer reading, where the corrupt Brazilian system leads to rejection of globalization. Globalization couldn’t work in Brazil because the system was so corrupt. The West, which is much more developed than Brazil, decided to invest in Brazilian soccer but had to realize that Brazil wasn’t as economically developed and sound as the West. The West can also be selfish and act on selfish desires. Helping other nations may appear to be a goal of theirs, but they primarily want to “help” other nations to bolster their economic power. We see this with outsourcing. While outsourcing gives the unemployed employment and can increase wealth per capita, the richer nations are simply using poorer nations to their advantage and the richer nations are gaining more profit. Also, nations that are given the outsourced jobs may not have the economic means to pay their workers at a respectable rate and may not give their workers a sanitary workplace. Child workers work in awful conditions, and risk sickness or disease (The Pros and Cons of Globalization). The immorality of this should certainly not be understated, too. That being said, outsourcing can help the international economy by spreading wealthy, but it is mostly negative.
Globalization contains its many pros and cons, but the world can only be globalized if countries are ready for it. Governments must cooperate together and must give their citizens the rights they should have. Look at South Africa. The government became so obsessed with the apartheid regime that it lost its place in the international community. Giving citizens rights, which South Africa eventually did (because of the ANC’s takeover), help individual prosperity which in turn leads to economic success. This leads to a greater level of respect from outside countries; as a result, the international community can work together. Countries that give their citizens rights have the ability to succeed because they will have the ability to be globalized. There are many countries today that are unequal but need to fix their system in order for globalization to work. That being said, it is often very difficult to trust all nations in the international community. This presents a risk to globalization; some nations may abuse their power and not have respect for lower-income nations. Free trade can also lead to financial instability because some countries have to pay taxes while other countries do not (The Pros and Cons of Globalization). This is risky.
The world is becoming more globalized, and that most likely isn’t going to change. Therefore, in order for globalization to work for the international community, we must cooperate with our citizens in order to gain respect from other nations. Globalization has the potential to work but there are many issues with it, too.
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/o/outsourcing.asp
Alex you seem to be an advocate for globalization, yet you also see the flaws in it, that is a rare talent. However, I must ask, do you think the benefits do ultimately out weight the negatives?
ReplyDeleteAlso, you looked at South Africa. Clearly countries that don't take part in the global economy suffer, such as North Korea. However, globalization is dangerous, and may have been the cause for the housing bubble crisis in 2006. Clearly there are dangers, so is embedded liberalism a safer, better choice then globalization?
Is it the duty of richer countries to help smaller, weaker ones? You seem to imply that it is inevitable, but what do the richer countries get out of this relationship? If little or nothing, why would they do this?
Will,
DeleteThanks for your comments. In regards to your first question, I think the positives have the potential to outweigh the negatives. If countries can become more stable and economically sound, then globalization will work in those countries because they have the capacity for it. If this happens, globalization has the potential to flourish and benefit numerous actors. Notice - the potential!!! Potential doesn't mean it will happen. One negative to globalization is the increase in the economic gap between the wealthy and poor. These negatives could ultimately outweigh the positives if actors act selfishly, but the positives have the potential to outweigh the negatives if actors act rationally and selflessly. I would say if I had to pick, the negatives would outweigh the positives because globalization is risky and not all countries can go through with it.
Rich nations should help weaker nations. The richer countries have the ability to gain from helping, especially through outsourcing because they don't have to pay their workers as much. This helps drive business and stimulates the economy, but this also clearly has its downsides. Richer nations could improve their worldly reputation by helping and could improve support from its own citizens. So in that sense, rich nations can benefit from helping poorer/weaker nations.
Alex,
ReplyDeleteYou bring up a intriguing point about whether or not the outcome of globalization on a country means it was 'ready' or not for globalization.
What characteristics would you say indicate the best end results for a country that is facing globalization?
If the dangers posed are only harming the country who is rejecting globalization, should anything be done about it?
Thanks for sharing!
Amanda,
DeleteThanks for your comments. The characteristics that indicate the best results are economic, political, and social stability. A country must not be corrupt if it globalization is to work for it.
Your second question is interesting. I think if a country rejects globalization, then something should be done. Most nations who reject globalization are either unjust or corrupt and need to be fixed. We can’t leave these nations alone because their problems will only get worse and the international community will suffer. We have to be willing to help them. The irony of all this is, if the country didn’t reject globalization in the first place, then their corruption likely wouldn’t be as bad. This may be an inaccurate statement, but I think a lot of nations can avoid poverty by accepting globalization in the first place. Poverty is started by the rejection of globalization. If a country is corrupt from its inception, then, well, that’s a different story, and we just have to help them.
I hope this makes some sense.
Hey Alex, nice post! I completely agree with your point that Brazil’s failure to globalize was due to their own corrupt system, but I would argue the West’s investment in Brazil’s soccer enterprise did not further injure Brazil’s corrupt system. Rather, I think it highlighted the issues already present in their system of government. I do agree that we were in a sense, able to capitalize on their failure, but don’t all countries do this? That clearly doesn’t make it right, however if we’re supposed to keep up in the global markets and if all of our global competitors are making investments to benefit themselves, wont the U.S. be at a disadvantage? It seems to be a lose-lose situation to me; one country’s success is another country’s failure.
ReplyDeleteEmily,
DeleteThanks for your comments. You bring up some really valid points that I didn’t quite think about. I guess in a sense by investing in other nations, we think that it’s supposed to be mutually beneficial. However, it doesn’t always pan out that way, and instead we see the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. As I mentioned in my post, states want to help other states to bolster their economic power; this is primarily for our own interest, which is something you bring up. And yes, we are always keeping track of our competitors and we want to remain the most powerful nation on earth. This doesn’t just apply to the U.S. - it applies to other Western and European nations as well. However, I think it is possible to have a win-win situation, but only if the country being invested in is strong economically. That being said, win-win is very difficult because of that competition, and we can’t lose sight of the global economy. As a result, a lot of actions taken by powerful nations reflect their desire to become stronger economically; this strength will lead to success in the global economy.
Hi Alex,
ReplyDeleteGreat post!! You have a very persuasive writing style. You bring up such a valuable point that equality in a country is needed before it can be stable enough to be globalized. However, I see especially in your own example of outsourcing that globalization allows inequality to continue. Do you think that even when a country establishes internal equality in order to prepare for globalization, that globalization will then tear down the equality all over again or do you think the equality will withstand globalization's negative effects?
Alex,
ReplyDeleteI think you did a great job of picking out both the pros and the cons of globalization. From your post I would guess that you are an advocate for globalization, but I cannot be certain. To be able to that is very impressive though. You are absolutely correct in saying that outsourcing is a way for wealthier countries to benefit on the low wage jobs other countries have to offer, and it is hard for those countries to then change their economy. Globalization puts countries into pickles and can help other. So I am agreeing with you that globalization is a double edged sword.