Globalization

Globalization is both good and bad. What are both positive and negative aspects of globalization Bring examples

Globalization has become by now a phenomenon that is doomed to unending controversy (Bhagwati 2002). But globalization is a force that has helped both society and the common man in various ways.

Globalization has opened the possibilities of production and creating employment through multinational companies. The linking of cutting edge technology with low labour costs has allowed transfer of production from developed to developing countries. Off-shoring and outsourcing of various production stages by MNCs such as call centres in India, sewing and producing clothes in Bangladesh for brands such as GAP are examples of globalization creating employment and permitting investments in markets that were inaccessible earlier. But one of the contentious arguments is that globalization can increase income inequality both within and outside the country as it promotes skill-biased employment that favours a small workforce. A case in point is Japan which is alarmed about inequality, stagnant wages and jobs going to China (The Economist 2007).

The employment creation has led to migration both within and outside the country. People migrate from rural towns to urban cities and migrate abroad to seek better opportunities of employment. Yet, both forms of migration have adverse effects firstly, rural-urban migration leads to highly populated urban cities. The development of slums such as the one in Mumbai, India becomes a source of transmitting communicable diseases that harms the health of a large part of the population. It also leads to environmental degradation as forests are cut down for accommodation purposes and high volume of traffic increases carbon-dioxide emissions. Thus, it adds to the global warming dilemma.  The migration abroad (the brain drain) becomes a loss for developing countries as they lose out on  human capital that could have been a prime source of economic growth and prosperity.

Thus, globalization can be a positive driving force, but its adverse effects could have consequences for growth and development in the future unless addressed by appropriate policies.

Is Amy Chua in her book World on Fire How exporting free market democracy breeds ethical hatred and global instability correct that the way market democracy is exported exacerbate backlashes Bring supporting examples

Market democracy has long been an agenda of the developed world since Cold War era.  World organizations such as the World Bank, IMF and United Nations have and continue to advocate market democracy as a key ingredient for economic growth and development. However, it is not necessary that democracy leads to harmony and growth.

The author is correct in stating that exporting market democracy where a minority has access to a large share of wealth of a country provides a breeding ground for social and cultural imbalances, which when unleashed has disastrous consequences. A case in point is Indonesia where Chinese made up only three percent of the population, yet, controlled seventy percent of Indonesias private economy (Chua 2002).  Thus, the fall of Suharto was followed by anti-Chinese violence as Indonesians looted and attacked Chinese minority. Similar cases can be seen such as Rwanda between Hutus and Tutsis and in Bosnia. Perhaps in one way, The Holocaust in the Second World War by Hitler in a way could be an indicator of Jewish minority owning major proportion of wealth (although it is well-documented that Hitler had been rejected by one of the finest art universities owned by Jews  so it was a personal revenge by Hitler), thereby, leading to a massacre of Jews.

When such imbalances exist in a country, it is not advisable to market free democracy as it could allow demagogues to seek advantage of the resentments of the majority and ferment active ethno-nationalist movements. One size does not fit all. Thus, one particular model of market democracy cannot be applied to all countries. There are cultural, racial, traditional, structural and religious differences that exist within countries. In addition to this, there are differences between people on the basis of caste, race and ethnicity further creating imbalances within the society. Thus, in a society, where resentments between majority and minority groups are high, market democracy can become a catalyst for violent movements. Therefore, it is absolutely critical to analyse the ground realities in terms of social imbalances in order to avoid making democracy a catalyst in ethnic crimes. 

0 comments:

Post a Comment