INTRODUCTION TO GLOBALIZATION

Globalisation - Introduction
Author: Jim Riley Last updated: Wednesday 24 October, 2012
Globalisation is arguably the most important factor currently shaping the world economy. Although it is not a new phenomenon (waves of globalisation can be traced back to the 1800s) the changes it is bringing about now occur far more rapidly, spread more widely and have a much greater business, economic and social impact than ever before. There are several definitions of globalisation. Here are two official examples: First, from the OCED

The geographic dispersion of industrial and service activities, for example research and development, sourcing of inputs, production and distribution, and the cross-border networking of companies, for example through joint ventures and the sharing of assets And here from the International Monetary Fund:

The process through which an increasingly free flow of ideas, people, goods, services and capital leads to the integration of economies and societies Globalisation is best thought of as a process that results in some significant changes for markets and businesses to address: for example

An expansion of trade in goods and services between countries (an opportunity for many businesses; a threat for others) An increase in transfers of financial capital across national boundaries including foreign direct investment (FDI) by multi-national companies and the investments by sovereign wealth funds (e.g. Middle Eastern governments buying assets in the UK)

The internationalisation of products and services and the development of global brands such as Starbucks, Nike, Sony and Google Shifts in production and consumption e.g. the expansion of outsourcing and offshoring of production and support services, which has traditionally benefitted countries with lower labour costs & skilled labour markets such as India, at the expense of jobs in developed economies like the UK

Increased levels of labour migration which has the effect of lowering wage costs in many industries, but for others is a problem (e.g. a loss of skilled workers leaving an economy)

The emergence of countries playing a bigger role in the global trading system including China, Brazil, India and Russia

A key result of globalisation is the increasing inter-dependence of economies. For example:

Most of the worlds countries are dependent on each other for their macroeconomic health Many of the newly industrialising countries are winning a growing share of world trade and their economies are growing faster than in richer developed nations All countries have been affected by the credit crunch and decline in world trade, but manyemerging market countries have slowed down rather than fall into a full-blown recession

What is Globalization ? - Meaning and its Importance

inShare1

We often hear the word globalization in many contexts and repeated frequently as a concept to denote more trade, foreign companies and even the ongoing economic crisis. Before we launch into a full-fledged review of the term and its various manifestations, it is important to consider what exactly we mean when we say globalization. Globalization is the free movement of goods, services and people across the world in a seamless and integrated manner . Globalization can be thought of to be the result of the opening up of the global economy and the concomitant increase in trade between nations. In other words, when countries that were hitherto closed to trade and foreign investment open up their economies and go global, the result is an increasing interconnectedness and integration of the economies of the world. This is a brief introduction to globalization. Further, globalization can also mean that countries liberalize their import protocols and welcome foreign investment into sectors that are the mainstays of its economy. What this means is that countries become magnets for attracting global capital by opening up their economies to multinational corporations. Further, globalization also means that countries liberalize their visa rules and procedures so as to permit the free flow of people from country to country. Moreover, globalization results in freeing up the unproductive sectors to investment and the productive sectors to export related activities resulting in a win-win situation for the economies of the world. Globalization is grounded in the theory of comparative advantage which states that countries that are good at producing a particular good are better off exporting it to countries that are less efficient at producing that good . Conversely, the latter country can then export the goods that it produces in an efficient manner to the former country which might be deficient in the same. The underlying assumption here is that not all countries are good at producing all sorts of goods and hence they benefit by trading with each other. Further, because of the wage differential and the way in which different countries are endowed with different resources, countries stand to gain by trading with each other. Globalization also means that countries of the world subscribe to the rules and procedures of the WTO or the World Trade Organization that oversees the terms and conditions of trade between countries. There are other world bodies like the UN and several arbitration bodies where countries agree in principle to observe the policies of free trade and non-discriminatory trade policies when they open up their economies. In succeeding articles, we look at the various dimensions of globalization and the impact it has had on the global economy as well as in the mobility of people from poverty to middle class status. The point here is that globalization has had positive and negative effects and hence a nuanced and deep approach is needed when discussing the concept. What is undeniable is that globalization is here to stay and hence it is better for the countries in the global economy to embrace the concept and live with it.

You are here: Popular Issues >> Learn More About The New World Order! >> What Is Globalization
What is Globalization? What is globalization? Since the 1970s, globalization has sharply accelerated its momentum towards a single -world society. The conventional autonomy of local societies was not eliminated, but set aside as common directions and options were implemented through the uniformity of practice. Even the trend in business, as well as government, is towards globalization. In his book, The Lexus and the Olive Tree, Thomas L. Friedman suggests that globalization is a forceful ongoing process of merging of the worlds markets through the application of new technology. The impetus is free -market capitalism, but it is not restricted to this idea. What is globalization in business? Numerous industries including automotive, telecommunications, and refreshments are merging into one global marketplace. The manner in which these businesses conduct their day-to-day transactions is significantly altered by technology. Industries such as Mercedes-Benz, AT&T, and Coca Cola are staking out more territory on the global landscape. But the deepest roots of globalization are found in the financial institutions of The World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF). Other financial trends toward globalization include the introduction of the Euro, the dollarization of certain Latin American currency, and the proposal for a new North American currency, the Amero. Herbert G. Grubels article, The Case for the Amero: The Economics and Politics of a North American Monetary Union, provides an excellent example of this currency alternative. Yet globalization is not simply about the money. This merging process has transformed the world through mass communications, increased ease of travel, the Internet, popular culture, and the increasingly widespread use of English as an international language. Countries involved in this process progress, while third world countries are left behind. What is globalization in cultures? Advocates of globalization insist that free trade and free markets dont weaken or spoil other cultures, they improve them. Proponents explain that trade cultivates wealth. Wealth frees the worlds poorest people from the daily struggle for survival, and allows them to embrace, celebrate, and share the art, music, crafts, and literature that might otherwise have been sacrificed to poverty. Opponents of globalization express great concern that the mega -store effect is occurring on a global level. The antiglobalization groups argue that the playing field isnt level. Since free trade is partial to larger economies, the predomina nt western influence suppresses the cultures and traditions of the under-developed nations. Both sides generally agree that subsidies, tariffs, and other protectionist policies by well-developed countries against goods commonly produced in the third world (textiles, for example) stifle both culture and economic growth in the poorer nations. Slowly and methodically institutions such as the United Nations, World Health Organization, and World Trade Organization are acquiring dominance. A global system of governing through multinational companies extends its interests on a formal and personal level. This is why it is crucial to evaluate the structures of cultures. It is imperative that consideration be given to any monolith, which subordinates -- or in most cases dismisses -- equality, then boasts about its good intentions. Nations and governments will not thrive if they accept an autonomous system in which the affluent and powerful execute a New World Order agenda. The Bible speaks of material exchange and meeting the needs of others. The apostle Paul expressed Gods equal provision for all those in need. Of course, I don't mean you should give so much that you suffer from having too little. I only mean that there should be some equality. Right now you have plenty and can help them. Then at some other time they can share with you when you need it. In this way, everyone's needs will be met. Do you remember what the Scriptures say about this? "Those who gathered a lot had nothing left over, and those who gathered only a little had enough" (2 Corinthians 8:13-15).

What is globalization?
For our purposes, we're going to adopt the definition of globalization attributed to Sir Richard Branson, chief executive of the Virgin Group: "Globalization is the process by which geographic constraints on economic, social and cultural arrangements recede, thus increasing our global interdependence." Branson R. (2007) Globalisation Laid Bare, p 39, Gibson Square, London The key words here are "increasing our global interdependence." But are we becoming more interdependent than in the past? Some people have pointed out that the world was highly interdependent at the end of the nineteenth century: trade barriers were low and international goods flowed freely around the world. But others have responded to point out that twentyfirst century interdependence is of a completely different magnitude. Multinational companies, the worldwide web, satellite communications simply did not exist 100 years ago. This has increased the scope for companies and individuals to interact with each other in ways that were previously impossible.

For example, silk ties and scarves may be designed in Paris, the silk sourced from China, woven and printed in Italy and sold in the USA: all these business activities are interlinked across the world.

But let's be clear. There are many other answers to the question of 'What is globalization?' This website is primarily focused on a business perspective - hence the choice of the above definition. This does not mean that other views are invalid or have little meaning. Rather that there is not the space to explore all these perspectives on this website. So what do we mean by interdependence? To understand globalization better, it is worth exploring interdependence further. This has been explained by Held and McGraw:

"[Globalization] suggests a growing magnitude or intensity of global flows such that states and societies become increasingly enmeshed in worldwide systems and networks of interaction. As a consequence, distant occurences and developments can come to have serious domestic impacts while local happenings can engender significant global repercussions. In other words, globalization represents a significant shift in the spatial reach of social relations and organization towards the interregional and intercontinental scale."
Held, D and McGraw, A (2003) The Global Transformations Reader, 2nd Ed, Polity Press, Cambridge, UK - incidentally useful reading for those who want to delve into other aspects of the topic.

'Interdependence' means more than flows of trade, financial movements between the world's financial centres and travelling to new locations. It means that actions in one part of the world have reactions in another part of the world. For example, shoppers in the Raffles City Shopping Mall in Singapore will celebrate Christmas - hence the decorated tree outside the mall - alongside people in other parts of the world. Globalization helps to link people in different countries around the world by common interests, values and events.

Interdendence means that there is increased global interaction: networks, cultural awareness, organisational issues and the use of web-based network messaging sites such as Facebook and QQ (in China). Our exchange means that we come to interact more with each other than in the past. For example, this website is now viewed every month by people in over 60 (and rising) countries: this would have been incredible ten years ago. How is interdependence supported? Evidently by transport and communications. In addition, it is also supported by global customer demand, by the exchange of knowledge, by MultiNational Enterprises and by global actions and organisations like the Olympics, the United Nations, the World Trade Organisation and the meetings of world leaders - the G7 and the G20.

Some myths and realities of globalization It's a myth to regard globalization as being the only consideration. It is important to be clear that national and regional issues and decisions are still important. For example, national country considerations still apply with regard to the law, defense and cultural values. Equally, regional organisations and agreements, like membership of the European Union and ASEAN, can still have a profound influence on every aspect of our lives, including those relating to business. But does this mean that globalization is nothing more than a mere claim as some commentators have suggested? Is the concept so vague as to be incapable of rational analysis and therefore largely useless? In defence of this viewpoint, there is no meaningful global culture and no clear geographical boundary for global activity. Moreover, the world economy still relies on individual powerful nations - like the USA, China and Germany - to provide the basis of world growth and increased wealth. Such commentators have argued that globalization is little more than international activity redefined on a grander scale. This website understands this perspective and recognises that some business and other activities are essentially international in scope, not global. That is why we make the distinction used in the opening sections of the website: the difference between international, multinational and global. But the reality is that globalization is a meaningful concept for some companies, some nations and some strategic situations: this website presents evidence for this where necessary.

Is globalization just a way to reinforce the power of some nations and companies? There can be no denying that globalization has helped some nations to become and remain powerful: the USA and its possession of the ubiquitous dollar currency remains a major stregnth of that country. Equally, the dominance of some companies, like Microsoft in PC software and Nestle in some food products, also makes them a powerful influence in the world. Some commentators, particularly Socialist writers, have argued that this means that globalization is essentially concerned with the justifying the concept of free market competition. They say that such competition allows the already powerful multinational companies - mainly from Western nations - to maintain their market dominance and keep out new companies from developing countries. They suggest that globalization perpetuates the power of Western multinational enterprises. According to such commentators, globalization at a more general level is a way for western countries to perpetuate Western Imperialism. The problem with this argument is that it does not fit the facts.

Companies from Korea, like LG and Samsung, have become powerful in consumer electronics despite not being located in the Western hemisphere. Equally, countries like China in manfactured goods and India in computer services have become powerful in those areas without being located in the West. Essentially, the evidence shows that national power has shifted towards China, India, Russia and Brazil over the last five years. It is continuing to move towards such countries, perhaps to be joined by at least one African or Middle Eastern country over time - South Africa? Nigeria? Egypt? Iran? What does this mean for globalization? It means that power is continuing to shift around the world, as it has done for many centuries. Globalization adds another dimension to such power shifts but is not exclusively related to one group of countries. Conclusions Globalization is multidimensional: there are political, economic, social, technological and financial aspects to the concept. It is sometimes used inaccurately and misleadingly. It is an important aspect of international business strategy. But remains only one aspect of a much broader approach to strategy development. The next section of this website explores the relationship of globalization to business strategy.

EVOLUTION OF GLOBALIZATION

History of globalization
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Extent of the Silk Road and Spice traderoutes blocked by the Ottoman Empire in 1453 spurring exploration

The historical origins of globalization are the subject of on-going debate. Though several scholars situate the origins of globalization in the modern era, others regard it as a phenomenon with a long history. Some authors have argued that stretching the beginning of globalization far back in time renders the concept wholly inoperative and useless for political analysis. . [1]
Contents
[hide]

1 Archaic globalization 2 Proto-globalization 3 Modern globalization 4 Aftermath of World-War I: Collapse of globalization 5 Post-World War II: Globalization resurgent 6 See also 7 References 8 External links

[edit]Archaic

globalization

Perhaps the most extreme proponent of a deep historical origin for globalization was Andre Gunder Frank, an economist associated with dependency theory. Frank argued that a form of globalization has been in existence since the rise of trade links between Sumerand the Indus Valley Civilization in the third millennium B.C.[2] Critics of this idea contend that it rests upon an overbroad definition of globalization.

Thomas L. Friedman divides the history of globalization into three periods: Globalization 1 (14921800), Globalization 2 (1800 2000) and Globalization 3 (2000present). He states that Globalization 1 involved the globalization of countries, Globalization 2 involved the globalization of companies and Globalization 3 involves the globalization of individuals.[3] Even as early as the Prehistoric period, the roots of modern globalization could be found. Territorial expansion by our ancestors to all five continents was a critical component in establishing globalization. The development of agriculture furthered globalization by converting the vast majority of the world's population into a settled lifestyle. However, globalization failed to accelerate due to lack of long distance interaction and technology. [4]The contemporary process of globalization likely occurred around the middle of the 19th century as increased capital and labor mobility coupled with decreased transport costs led to a smaller world.
[5]

The 13th century world-system

An early form of globalized economics and culture, known as archaic globalization, existed during the Hellenistic Age, when commercialized urban centers were focused around the axis of Greek culture over a wide range that stretched from India to Spain, with such cities as Alexandria, Athens, and Antioch at its center. Trade was widespread during that period, and it is the first time the idea of a cosmopolitan culture (from Greek "Cosmopolis", meaning "world city") emerged. Others have perceived an early form of globalization in the trade links between the Roman Empire, the Parthian Empire, and the Han Dynasty. The increasing articulation of commercial links between these powers inspired the development of the Silk Road, which started in western China, reached the boundaries of the Parthian empire, and continued onwards towards Rome.[6] With 300 Greek ships a year sailing between theGreco-Roman world and India, the annual trade may have reached 300,000 tons.[7] The Islamic Golden Age was also an important early stage of globalization, when Jewish andMuslim traders and explorers established a sustained economy across the Old World resulting in a globalization of crops, trade, knowledge and technology. Globally significant crops such as sugar and cotton became widely cultivated across the Muslim world in this period, while the necessity of learning Arabic and completing the Hajj created a cosmopolitan culture.[8]

Portuguese carrack in Nagasaki, 17th century Japanese Nanban art

Native New World crops exchanged globally: Maize, Tomato, Potato, Vanilla,Rubber, Cacao, Tobacco

The advent of the Mongol Empire, though destabilizing to the commercial centers of the Middle East and China, greatly facilitated travel along the Silk Road. This permitted travelers and missionaries such as Marco Polo to journey successfully (and profitably) from one end of Eurasia to the other. The Pax Mongolica of the thirteenth century had several other notable globalizing effects. It witnessed the creation of the first international postal service, as well as the rapid transmission of epidemic diseases such as bubonic plague across the newly unified regions of Central Asia.[9] These pre-modern phases of global or hemispheric exchange are sometimes known as archaic globalization. Up to the sixteenth century, however, even the largest systems of international exchange were limited to the Old World.

[edit]Proto-globalization
The next phase is sometimes known as proto-globalization. It was characterized by the rise of maritime European empires, in the 16th and 17th centuries, first the Portuguese andSpanish Empires, and later the Dutch and British Empires. In the 17th century, globalization became also a private business phenomenon when chartered companies like British East India Company (founded in 1600), often described as the first multinational corporation, as well as the Dutch East India Company (founded in 1602) were established. The Age of Discovery brought a broad change in globalization, being the first period in which Eurasia and Africa engaged in substantial cultural, material and biologic exchange with theNew World.[10] It began in the late 15th century, when the two Kingdoms

of the Iberian Peninsula Portugal and Castile sent the first exploratory voyages[11] around the Cape of Good Hope and to the Americas, "discovered" in 1492 by Christopher Columbus. Shortly before the turn of the 16th century, Portuguese started establishing trading posts (factories)from Africa to Asia and Brazil, to deal with the trade of local products like gold, spices andtimber, introducing an international business center under a royal monopoly, the House of India.[12] Global integration continued with the European colonization of the Americas initiating the Columbian Exchange,[13] the enormous widespread exchange of plants, animals, foods, human populations (including slaves), communicable diseases, and culture between the Eastern and Western hemispheres. It was one of the most significant global events concerning ecology, agriculture, and culture in history. New crops that had come from the Americas via the European seafarers in the 16th century significantly contributed to the world's population growth.[14]

[edit]Modern

globalization

Animated map showing Colonial empiresevolution from 1492 to present

19th century Great Britain become the first global economic superpower, because of superior manufacturing technology and improved global communications such assteamships and railroads.

The 19th century witnessed the advent of globalization approaching its modern form.Industrialization allowed cheap production of household items using economies of scale,[citation needed] while rapid population growth created sustained demand for commodities. Globalization in this period was decisively shaped by nineteenth-centuryimperialism. After the Opium Wars and the completion of British conquest of India, vast populations of these regions became ready consumers of European exports. It was in this period that areas of sub-Saharan Africa and the Pacific islands were incorporated into the world system. Meanwhile, the conquest of new parts

of the globe, notably sub-Saharan Africa, by Europeans yielded valuable natural resources such as rubber, diamonds and coaland helped fuel trade and investment between the European imperial powers, their colonies, and the United States. [15]

The inhabitant of London could order by telephone, sipping his morning tea, the various products of the whole earth, and reasonably expect their early delivery upon his doorstep. Militarism and imperialism of racial and cultural rivalries were little more than the amusements of his daily newspaper. What an extraordinary episode in the economic progress of man was that age which came to an end in August 1914.

Between the globalization in the 19th and in the 20th there are significant differences. There are two main points on which the differences can be seen. One point is the global trade in this centuries as well as the capital, investment and the economy. Global Trade The global trade in the 20th shows a higher share of trade in tradable production, a growth of the trade in services and the rise of production and trade by multinational firms. Basically the production of tradable goods in the 20th compared to the 19th, decreased. It has to be seen, that the amount of tradable goods that were produced for the merchandise trade grew. Also the trade in services also got more important in the 20th compared to the 19th century. The last point that distinguishes the global trade in the 19th century compared to the global trade in the 20th century, is the extent of multinational cooperation. In the 20th century you can see a "quantum leap" in multinational cooperation compared to the 19th century. Before the 20th century began, there were just Portfolio investment, but no trade-related or production-relation Direct investment. Commercial integration has improved since last century, barriers that inhibit trade are lower and transport costs have decreased. Multinational trade contracts and agreements have been signed, like the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the European Union (EU) has been hugely involved in eliminating tariffs between member states, and the World Trade Organization. From 1890 and up to WWI instability in trade was a problem, but in the post war period there has mostly been economic expansion which leads to stability. Nations have to take care of their own products; they have to make sure that foreign goods do not suffocate their domestic products causing unemployment and maybe social instability. Technological changes have caused lower transporting costs; it takes just a few hours to transport goods between continents today, instead of weeks or even months in the nineteenth century. By consideration financial crisis one key difference is the monetary regime. In the 19th century it occurred under the fixed exchange rates of the gold standard. But in the 20th century it took place in a regime of managed flexibility. Furthermore in the 19th century countries had developed effective lenders of last resort, but the same was not true at the periphery and countries there suffered the consequences. A century later there was a domestic safety net in most emerging countries so that banking panics were changed into situations where the debts of an insolvent banking system were taken over by the government. The recovery from banking crisis is another key difference. It has tended to begin earlier in the recent period than in the typical crisis episode a hundred years ago. In the 19th century there were no international rescue packages available to emerging economies. But in the recent period such rescues were a typical component of the financial landscape all over the world. The flows information were an important downside in the 19th century. Prior to the Transatlantic cable and the Radiotelephone, it used to take very long for information to go from one place to another. So this means that it was very difficult to analyze the

information. For instance, it was not so easy to distinguish good and bad credits. Therefore, the information asymmetry played a very important role in international investments. The railway bonds serve as a great example. There was also many contracting problems. It was very difficult for companies working overseas to manage their operations in other parts of the world, so this was clearly a big barrier to investment. Several macroeconomic factors such as exchange risks and uncertain monetary policies were a big barrier for international investments as well. The accounting standards in the U.S. were relatively underdeveloped in the 19th century. The British investors played a very important role in transferring their accounting practices to the new emerging markets. [16]

[edit]Aftermath

of World-War I: Collapse of globalization

The first phase of "modern globalization" began to break down at the beginning of the 20th century, with World War I. The European-dominated network were increasingly confronted with images and stories of others, thus, then took it upon themselves to take the role of worlds guardians of universal law and morality. Racist and unequal practices became also part of their p ractices in search of materials and resources that from other regions of the world. The increase of world trade before beginning in 1850 right before World War 1 broke out in 1914 were incentives for bases of direct colonial rule in the global South. Since other European currencies were becoming quite largely circulated, the need to own resource bases became imperative.[17] The novelist VM Yeates criticised the financial forces of globalization as a factor in creating World War I.[18] Financial forces as a factor for creating World War 1 seem to be partly responsible. An example of this would be France s colonial rule over most of Africa during the 20th century. Before the World War One broke out there was no specific aims for the wars in Africa from the French, which left Africans in a lost state. Military potential of Africa was first to be emphasized unlike its economic potentialat least at first. Frances interest in the military potential of French Africa took a while to be accepted. Africans in the French army were treated with feelings of inferiority from the French. As for the economic incentive for colonial rule came in 1917 when Frances was faced with a crisis of food supply. This coming after the outbreak of the war which had left France without the ability to support itself agriculturally since France had a shortage of fertilizers and machinery in 1917. [19]

[edit]Post-World

War II: Globalization resurgent

Globalization, since World War II, is partly the result of planning by politicians to break down borders hampering trade. Their work led to the Bretton Woods conference, an agreement by the world's leading politicians to lay down the framework for international commerce and finance, and the founding of several international institutions intended to oversee the processes of globalization. Globalization was also driven by the global expansion of multinational corporations based in the United States and Europe, and worldwide exchange of new developments in science, technology and products, with most significant inventions of this time having their origins in the Western world according to Encyclopdia Britannica.[20] Worldwide export of western culture went through the new mass media: film, radio and television and recorded music. Development and growth of international transport and telecommunication played a decisive role in modern globalization. These institutions include the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (the World Bank), and the International Monetary Fund. Globalization has been facilitated by advances in technology which have reduced the costs of trade, and trade negotiation rounds, originally under the auspices of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which led to a series of agreements to remove restrictions on free trade.

Since World War II, barriers to international trade have been considerably lowered through international agreements GATT. Particular initiatives carried out as a result of GATT and the World Trade Organization (WTO), for which GATT is the foundation, have included:

Promotion of free trade:

elimination of tariffs; creation of free trade zones with small or no tariffs Reduced transportation costs, especially resulting from development of containerization for ocean shipping. Reduction or elimination of capital controls Reduction, elimination, or harmonization of subsidies for local businesses Creation of subsidies for global corporations Harmonization of intellectual property laws across the majority of states, with more restrictions Supranational recognition of intellectual property restrictions (e.g. patents granted by China would be recognized in the United States)

Cultural globalization, driven by communication technology and the worldwide marketing of Western cultural industries, was understood at first as a process of homogenization, as the global domination of American culture at the expense of traditional diversity. However, a contrasting trend soon became evident in the emergence of movements protesting against globalization and giving new momentum to the defense of local uniqueness, individuality, and identity.[21] The Uruguay Round (1986 to 1994)[22] led to a treaty to create the WTO to mediate trade disputes and set up a uniform platform of trading. Other bilateral and multilateral trade agreements, including sections of Europe's Maastricht Treaty and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) have also been signed in pursuit of the goal of reducing tariffs and barriers to trade. World exports rose from 8.5% in 1970, to 16.2% of total gross world product in 2001. [23] In the 1990s, the growth of low cost communication networks allowed work done using a computer to be moved to low wage locations for many job types. This included accounting, software development, and engineering design. In late 2000s, much of the industrialized world entered into a deep recession.[24] Some analysts say the world is going through a period of deglobalization after years of increasing economic integration.[25][26] China has recently[when?] become the world's largest exportersurpassing Germany.[27]

History of Globalization
The historical origins of globalization are the subject of on-going debate. Though some scholars situate the origins of globalization in the modern era, others regard it as a phenomenon with a long history. Perhaps the most extreme proponent of a deep historical origin for globalization was Andre Gunder Frank, an economist associated with dependency theory. Frank argued that a form of globalization has been in existence since the rise of trade links between Sumer and the Indus Valley Civilization in the third millennium B.C.[1] Critics of this idea point out that it rests upon an overly-broad definition of globalization.

{googleads right} Others have perceived an early form of globalization in the trade links between the Roman Empire, the Parthian empire, and the Han Dynasty. The increasing articulation of commercial links between these powers inspired the development of the Silk Road, which started in western China, reached the boundaries of the Parthian empire, and continued onwards towards Rome. The Islamic Golden Age was also an important early stage of globalization, when Muslim traders and explorers established a sustained economy across the Old World resulting in a globalization of crops, trade, knowledge and technology. Globally significant crops such as sugar and cotton became widely cultivated across the Muslim world in this period, while the necessity of learning Arabic and completing the Hajj created a cosmopolitan culture. The advent of the Mongol Empire, though destabilizing to the commercial centers of the Middle East and China, greatly facilitated travel along the Silk Road. This permitted travelers and missionaries such as Marco Polo to journey successfully (and profitably) from one end of Eurasia to the other. The so-called Pax Mongolica of the twelfth century had several other notable globalizing effects. It witnessed the creation of the first international postal service, as well as the rapid transmission of epidemic diseases such as bubonic plague across the newly-unified regions of Central Asia.
[2]

These pre-modern phases of global or hemispheric exchange are sometimes known as archaic globalization.

{googleads left} Up to the time of the voyages of discovery, however, even the largest systems of international exchange were limited to the Old World. The sixteenth century represented a qualitative change in the patterns of globalization because it was the first period in which the New World began to engage in substantial cultural, material and biologic exchange with Africa and Eurasia. This phase is sometimes known as proto-globalization. It was characterized by the rise of maritime European empires, particularly the Portuguese Empire, the Spanish Empire, and later the British Empire and Dutch Empire. It can be said to have begun shortly before the turn of the 16th century, when the two Kingdoms of the Iberian Peninsula - the Kingdom of Portugal and the Kingdom of Castile, began to send exploratory voyages to the Americas and around the Horn of Africa. These new sea routes permitted sustained contact and trade between all of the world's inhabited regions for the first time. Global integration continued through the expansion of European trade in the 16th and 17th centuries, when the Portuguese and Spanish Empires colonized the Americas, followed eventually by France and England. Globalization has had a tremendous impact on cultures, particularly indigenous cultures, around the world. In the 15th century, Portugal's Company of Guinea was one of the first chartered commercial companies established by Europeans in other continent during the Age of Discovery, whose task was to deal with the spices and to fix the prices of the goods. In the 17th century, globalization became a business phenomenon when the British East India Company (founded in 1600), which is often described as the first multinational corporation, was established, as well as the Dutch East India Company (founded in 1602) and the Portuguese East India Company (founded in 1628). Because of the large investment and financing needs and the high risks involved with international trade, the British East India Company became the first company in the world to share risk and enable joint ownership of companies through the issuance of shares of stock: an important driver for globalization. The 19th century witnessed the advent of globalization in something approaching its modern form. Industrialization permitted the cheap production of household items using economies of scale, while rapid population growth created sustained demand for commodities and manufactures. Globalization in this period was decisively shaped by nineteenthcentury imperialism. After the Opium Wars and the completion of the British conquest of India, the vast populations of these regions became ready consumers of European exports. Meanwhile, the conquest of new parts of the globe, notably

sub-Saharan Africa, by the European powers yielded valuable natural resources such as rubber, diamonds and coal and helped fuel trade and investment between the European imperial powers, their colonies, and the United States. It was in this period that areas of sub-Saharan Africa and the Pacific islands were incorporated into the world system. The first phase of "modern globalization" began to break down at the beginning of the 20th century with the First World War, according to John Maynard Keynes[3], {googleads left} The inhabitant of London could order by telephone, sipping his morning tea, the various products of the whole earth, and reasonably expect their early delivery upon his doorstep. Militarism and imperialism of racial and cultural rivalries were little more than the amusements of his daily newspaper. What an extraordinary episode in the economic progress of man was that age which came to an end in August 1914. The novelist VM Yeates criticized the financial forces of globalisation as a factor in creating World War I.[4] The final death knell for this phase of globalization came during the gold standard crisis and Great Depression in the late 1920s and early 1930s. Globalization in the middle decades of the twentieth century was largely driven by the global expansion of multinational corporations based in the United States and the worldwide export of American culture through the new media of film, television and recorded music. In late 2000s, much of the industrialized world entered into a deep recession.[5] Some analysts say the world is going through a period of deglobalization after years of increasing economic integration.[6][7] Up to 45% of global wealth had been destroyed by the global financial crisis in little less than a year and a half.[8]

I have identified 4 stages of Globalization in the second edition of my book "Geography, Economics and Geography" as follows: Isolation, Resistance, Introspection and Acceptance. However, these 4 stages as stated above pertain to the process involved in the globalization of any aspect of our lives and not the temporal themes or the stages in the history of globalisation of these aspects. Although since immemorial times, the globalization of all aspects of our lives has been going on with all vigour yet one can easily infer dominant themes/aspects .The aforesaid aspects of our lives include mainly Social, Political, Cultural and Economic aspects. The Description: Our history has witnessed following dominant themes or the stages of globalisation: 1.The Social Globalisation: With the arrival of homosepians on this earth, the Social Globalization appears to have been the First dominant theme with the spread of our ancestors all over the globe. 2.The Political Globalisation: The next dominant theme in our history seems to be the Political Globalisation with our ancestors having settled down in small rural and urban set-ups. The emergence of the community life prompted the establishments of small and big political entities which sought

expansion across different parts of the globe. For example, Alexander the Great unwittingly attempted political globalisation by marching into the Indian subcontinent 3.The Cultural Globalization: The Political Globalization was closely followed the primacy of the Cultural Globalisation in terms of diffusion over the whole world of new technologies/inventions and spread of cultural aspects like religions and languages,etc. For example, Islam/Christianity and the English language. 4.The Economic Globalization: Since the industrial revolution of 1757, the Economic Globalization became the most dominant theme.Empires were established and wars fought mainly for economic gains rather than any political glorification despite seemingly political overtones/ideologies. 5.The Integrated Globalization: The 21st century is likely to witness the emergence of Integrated Globalization whereby no single theme is likely to emerge on the top. In fact, the Globalisation of all aspects of our lives is likely to continue in an integrated manner with near equal importance to each. The following flow chart shows aptly the stages in the history of the Globalization: The Social Globalization ----- The Political globalization ---The Cultural globalization ------ The Economic globalization ------- The Integrated globalization

Through My Eyes
Sunday, December 12, 2010

Globalization in "Slumdog Millionaire"

Being a part of Western culture often blurs our vision of other cultures around the world. For the most part, so many of us either forget or have never even thought about the fact that popular culture and ideals from our side of the world influence and impact other countries through globalization. One specific country that is impacted by Western globalization is India. A prime example of this influence can be illustrated through the use of the show "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?" in Danny Boyle's 2008 film Slumdog Millionaire. This film encapsulates how Western ideals affect what it means to be Indian" due to globalization, how Western culture affects our view of Indian culture, and how even the themes of the film portray Western ideals in India.

According to Indian author Shahi Tharoor, "the singular thing about India is that you can only speak of it in the plural. India is fundamentally a pluralist state; its pluralism . . . is reflected in its history" (6). A major part of India's history involves Western globalization, where popular culture is prevalent in Indian society and impacts the identities of its people. For example, Western-based popular culture, such as Disney products, McDonald's fast food restaurants, and even sexualized jean advertisements are prevalent in India today. In Slumdog Millionaire, there is a scene where the main characters, Salim and Jamal, are starving and are each offered a Coca-Cola bottle (Slumdog). The offering of an

American-made product is an encoded message that is supposed to ensure the young Indian boys that they are in safe hands because of the symbolism portraying the supposed power and safety that our country possesses.

Unfortunately, the push to send American-made products to India (as well as other countries) can lead to contestation within the Indian culture and the media has affected much of what it means to be Indian. Shashi Tharoor describes his experience when he left an eighteen-month gap between visits to India and witnessed firsthand an extreme increase of the globalization of Indian life. He claims billboards advertising endless Western brand names were suddenly all over the place and that even new pop music in New York and London could be heard more profusely than the music of Bollywood (302). In addition to advertisements on the streets, Indian people have begun to be exposed to advertisements on television, since over 40 million households in India now own a television (Tharoor 282). Besides media images, values and beliefs about identity are starting to be integrated into Indian culture through globalization.

One Western ideal that has been integrated into India's culture is the idea of showing off one's wealth. The film itself is very much driven by the need for money and placing importance on physical goods as a means of power, which is very much a Western ideal. There was a time in India where showing off one's wealth was seen as being arrogant and classless (Sorrells). However, according to Balmurli Natrajan, "the insistence on caste as having a material basis shaped by capitalism can be extended to include the work of symbols in its concrete existence, since dominance and authority are legitimatized through symbols" (229). In other words, Western globalization has altered the way of thinking when it comes to class in India.

Even some of the music in the film was influenced by Western ideals. For example, Indian artist M.I.A.'s single "Paper Planes" is sung in English, yet speaks about a "third world democracy" with a chorus backed up by Indian-influenced singers (Paper). Featured in the movie, there is also a rap song mixed with Hindi lyrics as well as a track that has classical and Indian music mixed together (Slumdog).

Besides audio, there are various visuals throughout Slumdog Millionaire which illustrate the prevalence of Western culture in India. The Taj Mahal scene is littered with culture clashes as far as what types of clothing are usually associated with Indian and American cultures. For example, when the two brothers discover that they can make money stealing shoes from visitors in the Taj Mahal, Jamal chooses to wear Converse and Salim chooses cowboy boots. When the boys begin stealing clothes from tourists, they are often adorned in what is perceived to be a Western style of dress, illustrated by their choice of beanies, jeans, and other American-style clothing (Slumdog).

American influence comes up again when Jamal takes pictures for tourists in front of the Taj Mahal. After the picture is taken, Jamal compares the tourists' Polaroid to a brochure depicting an American Caucasian woman posing in the exact position that the tourists are trying to achieve. When the boys are discovered to be making money illegally this way, they are chased down by an officer who proceeds to beat Jamal in front of a vacationing American couple. After getting the guard to leave Jamal alone, the American woman says to Jamal, "Well, here is a bit of the real America, son," as she motions for her husband to give Jamal money (Slumdog). This action reinforces the idea on the Indian culture that it pays to be rich and that having money is one of the greatest accomplishments one could have in life (again, a Western ideology).

Another effect that globalization plays in the film occurs when Jamal attains a job at a magazine company during his late teens. The substance of what is produced in the magazine mirrors those that we have in America. There is even discussion of a story which sounds eerily similar to the dramatic story of Jennifer Aniston and Angelina Jolie that has taken place in Hollywood. The magazine mimics the style which American magazines follow, except for the fact that the celebrities in their magazines are Indian. Within the same magazine publishing building, hundreds of workers between workloads concentrate on the television screen in the room, depicting the Indian version of "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?"

On a macro-level, globalization has its pros and cons when it comes to spreading information about one culture to the rest of the world. Slumdog Millionaire depicts Indian culture in only one light, and a predominantly stereotypical one at that. The film mainly focuses on the slums of India and shows images of poor, ruddy towns that are in dire need of help. Unfortunately, many people across the world take the media as it is to be true and this can misconstrue the understanding of other cultures as to what it is to be Indian. Even the title can group an entire people into being perceived in one way, since "slum dog" is a derogative term used towards Indians. The title, along with the images of the poorest areas of India, creates the idea that all Indians are "slum dogs" and, therefore, globalization allows for the negative and false portrayal of a culture to be spread throughout the world. Besides putting a culture down, these stereotypes allow for another culture (Western culture in this case) to appear to be the "better" culture of the two since it is implied that we apparently posses the tools in order to obtain wealth and glory, unlike the people of India.

The driving force of the whole movie that exemplifies the idea of globalization and its impact on a particular culture is the theme of the film itself. First of all, the theme "From rags to riches" is a Western theme and becomes even more Western as it is paired with a love story where the "good guy" prevails, the "bad guy" loses, and everyone lives happily ever after. In order to sustain and uphold the storyline, the characters in the movie are able to use certain technology that was made available to them due to globalization, such as the television and cellular telephones. Lakita, or the "damsel in distress," which is again a prevalent theme in American films, is able to find Jamal since she not only is able to see him on the game show in various shop windows and at home, but also because she takes possession of Salim's cell phone which she uses to communicate with and ultimately locate Jamal.

Within the show itself, much of Indian culture is lost, not only because it is an American-based show, but because the host himself has American traits. Although the host is Indian, his hair, clothing, and accent are much more similar to what is generally perceived as what it is to be American" than what it means to be Indian. The host, as well as the other characters, speaks English throughout most of the film. For American viewers, this is great because we are able to understand the language without using subtitles. However, there is a loss of authenticity as it diminishes Indian culture in the film through homogenization of culture.

Although Slumdog Millionaire is a great movie, there are many places where the Americanization of Indian culture takes away from what it is really like to be Indian and what we are fed as consumers in another country. According to author Balmurli Natrajan, "capitalist relations require caste relations to reproduce itself in a postcolonial setting" (230). Basically, we are imposing our power on India through globalization. As an educated person, I feel privileged because I am able to see past the stereotypes created in Hollywood films such as this one, but it is quite unsettling to know that the same is not true for all Americans and other cultures who view this film. I can remember not too long ago when I was in high school that depictions like these of other cultures around the world were believable. Unfortunately, many people take these stereotypes to be credible and end up judging an entire culture without knowing the truth. Based on viewing Slumdog Millionaire, globalization has not proven to be a positive factor when it comes to sharing the richness of India's culture with the world but is, rather, a depiction of what it means to be Indian through an American lens.

Works Cited "Paper Planes Lyrics." M.I.A. AZLyrics.com. Web. 10 Dec. 2010. . Natrajan, Balmurli. "Caste, Class, and Community in India: An Ethnographic Approach." Ethnology 44.3 (Summer, 2005). University of Pittsburgh. JSTOR. Web. 20 Nov. 2010. . Tharoor, Shashi. India: From Midnight to the Millennium. New York: Arcade Publishing, 1997. Print. Slumdog Millionaire. Dir. Danny Boyle. Prod. Christian Colson. By Simon Beaufoy. Perf. Dev Patel, Freida Pinto, Madhur Mittal, Anil Kapoor, and Irrfan Khan. Fox Searchlight Pictures, 2008. DVD. Sorrells, Kathryn. "Communications 356 Class Lecture. Cal State University Northridge, Northridge, California. Oct. 2010. Lecture.

Globalization Globalization (or globalisation) refers to the worldwide phenomenon of technological, economic, political and cultural exchanges, brought about by modern communication, transportation and legal infrastructure as well as the political choice to consciously open cross-border links in international trade and finance. It is a term used to describe how human beings are becoming more intertwined with each other around the world economically, politically, and culturally. Although these links are not new, they are more pervasive than ever before.

Meaning & Debate History Nature and existence of globalization Characteristics Anti-globalization Pro-globalization (globalism) Other uses Measurement of Globalization Notes See also Meaning & Debate The International Monetary Fund (IMF) defines globalization as the growing economic interdependence of countries worldwide through increasing volume and variety of cross-border transactions in goods and services, freer international capital flows, and more rapid and widespread diffusion of technology. Meanwhile, The International Forum on Globalization defines it as the present worldwide drive toward a globalized economic system dominated by supranational corporate trade and banking institutions that are not accountable to democratic processes or national governments.. While notable critical theorists, such as Immanuel Wallerstein, emphasize that globalization cannot be understood separately from the historical development of the capitalist world-system the different definitions highlight the ensuing debate of the roles and relationships of

government, corporations, and the individual in maximizing social welfare within the globalization paradigms. Nonetheless, it is clear that globalization has economic, political, cultural, and technological aspects that may be closely intertwined. Given that these aspects are key to an individual's quality of life, the social benefits and costs brought upon them by globalization generates strong debate. The economic aspects stressed in globalization are trade, investment and migration. The globalization of trade entails that human beings have greater access to a plethora of goods and services never seen before in human history. From German cars, to Colombian coffee, from Chinese clothing, to Egyptian cotton, from American music to Indian software, human beings may be able to purchase a wide range of goods and services. The globalization of investment takes place through Foreign Direct Investment, where multinational companies directly invest assets in a foreign country, or by indirect investment where individuals and institutions purchase and sell financial assets of other countries. Free migration allows individuals to find employment in jurisdictions where there are labor shortages. Critics of free trade also contend that it may lead to the destruction of a country's native industry, environment and/or a loss of jobs. Critics of international investment contend that by accepting these financial schemes a country loses its economic sovereignty and may be forced to set policies that are contrary to its citizen's interests or desires. Moreover, multinational companies that invest in a country may also acquire too much political and economic power in relation to its citizens. Finally, migration may lead to the exploitation of workers from a migrant country and the displacement of workers from a host country. Critics of globalization also contend that different economic systems that either augment or supplant globalization may maximize social welfare more efficiently and equitably. The political aspects of globalization are evidenced when governments create international rules and institutions to deal with issues such as trade, human rights, and the environment. Among the new institutions and rules that have come to fruition as a result of globalization are the World Trade Organization, the Euro currency, the North American Free Trade Agreement, to name a few. Whether a government is to consciously open itself to cross-border links, is the central question of this aspect. Social activist and non-profit organizations are also becoming more global in scope. These include Amnesty International and Friends of the Earth to mention a couple. Some of these organizations

take issue with the economic and political aspects of globalization as they fear that economic interests either subvert the nation state in its ability to protect its citizens from economic exploitation, or support governments that violate the human rights of its citizens. Cultural global ties also grow through globalization as news ideas and fashions through trade, travel and media move around the globe at lightning speed. Global brands such as Coca-Cola, Puma & Sony serve as common reference to consumers all over the World. An individual in China enjoys the same soft-drink as an individual in Puerto Rico--at opposite ends of the globe. However, these ties may also cause strains: for example Western Ideas of freedom expression may clash with Islamic views on Religious tolerance. And if not strains, critics contend this is really an imposition of cultural imperialism in order to preserve economic interests. The other aspect of globalization is the revolutionary changes in technology, particularly in transport and communications, which ostensibly creates a global village. In 1850 it took a nearly a year to sail around the World. Now you can fly around the world in a day, send an email anywhere almost instantly, or be part of the 1.5 billion viewers watching the final match of the World Cup. Transportation costs have come down as result of technological advances that make foreign markets more accessible to trade. Tuna caught in the North Atlantic may be served the next day at a Sushi restaurant in Japan. Finally, billions of dollars in assets and currencies are exchanged daily around the globe by electroninc means at virtually no cost.

History Since the word has both technical and political meanings, different groups will have differing histories of "globalization". In general use within the field of economics and political economy, however, it is a history of increasing trade between nations based on stable institutions that allow firms in different nations to exchange goods and services with minimal friction. The term "liberalization" came to mean the acceptance of the Neoclassical economic model which is based on the unimpeded flow of goods and services between economic jurisdictions. This led to specialization of nations in exports, and the pressure to end protective tariffs and other barriers to trade. The period of the gold standard and liberalization of the 19th century is often called "The First Era of Globalization". Based on the Pax Britannica and the exchange of goods in currencies pegged to specie, this era grew along with industrialization. The theoretical basis was David Ricardo's work on Comparative advantage and Say's Law of General equilibrium. In essence, it was argued that nations would trade effectively, and that any temporary disruptions in supply or demand would

correct themselves automatically. The institution of the gold standard came in steps in major industrialized nations between approximately 1850 and 1880, though exactly when various nations were truly on the gold standard is contentiously debated. The "First Era of Globalization" is said to have broken down in stages beginning with the first World War, and then collapsing with the crisis of the gold standard in the late 1920's and early 1930's. Countries that engaged in that era of globalization, including the European core, some of the European periphery and various European offshoots in the Americas and Oceania, prospered. Inequality between those states fell, as goods, capital and labour flowed remarkably freely between nations. Globalization in the era since World War II has been driven by trade negotiation rounds, originally under the auspices of GATT, which led to a series of agreements to remove restrictions on "free trade". The Uruguay round led to a treaty to create the World Trade Organization or WTO, to mediate trade disputes. Other bilateral trade agreements, including sections of Europe's Maastricht Treaty and the North American Free Trade Agreement have also been signed in pursuit of the goal of reducing tariffs and barriers to trade.

Nature and existence of globalization There is much academic discussion about whether globalization is a real phenomenon or only an analytical artifact (a myth). Although the term is widespread, many authors argue that the characteristics attributed to globalization have already been seen at other moments in history. Also, many note that such features, including the increase in international trade and the greater role of multinational corporations, are not as deeply established as they may appear. Some authors prefer the term internationalization rather than globalization. In internationalization, the role of the state and the importance of nations are greater, while globalization in its complete form eliminates nation states. So, they argue that the frontiers of countries, in a broad sense, are far from being dissolved, and therefore this globalization process is not happening, and probably will not happen (see Linda Weiss), considering that in world history, internationalization never turned into globalization (the European Union and NAFTA are yet to prove their case). However, the world increasingly shares problems and challenges that do not obey nation-state borders, most notably pollution of the natural environment, and the movement previously known as anti-globalization has transformed into a movement of movements for globalization from below,

seeking, through experimentation, forms of social organisation that transcend the nation-state and representative democracy. Whereas the original arguments that globalization is taking place can be refuted with stories of internationalisation, as above, the emergence of a global movement is indisputable and therefore we can speak of a real process towards a global human society of societies. Other authors have argued that we are in transition to a planetary phase of civilization; the exact form and character of the global society is contested and will be determined by the choices we make in the critical decades ahead. For example, the Global Scenario Group has outlined alternative visions of the global future, with "market forces" or economic globalization being just one option, contrasted with "policy reform," "fortress world," "breakdown," "eco-communalism" and a "new sustainability paradigm." Some maintain that globalization is an imagined geography; that is, a political tool of ruling neoliberlists, who are attempting to use certain images and discourses of world politics to justify their political agendas. Writers of books such as No Logo claim that by presenting a picture of a globalized world, the Bretton Woods institutions can demand that companies open up their economies to liberilzation] under Structural Adjustment Programmes that encourage governments to fund privatization programmes, ahead of welfare and public services.

Characteristics Globalization/internationalisation has become identified with a number of trends, most of which may have developed since World War II. These include greater international movement of commodities, money, information, and people; and the development of technology, organizations, legal systems, and infrastructures to allow this movement. The actual existence of some of these trends is debated. Economically - Increase in international trade at a faster rate than the growth in the world economy - Increase in international flow of capital including foreign direct investment - Creation of international agreements leading to organizations like the WTO and OPEC - Development of global financial systems

- Increased role of international organizations such as WTO, WIPO, IMF that deal with international transactions - Increase of economic practices like outsourcing, by multinational corporations

Culturally

Greater international cultural exchange, Spreading of multiculturalism, and better individual access to cultural diversity, for example through the export of Hollywood and Bollywood movies. However, the imported culture can easily supplant the local culture, causing reduction in diversity through hybridization or even assimilation. The most prominent form of this is Westernization, but Sinicization of cultures also takes place. Greater international travel and tourism Greater immigration, including illegal immigration Spread of local foods such as pizza and Indian food to other countries (often adapted to local taste)

Development of a global telecommunications infrastructure and greater transborder data flow, using such technologies as the Internet, communication satellites and telephones Increase in the number of standards applied globally; e.g. copyright laws and patents Formation or development of a set of universal values

The push by many advocates for an international criminal court and international justice movements (see the International Criminal Court and International Court of Justice respectively). It is often argued that even terrorism has undergone globalization, with attacks in foreign countries that have no direct relation with the own country.

Barriers to international trade have been considerably lowered since World War II through international agreements such as the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). Particular initiatives carried out as a result of GATT and the WTO, for which GATT is the foundation, have included: Promotion of free trade of goods: Reduction or elimination of tariffs; construction of free trade zones with small or no tariffs

Reduced transportation costs, especially from development of containerization for ocean shipping.

Of capital: Reduction or elimination of capital controls Reduction, elimination, or harmonization of subsidies for local businesses

Intellectual Property Restrictions Harmonization of intellectual property laws across nations (generally speaking, with more restrictions)

Supranational recognition of intellectual property restrictions (e.g. patents granted by China would be recognized in the US)

Anti-globalization Critics of the economic aspects of globalization contend that it is not as its proponents tend to imply, an inexorable process that flows naturally from the economic needs of everyone. The critics typically emphasize that globalization is a process that is mediated according to elite imperatives, and typically raise the possibility of alternative global institutions and policies which they believe

address the moral claims of poor and working classes throughout the globe, as well as environmental concerns in a more equitable way.In terms of the controversial global migration issue, disputes revolve around both its causes, whether and to what extent it is voluntary or involuntary, necessary or unnecessary; and its effects, whether beneficial, or socially and environmentally costly. Proponents tend to see migration simply as a process whereby white and blue collar workers may go from one country to another to provide their services, while critics tend to emphasize negative causes such as economic, political and environmental insecurity, and cite as one notable effect, the link between migration and the enormous growth of urban slums in developing countries. According to "The Challenge of Slums," a 2003 UN-Habitat report, "the cyclical nature of capitalism, increased demand for skilled versus unskilled labour, and the negative effects of globalisation in particular, global economic booms and busts that ratchet up inequality and distribute new wealth unevenly contribute to the enormous growth of slums."

Various aspects of globalization are seen as harmful by public-interest activists as well as strong state nationalists. This movement has no unified name. "Anti-globalization" is the media's preferred term; it can lead to some confusion, as activists typically oppose certain aspects or forms of globalization, not globalization per se. Activists themselves, for example Noam Chomsky, have said that this name is meaningless as the aim of the movement is to globalize justice. Indeed, the global justice movement is a common name. Many activists also unite under the slogan "another world is possible", which has given rise to names such as altermondialisme in French. There is a wide variety of kinds of "anti-globalization". In general, critics claim that the results of globalization have not been what was predicted when the attempt to increase free trade began, and that many institutions involved in the system of globalization have not taken the interests of poorer nations, the working class and the environment into account. Economic arguments by fair trade theorists claim that unrestricted free trade benefits those with more financial leverage (i.e. the rich) at the expense of the poor. Many "anti-globalization" activists see globalization as the promotion of a corporatist agenda, which is intent on constricting the freedoms of individuals in the name of profit. They also claim that

increasing autonomy and strength of corporate entities increasingly shape the political policy of nation-states. Some "anti-globalization" groups argue that globalization is necessarily imperialistic, is one of the driving reasons behind the Iraq war and is forcing savings to flow into the United States rather than developing nations; it can therefore be said that "globalization" is another term for a form of Americanization, as it is believed by some observers that the United States could be one of the few countries (if not the only one) to truly profit from globalization. Some argue that globalization imposes credit-based economics, resulting in unsustainable growth of debt and debt crises. The financial crises in Southeast Asia, that began in the relatively small debt-ridden economy of Thailand but quickly spread to Malaysia, Indonesia, South Korea and eventually was felt all around the world, demonstrated the new risks and volatility in rapidly changing globalized markets. The IMF's subsequent 'bailout' money came with conditions of political change (i.e. government spending limits) attached and came to be viewed by critics as undermining national sovereignty in neo-colonialist fashion. Anti-Globalization activists pointed to the meltdowns and the resulting poverty as proof of the high human cost of the indiscriminate global economy. Increase in law and order with a decrease in state intervention at home in order to protect the wealth and businesses. The main opposition is to unfettered globalization (neoliberal; laissez-faire capitalism), guided by governments and what are claimed to be quasi-governments (such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank) that are supposedly not held responsible to the populations that they govern and instead respond mostly to the interests of corporations. Many conferences between trade and finance ministers of the core globalizing nations have been met with large, and occasionally violent, protests from opponents of "corporate globalism". Some "anti-globalization" activists object to the fact that the current "globalization" globalizes money and corporations, but not people and unions. This can be seen in the strict immigration controls in nearly all countries, and the lack of labour rights in many countries in the developing world. Another more conservative camp opposed to globalization are state-centric nationalists who fear

globalization is displacing the role of nations in global politics and point to NGOs as impeding upon the power of individual nations. Some advocates of this warrant for anti-globalization are Pat Buchanan and Jean-Marie Le Pen. The movement is very broad, including church groups, national liberation factions, left-wing parties, environmentalists, peasant unionists, anti-racism groups, anarchists, and others. Most are reformist, (arguing for a more humane form of capitalism) while others are more revolutionary (arguing for a more humane system than capitalism). Many have decried the lack of unity and direction in the movement, but some such as Noam Chomsky have claimed that this lack of centralization may in fact be a strength. Protests by the global justice movement have forced high-level international meetings away from the major cities where they used to be held, into remote locations where protest is impractical.

Pro-globalization (globalism) Supporters of democratic globalization can be labelled pro-globalists. They consider that the first phase of globalization, which was market-oriented, should be completed by a phase of building global political institutions representing the will of world citizens. The difference with other globalists is that they do not define in advance any ideology to orient this will, which should be left to the free choice of those citizens via a democratic process. Supporters of free trade point out that economic theories of comparative advantage suggest that free trade leads to a more efficient allocation of resources, with all countries involved in the trade benefiting. In general, this leads to lower prices, more employment and higher output. Libertarians and other proponents of laissez-faire capitalism say higher degrees of political and economic freedom in the form of democracy and capitalism in the developed world produce higher levels of material wealth. They see globalization as the beneficial spread of liberty and capitalism. Critics argue that the anti-globalization movement uses anecdotal evidence to support their view and that worldwide statistics instead strongly support globalization:

 The percentage of people in developing countries living below US$1 (adjusted for inflation and purchasing power) per day has halved in only twenty years, although some critics argue that more detailed variables measuring poverty should instead be studied.

Life expectancy has almost doubled in the developing world since WWII and is starting to close the gap to the developed world where the improvement has been smaller. Child mortality has decreased in every developing region of the world. Income inequality for the world as a whole is diminishing.

Democracy has increased dramatically from almost no nation with universal suffrage in 1900 to 62.5% of all nations in 2000.

The proportion of the world's population living in countries where per-capita food supplies are less than 2,200 calories (9,200 kilojoules) per day decreased from 56% in the mid-1960s to below 10% by the 1990s.

Between 1950 and 1999, global literacy increased from 52% to 81% of the world. Women made up much of the gap: Female literacy as a percentage of male literacy has increased from 59% in 1970 to 80% in 2000.

The percentage of children not in the labor force has also risen to over 90% in 2000 from 76% in 1960.

There are similar trends for electric power, cars, radios, and telephones per capita, as well as the proportion of the population with access to clean water.

However, some of these improvements may not be due to globalization, or may be possible without the current form of globalization or its imagined negative consequences, to which the global justice movement objects.

Many pro-capitalists are also critical of the World Bank and the IMF, arguing that they are corrupt bureaucracies controlled and financed by states, not corporations. Many loans have been given to dictators who never carried out promised reforms, instead leaving the common people to pay the debts later. They thus see too little capitalism, not too much. They also note that some of the resistance to globalization comes from special interest groups with conflicting interests, like Western world unions. Others, such as Senator Douglas Roche, O.C., simply view globalization as inevitable and advocate creating institutions such as a directly-elected United Nations Parliamentary Assembly to exercise oversight over unelected international bodies.

Other uses "Globalization" can mean: Globalism, if the concept is reduced to its economic aspects, can be said to contrast with economic nationalism and protectionism. It is related to laissez-faire capitalism and neoliberalism.

It shares a number of characteristics with internationalization and is often used interchangeably, although some prefer to use globalization to emphasize the erosion of the nation-state or national boundaries.

Making connections between places on a global scale. Today, more and more places around the world are connected to each other in ways that were previously unimaginable. In geography, this process is known as complex connectivity, where more and more places are being connected in more and more ways.

Arjun Appadurai identified five types of global connectivity: Ethnoscapes: movements of people, including tourists, immigrants, refugees, and business travellers.

 Financescapes: global flows of money, often driven by interconnected currency markets, stock exchanges, and commodity markets. Ideoscapes: the global spread of ideas and political ideologies. For example, Green Peace has become a worldwide environmental movement. Mediascapes: the global distribution of media images that appear on our computer screens, in newspapers, television, and radio. Technoscapes: the movement of technologies around the globe. For example, the Green Revolution in rice cultivation introduced western farming practices into many developing countries. Although Appadurai's taxonomy is highly contestable, it does serve to show that globalization is much more than economics on a global scale. In its cultural form, globalization has been a label used to identify attempts to erode the national cultures of Europe, and subsume them into a global culture whose members will be much easier to manipulate through mass media and controlled governments. In this context, massive legal or illegal immigration has been allowed, mainly in European countries.

The formation of a global village closer contact between different parts of the world, with increasing possibilities of personal exchange, mutual understanding and friendship between "world citizens", and creation of a global civilization.

Economic globalization there are four aspects to economic globalization, referring to four different flows across boundaries, namely flows of goods/services, i.e. 'free trade' (or at least freer trade), flows of people (migration), of capital, and of technology. A consequence of economic globalization is increasing relations among members of an industry in different parts of the world (globalization of an industry), with a corresponding erosion of national sovereignty in the economic sphere. The IMF defines globalization as the growing economic interdependence of countries worldwide through increasing volume and variety of cross-border transactions in goods and services, freer international capital flows, and more rapid and widespread diffusion of technology (IMF, World Economic Outlook, May, 1997). The World Bank defines globalization as the "Freedom

and ability of individuals and firms to initiate voluntary economic transactions with residents of other countries".

In the field of management, globalization is a marketing or strategy term that refers to the emergence of international markets for consumer goods characterized by similar customer needs and tastes enabling, for example, selling the same cars or soaps or foods with similar ad campaigns to people in different cultures. This usage is contrasted with internationalization which describes the activities of multinational companies dealing across borders in either financial instruments, commodities, or products that are extensively tailored to local markets. Globalization also means cross-border management activities or development processes to adapt to the emergence of a globalized market or to seek and realize benefit from economies of scale or scope or from crossborder learning among different country-based organizations. In the field of software, globalization is a technical term that combines the development processes of internationalization and localization. Many, such as participants in the World Social Forum, use the term "corporate globalization" or "global corporatization" to highlight the impact of multinational corporations and the use of legal and financial means to circumvent local laws and standards, in order to leverage the labour and services of unequally-developed regions against each other. The spread of capitalism from developed to developing nations. "The concept of globalisation refers both to the compression of the world and the intensification of consciousness of the world as a whole" - Benedikt Kiesenhofer

Measurement of Globalization To what extent a nation-state or culture is globalized in a particular year has until most recently been measured employing simple proxies like flows of trade, migration, or foreign direct investment. A more sophisticated approach to measuring globalization is the recent index calculated by the

Swiss think tank KOF. The index measures the three main dimensions of globalization: economic, social, and political. In addition to three indices measuring these dimensions, an overall index of globalization and sub-indices referring to actual economic flows, economic restrictions, data on personal contact, data on information flows, and data on cultural proximity is calculated. Data are available on a yearly basis for 122 countries. According to the index, the world's most globalized country is the USA, followed by Canada, the United Kingdom, and France. The least globalized countries according to the KOF-index are Burundi, Belize, and Sierra Leone.

IMPACT OF GLOBALIZATION ON DEVELOPED COUNTRIES

The USA became a prosperous nation 100 years ago because we were the king of globalization. What is happening today? Jobs leaving the USA, entire factories are shutting down and moving to foreign countries. 100 years ago, entire factories were moving to the USA. That's what caused that huge wave of immigration, because the factory owners often brought all their workers with them, paying their way in steerage on a steamer ship. Why? Tariffs. Tariffs on imports were the main source of revenues for the federal government. Income tax was unconstitutional until 1913, when Congress passed the Sixteenth Amendment. So tariffs were paying for most of the federal budget before then. Tariffs raised the prices of imported goods, and it was harder for foreign factories to compete. So they moved their factories here, to avoid paying the tariff. Tariffs were the successful way of managing globalization, and it turned the global economy in our favor. We became an indudstrial superpower exporter in 1880, and we became a creditor nation in 1914, because of 100 years of tariffs. We ended tariffs in 1913 and replaced them with income tax, because exporters should not have tariffs. Once you reach that level of prosperity, you become vulnerable to retaliation from your customer nations. That's why the Smoot-Hawley tariff backfired in 1930. We were still an exporter, and other nations retaliated. But that all ended when we lost our trade surplus in 1980, and we became a debtor nation again in 1988. It was time to go back to tariffs during the 1980's. But the wealthy Wall Street Journal types were salivating over the idea of opening sweatshops in emerging Asian nations, so they raised the bogeyman of Smoot-Hawley to scare us away from tariffs. The result has been an economy spiraling out of control. Our trade deficit is now equal to our total exports, which is more than ever in our entire history. We send out a trillion dollars a year on our trade deficit, which adds a trillion dollars of debt to our current account balance every year. The national personal savings rate was 4% in 1930, and it peaked at 10% in 1980. Today it is negative. Our economy is now in crisis, unemployment is hovering around 10%, and our government is racking up staggering debts, from wars and stimulus giveaways that will never be paid back by the recipients. That means higher taxes in the future, which will only push us down deeper into the pit. Free trade is making us a beggar nation. Tariffs made us a prosperous nation. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what we're doing wrong. Source(s): World Almanac 2009

http://www.slideshare.net/prashtz/globalization-in-usa-presentation

Globalizations effect on American workplace

SEK70 2011/12/09 LEAVE A COMMENT

The term Globalization refers to the phenomenon of the integration of various countries economies which is caused by an increased free movement of goods, services, capital, labor etc. overseas without the restrictions. About twenty years ago, Theodore Levitt, a former professor in Havard business school, anticipated that the global corporations would take an active part in the future. Now, we live in the global world, and globalization has indeed brought significant changes to various areas of the economy. As the economy changes its forms, so does the workplace in the United States. Globalization seems to be actively applied to the large enterprises rather than small businesses. The reason is that the powerful companies take over the foreign company or amalgamate with the international enterprise to raise their strength and to become more globally competitive in the 21th century. Then, the employees in American workplace are expected to be competent to succeed in a changing work environment. By globalization, the qualifications of the workers are changed in some aspects. The workers in the global society will be able to be responsible for developing new skills and knowledge depending on the different workplaces. The abilities of fast decision making and of communicating in different languages are valuable attributes that are required in the American workplace in which is affected by globalization. This can be applied to the small businesses in the same way. They attempt to adopt the new policies as globalization becomes more prevalent. Not to fall behind these fast changes and other growing competing companies, the company introduces the new guidelines and requires the workers to be trained and be able to keep up with the updates all the time. In workplace, the employees now are responsible not only for the task focused performance but also for developing of such international strategies to be suitable for globally outgrowing company. Globalization reduces the distances among the nations practically and physically with the advancement of transportation and information network. These benefit the corporations by making them capable of importing the cheaper raw material from the foreign countries and of opening up a new market in a different country and increasing the earnings by expanding the new market. The world becomes narrow, and the concepts of national borders are collapsed. The American multinational companies are located all over the world such as in Europe, Asia, and South America by globalization. The corporation is not just bound to the specific region. As globalization greatly affects the economy and the companies, the corporations start to stand by their brand names rather than belonging to the nations. The domain of media also becomes broader due to the development of new technologies. As a result, the workplaces of the company can be easily connected by the technologies and media among themselves. This produces greater opportunities for the companies to access additional markets and offer services and effective customer communication in convenience. Also, as America takes an active part in global world, the lower operating costs in other countries benefits the workplace in the United States. The access to new raw materials and resources are open to American workplaces.

The outsourcing is a characteristic of economical globalization, and it affects the workforce in the United States as Brown states, Although higher productivity and new management and hiring practices have had some influence on the loss of jobs, a growing number of companies are moving their operations to other countries where the cost of wages is cheaper than in the United States (Bettina Lankard Brown). As more companies reach out overseas especially to the countries with lower standards of living, a outsourcing causes a problem. The companies in the developing countries can provide the services at greatly reduced amount of price comparing to the countries with higher standards of living. Thus in the country, a great labor force is available at reduced consumption of money. This fact gives a great profit for the companies but at the same time, it can also lead to decreased income potential for the employees. As globalization spreads wide within the many companies, they come to deal with cultural diversity in the workplace. This change can greatly affects the atmosphere of the workplace. According to the article, In a 2011 interview in Inc. magazine, personnel consultant Barbara Annis said that the key to developing a competitive edge through diversity is understanding that cultural groupthink is outmoded in the modern global economy. Looking at things from the variety of perspectives that multiculturalism brings to the workplace inspires innovation. It is the managers job to make employees feel comfortable about expressing those new ideas. Annis suggests that a good first step is establishing the company as a place where theres more than one way to do things (Russ Buchanan, Demand Media). Among the people who ethnically, culturally, or religiously differ from each other, the more innovative ideas can emerge. The energetic atmosphere in the workplace also increases the productivity of the employees, ultimately benefiting the whole company. However the diversity in the workplace can create a tension when it operates in the negative way. Even though the United States was already a nation in which embraces the diverse culture in the past, it has not been a long period that this cultural diversity spreads to the workplace. The workers in the workplace of global companies need to be aware of cultural and ethnical diversity and the significance of understanding others. Thus the global companies are in need of presenting the policies or trainings to the employees to prevent the discrimination of one from the others. In this way, the increased cultural and ethnical diversity in the workplace will lead the employees and the company not only to a greater appreciation of other cultures but also to new insights into the diversity from marketing perspectives.

Globalization and the United States: Positive and Negative Impacts on American Domestic Policies

Ads by Google

Globalization & Terrorism Globalization and the United States: Positive and Negative Impacts on American Domestic Policies Harvard University - Public Policy Globalization & Terrorism Globalization and the United States: Positive and Negative Impacts on American Domestic Policies The United States is seen by much of the world as the strongest supporter of globalization - in fact, as pushing it on everyone else. We often think of globalization as something that impacts "other countries" - though it has had a strong impact on the U.S. as well. Compare and contrast the positive and negative aspects of globalization on U.S. domestic politics. While globalization - an historical phenomenon which might be loosely defined as the increasing disintegration of national boundaries in favor a global economy, shared culture, and worldwide political integration - appears by all measures to be an inevitable and unstoppable progression, the likely impact and consequences of globalization remains the subject of debate. What is not questioned is the assertion that there will be both plusses and minuses, and costs and benefits, associated with globalization. The benefits to less developed cultures and nations are clear: by sharing in the global economy, these poorer nations stand to improve their economic conditions and - hopefully advance the political freedoms of their citizenry. Similarly, the benefits of lowered trade restrictions and lessened national barriers to cultural interaction and economic integration are equally clear for the world's wealthier nations; for the United States and Western Europe, newly opened markets around the world create new opportunities for economic growth.[1] Correspondingly, for every positive impact of globalization there are negative consequences, as well the direct and indirect impact of globalization on American domestic policies is not yet fully apparent. As a nation and a culture, we are effectively surrendering part of our national sovereignty, with the hope that the benefits of globalization will offset any costs. While globalization is not a historically new phenomenon, it has never progressed as rapidly or dramatically as present- with so little understanding of the possible outcomes. Our willingness to choose globalization

over national self-interest is almost unprecedented, and it behooves us to fully explore the impact on domestic policy before we have no choice but to accept the full consequences of globalization. To truly understand the impact of globalization on American domestic (and foreign) policies, the historical role of the nation-state must be analyzed; perhaps more importantly, it must be accepted that to some degree, globalization represents a negation of the benefits afforded by nation-state politics. The concept of the modern nation-state can be defined as a sovereign political entity that governs a geographical region that is inhabited by a population with a shared sense of collective identity.[2] In simpler terms, the concept combines the idea of nation (a unified populace linked by heritage, belief, religion, or shared values) with the political construct of a state (centralized sovereign political power).[3] In the 21st century, the nation-state has become the dominant system of political organization worldwide; the vast majority of the global population now lives in these nation-states, governed by a sovereign authority that regulates a constituency with a shared cultural and social identity. Increasingly, however, globalization is serving as a counter-balance to nationalism - which has both benefits and disadvantages. The nation-state and the forces of nationalism represent competing paradigms: on the one hand, nationalism creates cohesion of shared cultural identity, but on the other nationalism breeds conflict with other nations based on competition for resources. In a balance-ofpower model of global interaction, the rules governing that interaction amount to a basic balancing test. In choosing national courses of action, each nation-state must weigh its responsibility to the welfare of its own populace against long-term stability in the global community.[4] For much of the early history of nation-states, interactions were decided by opportunity and power: if a nation had the power to control a natural resource and the opportunity to do so, that course of action was often chosen. Today, international interaction is often constrained by the power of the international community acting together, as well as by the economic and political forces of globalization. Thus globalization is working to harness the destructive potential of runaway nationalism; however, globalization is also a barrier to the benefits of nationalism - such as space exploration, technological innovation, and other activities pursued as national attempts to achieve comparative excellence. Nevertheless, the benefits of globalization are lucid, both on a worldwide scale and as they impact American domestic policy. Around the world, the economic domino effect of globalization have strengthened the economies of poor nations, decreased poverty levels, increased attention to environmental concerns, and led to more frequent intervention in national-level human rights abuses.[5] Although these benefits have been frequently political, they have origins in the economics of globalization; in both the United States and in poorer countries "the economic benefits from the increased prosperity that globalization will bring through trade, aid, investments, and technical change" have had significant national and global impact.[6] Ironically, for those opposed to globalization, the economic benefits are actually felt more strongly in poorer nations, as the consequences to U.S. domestic policy have often been lost employment opportunities for Americans: Once Singer gets to the economics of globalization, he is on surer footing. He notes, for example, that you can't complain that nationalism is bad and then also complain that the World Trade Organization erodes national sovereignty. And he notes that the main effect of NAFTA, denounced by the anti-globalization left as a tool of corporate oligarchs, has been the creation of relatively high-paying jobs in Mexico. Half the point of NAFTA was to ship American jobs to Mexico, which is bad for American labor but great for Mexicans. "Any transfer of work from the United States to Mexico can be expected to raise the income of people who are, on average, much worse off than those U.S. workers who lose their jobs," Singer writes. "Those who favor reducing poverty globally, rather than just in their own country, should see this as a good thing."[7]

However, there have also been significant domestic benefits to globalization for wealthier nations like the United States. Lower trade barriers, increased economic interactions, significance increases in real-time communications abilities between international organizations, and more emphasis on international cooperation - all consequences of globalization - have served to strength the U.S. domestic economy.[8] Unfortunately, these economic benefits are offset by the fact that the U.S. is now operating under a massive trade deficit - a new and troubling impact of 21st century globalization. In past eras, wealthy nations benefits from globalization specifically because new markets were opened for goods and products; today, globalization has had a net effect of increasing deficits. Today, as before 1914, the U.S. economy is the world's biggest, but it is now much more important as a market for the rest of the world than it was then... Whether to finance domestic investment (in the late 1990s) or government borrowing (after 2000), the United States has come to rely increasingly on foreign lending. As the current account deficit has widened (it is now approaching 6 percent of GDP), U.S. net overseas liabilities have risen steeply to around 25 percent of GDP. Half of the publicly held federal debt is now in foreign hands; at the end of August 2004, the combined U.S. Treasury holdings of China, Hong Kong, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan were $1.1 trillion, up by 22 percent from the end of 2003. A large proportion of this increase is a result of immense purchases by eastern Asian monetary authorities, designed to prevent their currencies from appreciating relative to the dollar. This deficit is the biggest difference between globalization past and globalization present. A hundred years ago, the global hegemonthe United Kingdom-was a net exporter of capital, channeling a high proportion of its savings overseas to finance the construction of infrastructure such as railways and ports in the Americas, Asia, Australasia, and Africa. Today, its successor as an Anglophone empire plays the diametrically opposite role-as the world's debtor rather than the world's creditor, absorbing around three-quarters of the rest of the world's surplus savings.[9] In short, even where globalization has the highest potential to benefit U.S. domestic policy - in the achievable growth of our domestic economy - the realities of modern globalization arguably leave the disadvantages outweighing the benefits. As long the global economy continues to result in a net trade deficit for the United States, American domestic policy will suffer as a consequence. Setting the all-important sphere of economics aside, no discussion of globalization can be complete without significant mention of the other major result of decreasing national sovereignty - the rise of global terrorism, the war against terrorism, and similar conflicts arising from the clash between globalization and national culture or religious identity. The inescapable reality of globalization is that "the world is becoming a smaller place. The interactions between peoples of different civilizations are increasing; these increasing interactions intensify civilization consciousness and awareness of differences between civilizations and commonalities within civilizations."[10] The resulting political, cultural, and economic benefits have been enormous - but so too have the costs. Specifically, the costs to the U.S. domestic economy and our own national policies have been unprecedented. The costs of the global war on terror, both financial and human, have indeed been very high. Prior to the invasion of Iraq, in January of 2003, the war on terror had already cost the U.S. government $65 billion; of that $30 billion was spent in military operations in Afghanistan, the rest on homeland defense and security in the United States.[11] If the cost of the war in Iraq is included as part of a broader war on global terrorism, the overall expenditure increases significantly. Following original budgets of $60 billion for the Iraq invasion allocated in early spring of 2003, Congress approved another $87 billion in October of that year.[12] As of January 2005, the military operation in Iraq had cost U.S. taxpayers $152 billion. By September 2006, the cost of the Iraq War to the American economy will reach an estimated $315 billion. Of course, none of these figures take into account the human cost in lives lost - nor the possible creation of future conflicts and new generations of

terrorists.[13] These economic and human costs obviously have significant and often incalculable impacts on American domestic policy and the U.S. domestic economy. There have been other costs to the war on terror ranging from unforeseen effects on the economy to a price we have all paid for curtailed civil liberties. For example, American corporations doing business in foreign markets now face significantly raised costs due to security concerns: Companies that rely on global trade face increased risk, shipping delays and new costs from the menaces of terrorism and war with Iraq. The dual threats of terrorism and war may be able to achieve what the anti-globalization forces have not - a significant slowdown, even decline, in global trade and investment.... U.S. firms have adjusted to tighter security and new requirements at U.S. ports of entry since September 11. The start of war with Iraq added a new level of scrutiny to all cargo entering the country.[14] Perhaps the most fundamentally damaging costs of all have come at the expense of our Constitutional freedoms, as the government has expanded its powers to deal with terrorism - in ways that often have at least the potential to infringe on the rights of all of us. Some civil rights activists argue that the "zeal in pursuing results in the war on terror is creating a Darkness at Noon' legal system in the United States. Suspects who can be coerced into guilty pleas are given a public show trial. Recalcitrants are declared enemy combatants' and shipped off to Guantanamo or held offshore on ships beyond the reach of the legal system. Even U.S. citizens are dealt with in this way.[15] These civil liberties issues are particularly troubling because in fighting a war to defend freedom, we are risking limiting the very freedoms we fight to preserve. There are few more explicit negative impacts on domestic U.S. policy than changes to our constitutional liberties arising directly from the negative consequences of globalization. Sadly and somewhat ironically, it must also be acknowledged that, while the "war on terror" and the conflict in Iraq are arguably direct consequences of globalization, failure in Iraq may serve to significantly slow the progress of globalization - at least as it pertains to American domestic policy. If the war in Iraq is lost or abandoned, "the idealistic effort to use American power to promote democracy and human rights abroad that may suffer the greatest setback. Perceived failure in Iraq has restored the authority of foreign policy "realists" in the tradition of Henry Kissinger. Already there is a host of books and articles decrying America's nave Wilsonianism and attacking the notion of trying to democratize the world."[16] In short, the negative consequences of globalization and its impact on domestic U.S. policy may ultimately deprive us of the domestic benefits of the same global interaction and economic progression. Barring a sudden reversal in globalization, perhaps as a backlash to changes in U.S. domestic policy, we must acknowledge the inevitable process and prepare accordingly. Globalization - and all of the positive and negative consequences it carries - is likely the inevitable future. "And therein lies a tale of technology and geo-economics that is fundamentally reshaping our lives - much, much more quickly than many people realize. It all happened while we were sleeping, or rather while we were focused on 9/11, the dot-com bust and Enron - which even prompted some to wonder whether globalization was over. Actually, just the opposite was true, which is why it's time to wake up and prepare ourselves for this flat world, because others already are, and there is no time to waste."[17] This is the reality: globalization is almost certain to continue, as technology increasingly renders national borders and national sovereignty meaningless. There will be no escaping the impact of globalization on U.S. domestic policy. As the dominant economic force in Earth, the U.S. stands to benefit enormously from globalization; however, to achieve those benefits, it is critical that we understand the political, cultural, social, and economic ramifications. A balance must be pursued and achieved between our national interests and increasing internationalism; our domestic policy must both embrace globalization and maintain the cultural and economic conditions that have led to our superpower status. Out-

of-control globalization is as menacing a potential danger as unbridled nationalism, and our own domestic policy must be established to circumvent both dangers. In brief, globalization must be pursued as it furthers our national interest, rather than for the sake of globalization itself. Maintenance of constitutional authority, an expanding domestic economy, and more equality in trade relationships must be of paramount importance; if this is achieved, the net effect of globalization will be a positive one, both on U.S. domestic policy and on the global community. References Cited Brubaker, Rogers. Citizenship and Nationhood in France and Germany. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992. Bhagwati, Jagdish. In Defense of Globalization. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. "Cost of War - Notes and Sources." National Priorities Project. Available Online at: http://costofwar.com/numbers.html (11 July 2006). Dinan, Stephen. "Senate Gets Iraq-Terror Spending Bill; Package Is $87 Billion." The Washington Times 1 Oct. 2003: A01. Dunnigan, James. "The Costs of the War on Terror." StrategyWorld.com. Available Online at: http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/ 20030121.asp (9 July 2006). Easterbrook, Gregg. "Greatest Good for the Greatest Number: Philosopher Peter Singer Will Anger His Traditional Lefty Fans with a Clear-Eyed Account of the Benefits of Globalization." Washington Monthly Nov. 2002: 47-48. Ferguson, Neil. (April, 2005). "Sinking Globalization." Foreign Affairs. Available online at: http://www.globalpolicy.org/globaliz/ econ/2005/03sinking.htm (10 July 2006). Flora, Peter, Stein Kuhnle, and Derek Urwin, eds. State Formation, Nation-Building, and Mass Politics in Europe: The Theory of Stein Rokkan: Based on His Collected Works. Oxford: Oxford University, 1999. Friedman, Thomas. (April 3, 2005). "It's a Flat World After All." New York Times Magazine. Available online at: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/03/ magazine/03DOMINANCE.html?ex=1153281600&en=4f6eac995d8c4800&ei=5070 (11 July 2006). Fukayama, Francis. "After Neoconservatism." New York Times Magazine. Available online at: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/19/ magazine/neo.html?ex=1141362000&en=a6ab5b762c549c55&ei=5070&emc=eta1 (10 July 2006). Huntington, Samuel. (Summer, 1993). "The Clash of Civilizations" Foreign Affairs, Vol. 72, No. 3: 22-28. Available online at: www.alamut.com/subj/ economics/misc/clash.html (10 July 2006). Michener, Roger, ed. Nationality, Patriotism, and Nationalism in Liberal Democratic Societies. St. Paul, MN: PWPA, 1993. Roberts, Paul Craig. "Legal Costs of Terror War." The Washington Times 30 Mar. 2004: A19.

Sparshott, Jeffrey. "Terror to Take Toll on Trade." The Washington Times 21 Mar. 2003: C07. Wenar, Leif. "One World: The Ethics of Globalization." Ethics & International Affairs 17.2 (2003): 121-127. [1] Jagdish Bhagwati, In Defense of Globalization. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), p. 14. [2] Peter Flora, Stein Kuhnle, and Derek Urwin, eds. State Formation, Nation-Building, and Mass Politics in Europe: The Theory of Stein Rokkan: Based on His Collected Works. (Oxford: Oxford University, 1999), 12. [3] Roger Michener, ed. Nationality, Patriotism, and Nationalism in Liberal Democratic Societies. (St. Paul, MN: PWPA, 1993), 48. [4] Rogers Brubaker, Citizenship and Nationhood in France and Germany. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992.), 19. [5] Leif Wenar, "One World: The Ethics of Globalization." Ethics & International Affairs 17.2 (2003): 122. [6] Jagdish Bhagwati, In Defense of Globalization. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), p. 115. [7] Gregg Easterbrook, "Greatest Good for the Greatest Number: Philosopher Peter Singer Will Anger His Traditional Lefty Fans with a Clear-Eyed Account of the Benefits of Globalization." Washington Monthly Nov. 2002: 48. [8] Jagdish Bhagwati, In Defense of Globalization. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), p. 89. [9] Neil Ferguson, (April, 2005). "Sinking Globalization." Foreign Affairs. Available online at: http://www.globalpolicy.org/globaliz/ econ/2005/03sinking.htm (10 July 2006 [10] Samuel Huntington, (Summer, 1993). "The Clash of Civilizations" Foreign Affairs, Vol. 72, No. 3: 22-28. Available online at: www.alamut.com/subj/ economics/misc/clash.html (10 July 2006). [11] James Dunnigan, "The Costs of the War on Terror." StrategyWorld.com. Available Online at: http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/ 20030121.asp (9 July 2006). [12] Stephen Dinan, "Senate Gets Iraq-Terror Spending Bill; Package Is $87 Billion." The Washington Times 1 Oct. 2003: A01. [13] "Cost of War - Notes and Sources." National Priorities Project. Available Online at: http://costofwar.com/numbers.html (11 July 2006). [14] Jeffrey Sparshott, "Terror to Take Toll on Trade." The Washington Times 21 Mar. 2003: C07. [15] Paul Craig Roberts, "Legal Costs of Terror War." The Washington Times 30 Mar. 2004: A19. [16] Fukayama, Francis. "After Neoconservatism." New York Times Magazine.

Available online at: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/19/magazine/ neo.html?ex=1141362000&en=a6ab5b762c549c55&ei=5070&emc=eta1 (10 July 2006). [17] Friedman, Thomas. (April 3, 2005). "It's a Flat World After All." New York Times Magazine. Available online at: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/03/magazine/03DOMINANCE.html?ex=1153281600&en=4f6eac995d8c4800&ei=507 0 (11 July 2006).

The Effects of Globalization on American Society

By Samantha Allen, eHow Contributor

Print this article

New technologies are connecting the world like never before.

Through new means of technology and travel, the world is becoming an ever smaller place. Globalization is the word used to describe the increasing connectivity and dependency of countries around the world on one another. Often globalization is thought of in strictly economic terms, but globalization is also a cultural phenomenon. In the United States, globalization has affected both economics and culture. Whether these changes are positive or negative is highly debated.

Other People Are Reading

The Negative & Positive Effects of Globalization

The Positive Effects of Globalization

1. Labor and Wages

Because it is less expensive to produce goods overseas, many American companies have moved their factories to save money. This has caused America, a once industrial nation, to shift to a more service-based economy. Supporters of globalization believe this is a natural transition and new service jobs will replace any jobs lost to globalization. Others believe such tactics are to blame for increased unemployment in the United States and increased poverty worldwide.

2. Immigration
o

Increase in immigration is another effect of globalization in the United States. People come to the United States to work or look for work. Supporters of immigration believe that the U.S. economy benefits from this increase in labor and specialty knowledge but worry about the possible exploitation of international workers. Others believe that an increase in immigration is responsible for higher unemployment and that undocumented workers unfairly benefit from the U.S. economy.
Sponsored Links

MyUniverse Official Site

Get Complete View Of Your Finances. Sign Up Now & Link A/cs for Free! MyUniverse.co.in

3. Culture

From the food that we eat to the television shows that we watch, there is an every increasing international influence on American culture. Immigrants from other countries bring their foods, languages and religions with them. Many believe this blending of cultures is positive for the United States, allowing for a broader understanding of the world. Others believe that U.S. culture will be eliminated by the continuing increase in international culture.

4. Trade
o

Globalization also has an effect on the U.S. economy through trade agreements. Trade agreements allow the United States to import and export goods at lower rates. Some believe that free trade allows for the United States to import needed consumer goods that can be sold at reasonable prices. Others argue that the low price of these goods is not worth the possible risks, such as health problems caused by contaminated goods and food from overseas.

The Effects of Globalization on the United States of America

American companies have migrated most of their manufacturing jobs to foreign countries where it is cheaper to do business. Furthermore, service and technical jobs are currently undergoing a large exodus to foreign labor too. This is now called outsourcing and offshoring. Supposedly, this "frees up" Americans to be innovators, designers, and realizers of new technologies and concepts. I am not convinced when several of my friends and a family member have been out of work for such a long time. These jobs are also being done by qualified professionals in other countries. President George W. Bush says to overcome these lost jobs, Americans will get better education. But even higher education, jobs such as medicine and research and development are successfully being done in other countries. In greater numbers, Americans with college degrees are unable to find work, while the same degrees in other countries are in demand. Even the education in the United States is regressing too. For example, intelligent design is being taught in some schools as biology even though it is not even a scientific theory. Evolution is literally being labeled as just another theory (stickers are placed in school textbooks), even though hundreds of scientific and medical fields are based upon evolution. How do you think antibiotics are becoming less effective? It is because bacteria are adapting into stronger and more dangerous diseases! Furthermore, President Bush is holding back stem cell research in the United States of America by preventing federal funding for stem cell lines. This has only pushed those companies willing to do this type of research to do it in other countries, thus handing the United States a major setback in medical research. We should not be against globalization, but the United States of America is seriously and increasingly falling behind when competing economically in the global market. Something needs to be done before more Americans leave for better opportunities in foreign lands and

before the American economy permanently stagnates. Look to Europe's bleak economy where very little is made, designed, or invented to see America's future.

A lot of U.S. firms ship American jobs overseas, but they also boost sales by selling their goods and services in many foreign markets. Thats one big reason that profits at U.S. companies are strong, even though the U.S. economy remains weak. Heres how the top firms in 15 industries rely on foreign sales to stay healthy:

IMPACT OF GLOBALIZATION ON DEVELOPING COUNTRIES http://www.scribd.com/doc/25340192/Impact-of-Globalization-onIndian-Economy

Custom Urbanization: The Effect of Globalization in India.
Human Trafficking Human trafficking is the illicit and clandestine transfer of person by coercions or by force with an intention to assimilate them into forced labor, sex and adoption. Globalization has created an urgent need for human labor that has turned Indian into one of the top Asian transit and destination countries for human traffickers. There are about 2.3 million prostitutes in India with Bombay city accounting for 100,000 prostitutes attached to about 12,000 brothels. A survey by Pawan Surana indicates that 20% of the women in prostitution are below the age of 18 years and most of them are forced into the vice by human traffickers (2001). As a destination, India hosts over 20,000 Nepali girls distributed in 2000 brothels in New Delhi and Bombay. Seemingly, the young girls are either kidnapped, sold or handed over by their parents and relatives with the hope of gaining work in order to support their poor families back at home. Data indicate that 60% of the prostitutes in India brothels lived below the poverty line. Further, class caste and stratification is a major concern in India whereby the backwards classes comprise more than 70% of the prostitutes. Moreover, due to globalization and universality of education as a condition for economic viability, over 50% of the human trafficked cases are shrouded in illiteracy. Poverty among the Indian classes contributes to human trafficking whereby parents and relatives sell their children for profit. Globalization forces of recession have had dire impacts in the Indian economy such that the worst hit populations by inflation, high food prices and lifestyle costs has forced many of the low earning people to consider human trafficking as a source of income to eradicate poverty. Further, poor agriculture yields have pushed down about 89% of Indian women who desperately depend of rural small scale faming to manage family economies; the situation has been aggravated by the global melt down that has subsequently depressed food and agricultural produce prices thus undermining small scale farmers economic status besides leading to closure of small scale industries a situation that has led to increased the rate of poverty that has proportional increase the level of human trafficking in order to counter the effect (Surana, 2001). Since globalization is discriminative against unskilled workers that form the majority block in India, girls from such families are literally forced to seek alternative unskilled employment. Unfortunately, with the increase in the cost of sustaining life, alternative employment in the unskilled sector has lost value thereby forcing girls into prostitution while others are sold at minimum prices of 400 rupees to an average maximum of 70,000 rupees (Surana, 2001). Globalization has triggered a boom in transport sector, tourism and hotel industries that have in return created a high demand for sex girls in India. Therefore, though Globalization has brought about increase in skilled economies, the high number of Indian women and girls who remain illiterate and thus discriminated by globalization are likely to be human trafficked and forced into either labor or sex and prostitution as a result of lack of unskilled employment opportunities. One solution would be to preserve unskilled labor jobs by government and central bank of India supporting small scale farming through incentives and subsidies. The Second recommendation would involve the realization of the universal education throughout the Indian subcontinent such that all girls can become literate and be able to take up skilled labor jobs besides attaining creativity and inventions. Drug Trafficking in Indian started way back during the colonial days when the British government introduced opium in the North eastern states of India. Opium is still planted in the district of Uttaranchal and used as a medicine for human and livestock. Culturally, the drug is used in celebrations especially in Rajasthan. Though, the government in conjunction with community organizations has tried to restrict the opium trade, cultural festivals in the east area of Arunachal Pradesh remain dogmatically controlled by the society that efforts to control the drug by the government have been thwarted. Commercial cultivation of opium poppy is the only form of commercial farming that is taking place in the North East India since other forms of agricultural practices remain essential subsistence and thus without much profit when compared to opium (UNODC 29).

In Arunachal Pradesh alone, cultivation of opium poppy is extensively mechanized in the Upper Siang, Lohit and Chanlang; in Khonsa circle the Tirap district leads; in Uttaranchal the two districts of Uttarkashi and Dheradun lead and lastly in Himachal Pradesh the districts of Kulu, Mandi and Kalpa produce the highest quantities of opium poppy plant. Mechanized opium poppy farming seems to have started in 1999 as a result of experiencing negative economic trends in these regions as a result of globalization. Equally globalization positively encouraged the farmers to put as much as 12 hectares of land into opium poppy farming in order to counter the high global demand for the drug. Destruction of the crop by police has yielded no change. A total of Licit Opium farming for medical is allowed in India in accordance with the 1961 Single Convention. The three main areas that are mandated to cultivate the poppy plant are Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh that each have countless districts and villages land put under cultivation with a total of 105, 697 licensed cultivators with a viable production of over 1000 metric tons at 90 degrees consistency (32). The trade is controlled by the Central Bureau of Narcotics whose headquarters are based Gwalior. The Bureau is charged with the duty of licensing and controlling production. Economically, the globalization of Opium trade in India has helped reform the desperate subsistence agriculture in the named areas. Usually, after extraction of alkaloids and morphine the remaining opium poppy pods and seeds are crushed used to flavor food as a food condiment. Though the government controls the movement of opium straw that contains morphine that is medically approves as a drug, there exists trafficking of the substance through a black market that offers a better prices than the government set prices (UNODC 31). The government price of opium at Rs. 720 to Rs. 2,100 per kilogram is unattractive when compared to the black markets price of Rs. 15,000 to Rs. 20,000 that thus promotes international trade of the drug. Heroine and Methaqualone are manufactured in India and 90% of the manufactured drugs are exported into the global market. In 2003 a total of 1 metric ton of heroine was seized. The location of Indian between the Golden Crescent and the Golden Triangle renders the region as the best transits for illicit opium and opiates that is pumped into the global market (UNODC 33). Drug trafficking has generated high level development of underground banking systems that transfer money throughout the global international market thus evading taxation. Positive Impacts of Globalization: Economy Growth and Poverty Reduction India and China are among the developing countries that have rapidly expanded in industrial and economic growth within the last three decades years. Regardless of the economic global meltdown, the deplorable economic standard that India was in 3 years ago is quite insignificant when compared to the present economic growth as a result of globalization. According to Krishn Goyal, globalization in India has opened up international creation of employment opportunities through export and import of products and services (2006). India has experienced global integration of economies in the following economic sectors; manufacturing, pharmaceutical, communication, Information technology and international investment markets. Technology advancement has enhanced better lifestyle in India whereby Multinational companies have invested in the global strategic land in the government established export zones. In 1991 when foreign reserves plunged because of currency inflation, India faced a dire economic crisis once it was computed that the country had lost approximately one billion U.S. dollars. Consequently, inflation rate increased to a rate of 17% forcing the country to incur heavy fiscal deficits. Foreign investors were threatening to leave the country. Therefore globalization led to economic reforms during the post 1991 postimpacts of economic liberation in the subcontinent. The government together with the private stakeholders agreed to devaluation of the rupee by 18 to 19% against major foreign currencies such as the dollar and the stealing pound. Privatization of investment policies under the guideline of IMF and World Bank were put in place to woo back foreign investors. Stringent industrial licensing regulations were done away with in order to increase industrial growth (Goyal, 2006). The Indian cabinet passed guidelines that allowed Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) policies that allowed foreign investors own up to 100% of their investments in India. The key commercial sectors that were opened for investment include foreign ownership of 26% in national insurance companies and 26% of the defense industry. Tea industry, information and technology industries and real estate industries attracted u 100 % foreign investment (Goyal, 2006). India experiences heightened economic investment during this period that there were recorded boom employment opportunities for the skilled labor. In the 1970s, Indias economy grew at an annual rate of 3% but during the 198 0s when globalization concepts were being introduced, the country managed to double its annual growth rate to 6% between 1992 and 1993. Foreign investment increased the GDP of India such that more people invested in the telecommunication and real estate industry and other service industries such as the hospitality and transport industry that were in demand by the multinational companies (Goyal, 2006, p.3). Consequently, during 2003 fiscal year, India recorded an annual economic growth of 8% successful overcoming the 1991 economic depression. The service industry accounted for 57% of the GDP in 2004 when compared to 37.8% in 1984-5. While the service sectors contribution to the GDP increased from 38 to over 60 % by 2010, globalization negatively affected the economic viability percentile for the industry and agriculture sectors whose GDP output decreased from 26.1 % and 35.2% respectively in 1984 to 21.9% for industry and 20.5% for Agriculture in 2004-5 (4). In the same period, the FDI reforms increase foreign investment capacity from US$100 million in 1990-91 to 5536 million in 2004-5(Goyal, 2006, p.4). Compared to China and Brazil developing countries that experience a flow of US$50 billion annually at a rate of 5.5%, India experiences a flow of US$4 billion annually as a result of reform as a result of globalization. Indias foreign exchange reserves that had plummeted by US$1 billion in 1990 -1 because of introducing the open market policy increased in terms of gold, currency assets, and SDRs to US$141.5 billion as of March 2005. The Indian economy exports increased by 24% to US$79 billion while the foreign import during the same time increased by 32.62% to hit US$107 billion. The Reserve bank of India has always deliberately pegged the rupee too low against other foreign currencies in the foreign currency market. The move has helped India recover funds from the global trade to a

tune of US$100 billion (). Generalization of food crops and grains has enhanced India attain food security since with increased globalization of trade and zero rating of tariffs and import duties on food items and edible oil has opened up opportunities for different investors while making life easier for Indians who now have a open access to all forms of supplies. In 1998, 308,000 tons of cereals wee imported compared to 1.620 million tons in 2000. FDI investment policies have made it easier for entry and operation of transnational corporation in India, the industries have boosted grains and food import into India, on the positive side, these industries process food products, and equally export through the Ministry of Food Processing Industries. Consequently, the global import market accounts for over US$69.4 billion whereas the value added food products exported into the global market contributed US$ 22.2 billion as a prove that the global liberalization of the Indian economy was a better idea than possible tariff closed nation. The Western and particularly soft drink multinationals have gained high profit turnover from Indias young population whose diet consists o n soft drinks, alcohol beverages, and mineral drinks. The soft drink industry alone injects into the Indian market about US$6.6 billion bottled drinks annually from a capital investment that is supported by a foreign investment policy that has helped bring in US$1 billion from foreign investors. Conclusively, India has benefited as well has lost from globalization changes and reforms that are affecting the economic, political and social life of Indians. Skilled labor employment opportunities have increase over time with the services sector providing over 50% of the job opportunities. The Indian economy has expanded together with the GDP whereby the annual Indian economy rate increased because of general trade and commerce liberalization of trends such as foreign direct investment. India faces a terrible economic depression in 1991 as a result of weakening agriculture and low annual growth in the industries sector. Credit shriveled up as a result of foreign investors transferred their business operating bases to China that had a higher inflow of international business due to low taxes and tariffs as opposed to India in 1991. Equally, negative attributes of globalization have caught up with the unskilled labor in the subcontinent whereby women and girls have become vulnerable to human tracking trade besides increased rate of drug trafficking and money laundering in the black-market. The Indian government is yet to tackle the issues of agriculture that I practiced by over 85% of the rural women as a source of their family income especially by protecting these vulnerable persons from the grave impacts of poor agricultural commodity prices in the international market.

Custom Urbanization: The Effect of Globalization in India.

IMPACT OF GLOBALIZATION ON UNDERDEVELOPED COUNTRIES SUCCESSFUL GLOBALIZATION OF A COUNTRY

China Hailed as Good Example of Globalization Beijing is an ideal venue for discussions on globalization as China embarks on further promoting economic development and reducing poverty, Sven Sandstrom, a senior World Bank official, said on June 14.

Addressing the "21st Century Forum", statesmen and economists, including Sandstorm who is executive vice-president of the World Bank, agreed that China has successfully integrated itself into the global economy due in no small part to over twenty years of rapid economic growth. They said the Chinese experience is a good example for many other developing countries. According to Singaporean Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew, China has witnessed great changes since the late Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping initiated economic reform and the open-up policy in late

1978. He said China's foreign trade volume accounted for 36 percent of its GDP now as against 36 percent in 1978. Statistics show China's average annual economic growth in the past two decades was 9.8 percent, the fastest growing economy in the world. China is the second largest foreign investment country after theUnited States. Poverty was reduced from 250 million in 1978 to 42 million in 1998. The social and economic development in China and other parts of Asia has benefited from economic globalization. John Malcolm Fraser, former Australian prime minister, said that China has provided a key example of how to keep economic stability when it succeeded in fighting devaluation of Renminbi during the Asian Financial Crisis. Addressing the opening ceremony of the forum, Chinese Premier Zhu Rongji said China will continue to open up fully to the rest of the world in the coming decade. With China's entry into the WTO pending, China will further become an economic global power and gradually further expand its industries including commerce, foreign trade, finance, insurance, securities, telecommunications, and tourism, said the Chinese premier. He said China encourages foreign investment in agriculture, infrastructure, environmental protection and high-tech industries. Investment in foreign countries by Chinese enterprises is also encouraged to promote foreign trade exchange and cooperation between China and other countries.

FAILED GLOBALIZATION OF A COUNTRY

Has globalization failed in Nigeria?

Oil pumped from the Niger Delta is loaded on supertankers and shipped into the global market, accounting for 3% of world production and generating substantial revenues for the Nigerian government. What has this connection to the world economy done for Nigeria?
Globalization

New Capital

April 2009

Q: Oil was discovered in Nigeria some 50 years ago. How has that impacted the country? The first exports left Nigeria for London in 1958. So were marking a half -century of oil and gas activities in Nigeria. Oil became economically significant almost precisely at the time Nigeria became independent from Britain in 1960. In a sense, then, the history of post-colonial Nigeria is the history of oil and gas in the country. And yet its been a period of, without being too dramatic, unremitting political and economic failure and wasted opportunity. Nigerians are incredibly talented, creative, entrepreneurial people. They have an extraordinary vitality. They have Nobel Prize winners. Nigerias population of 150 million means one in every five Africans is a Nigerian. This is not in any sense a country that is short of human capital. Its the eighth -largest exporter of oil in the world, a major supplier to the U.S. market, and in 2008 was in receipt of $83 billion in oil and gas revenues. But most of the country lives on less than a dollar a day and has a life expectancy of less than 50 years. Since the 1970s, oil has accounted for around 9095% of all foreign exports, 8085% of all government revenues, and 4050% percent of gross domestic product. Nigeria is an archetypical oil nation, a mono-economy in which oil dwarfs everything else. Since 1960, over $600 billion in oil revenues has flowed into Nigerias coffers; it represents an opportunity unavailable to much of the developing world. These petrodollars could have been spent productively, could have transformed agriculture, laid the foundation for an effective public education

system, provided much-needed infrastructure. Yet, according to the World Bank, of that $600 billion, $300 billion has simply disappeared into overseas bank accounts through theft and corruption. The history of post-colonial Nigeria is the serial inability to put these oil wells to developmental use the catastrophic failure of the national development project. Q: Has being plugged into the global economy done anything? Is no oil revenue working its way into the economy? Of course money is trickling through this system. But whatever development indicators we look at, oil has not, according to an IMF report, contributed in any significant way to the average standard of living or the life chances of Nigerians. And, paradoxically, the oil-producing Niger Delta has experienced a decline in those indicators. Life expectancy in the Niger Delta is 45. It has fallen significantly since 1970, though not, as in the case of southern Africa, from the impact of HIV/AIDS. That gives you a sense of the utter horror of conditions. The government often points an accusatory finger at the oil companies, and indeed oil companies, for a long, long time, essentially got away with whatever they could, which is to say that they neglected community development, operated with impunity, often during periods of military dictatorship, and largely ignored the environmental costs of the industry. In addition, the volatility of global oil and gas prices does create real challenges for fiscal management, planning, and development. But the reality is that, in my view, the political leadership of Nigeria has massively failed on virtually every single level. In that sense, pointing to something called globalization as being a contributory factor to Nigerias developmental failure is a radically incomplete explanation. Q: What is Nigerias history of engagement with international markets? Globalization is central to understanding the Nigeria story, but its not a product of the 1970s or of Big Oil. The history of globalization and its local meanings run much deeper, and in some profound way are very much wrapped up specifically for the Niger Delta with a popular consciousness of the longue dure of the regions incorporation into a world market. Theres a photograph in the book that I just completed with the photographer Ed Kashi.Its an aerial shot of a place called Bonny Island, located on the coast in southeastern Nige-ria in the heart of the oilproducing Niger Delta. The photograph shows one of the largest liquefied natural gas plants in the world leading-edge gas-to-fluids technology and right next to it is the most unimaginable poverty villages with no running water, no power, no functioning schools, no roads, or any infrastructure to speak of. Its an extraordinary juxtaposition the vast potential of 21st-century oil cheek by jowl with an almost pre-modern deprivation and poverty.

Nigeria has been part of global markets for 500 years, a history captured in Bonny Island itself. The photograph shows huge oil tankers plying the Cawthorne Channel, which links Bonny to the Atlantic Ocean. A century ago those tankers would have been steamships coming for palm oil, which was critical for lubricants and soaps in an emerging industrial economy. From the mid-19th century throughout the colonial period, the Niger Delta was the heart of the global palm oil industry. And 200 years before that, we would have seen slave ships in the Cawthorne Channel. Bonny was one of the main arterial points for the assemblage of slave labor prior to the horrors of the Middle Passage. Theres a type of terrifying historical continuity in this history of Nigerias central involvement with world markets, as a supplier of, initially, slaves, then other commodities, and now a particular type of hydrocarbon, all of which have been central to the emergence of modernity itself. Q: How does the oil industry work in Nigeria? In most of the major oil-producing countries in the developing world, the industry is organized through joint ventures contractual and legal arrangements be-tween one or more of the oil majors and the national oil company. These contracts determine, among other things, the distribution of the value of every barrel of oil produced. The details in Nigeria are never made public, but its clear that at least two thirds of the value of every barrel of oil flows directly to the government. When prices are very high, as they have been in the last year or so, it may be as high as 80% or 90%. Thats very important to understand, because it says that, unlike in other parts of the developing world, the state has the capacity to capture revenues directly in this case dollar-denominated and very substantial. From there, a revenue-allocation system determines how much of the revenue the federal government will retain and how much is distributed to the 36 states and 770 local governments. That allocation process is deeply political. Until the late 1990s, the vast majority of it was allocated to the large and powerful states of the ethnic majorities, especially in the Muslim north, with a disproportionately small amount returned to the relatively small oil-producing states populated by so-called oil minorities. The government didnt address the simmering resentment and antagonism generated by the economic and political exclusion until popular mobilizations began in the 1990s. Here the movement of the Ogoni people led by Ken Saro-Wiwa was key. He brought international attention to the environmental and human rights consequences of oil, and proposed in effect the redesign of the federation and the revenue-allocation process so that ethnic minorities could both control and benefit from oil.

He and his comrades were hanged in November of 1995, a stunning illustration of the general problem of oil grievances being suppressed rather than being directly dealt with. As Saro-Wiwa predicted, in the wake of military suppression came militancy and insurgent politics. Were now in the midst of what I can only describe as an oil insurgency in the Niger Delta, characterized by massive attacks on oil infrastructure and major conflicts between armed groups and government security forces. A report released recently estimated that the oil companies spent $2.7 billion on security in 2008 alone. Thats a measure of both the deterioration in security and the extent to which the delta has become ungovernable. Its not civil war, but the oil fields are spaces of endemic violence and conflict. The oil companies have adopted a bunker mentality in which their ability to operate is seriously in question, and the government has resorted to expanding its military presence through a special task force dedicated to keeping oil flowing. The most significant militant group is the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta. They appeared very dramatically in late 2005, then in the summer of 2007 successfully occupied and closed down a massive floating rig 100 miles offshore. Thats not a simple thing to do. They are a well equipped, strategic, and organized guerilla force with an enormous capacity to do damage. Shell claims that it has lost $10.6 billion due to oil disruptions since late 2005. The struggle going on now is framed by a deep history of exclusion, exploitation, and marginalization. The history is not just an abstraction; people in the Niger Delta are fully aware, for example, of Bonny Islands dark past. Its a reality in their oral traditions; its a reality in the way that they see their claims for justice and resource control. Some militants refer back to the heroic figure of King Jaja from the 1890s, who fought the British, trying to control the palm oil trade. That said, while some of the activity in the Delta is a political project, some is just organized crime. Hostage-taking and kidnapping has become a huge industry. In 2008, 200 mostly expatriate oil workers were taken hostage. And the hostage-takers extort payments of about $300,000 per worker, often paid by the government. One oil executive is reported to have said, I have served as the CEO of oil companies that dont produce as much oil as is stolen in Nigeria. One hundred thousand barrels of oil are stolen every day in Nigeria. To steal oil on that scale youve got to understand the manifolds and pipelines and have the tacit support of the security forces, especially the Coast Guard and Navy. Barges move the oil offshore to large tankers. It is a multibillion dollar industry. Q: What might improve conditions in Nigeria? The improvement question is a tricky one, because there is a 50-plus-year history of waste and corruption. In a country as ethnically complex and politically fragmented as Nigeria, that means powerful

forces vested in the oil complex and a reservoir of grievances about who has access to oil revenue and who does not. In the short term, youre going to go nowhere unless you can lower the temperature on the military conflict, which is to say that the government has to start negotiating seriously with representatives of some of the militant groups and take seriously many of the issues at stake such as revenue allocation, a new constitution, and reform of the statutory monopoly over oil and land by the Nigerian state. The next level is to improve how oil revenues are used, especially at the local government level, which has become the most corrupt in the entire federal system. But at least there is a new generation of younger people beginning to try to bring transparency and accountability, so Im a little bit more optimistic here. At the federal level, there is some good news on the corruption issue. Over the last five years the government has begun very positive steps, particularly the establishment of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission. They have begun to prosecute people, influential people, like former governors and political godfathers, as they are called. And the Supreme Court in Nigeria, which has always been a weak legal institution, has begun to show some muscle. So, for the first time, the ease with which people can simply plunder government coffers with impunity has begun to change. And the last thing I would say is that the oil companies have to be involved. Over the last few years, the oil companies have begun to make changes. As an example, the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative is a voluntary agreement among oil-producing states and the big oil companies to try to make transparent their relationships with one another, and especially any payments that are made in and around the acquisition of leases and operating licenses. Nigeria is a signatory and while there remains a long way to go, it is a start. All of these things, both within Nigeria and internationally, are limited and partial. The next steps are demanding and politically tough. And all of them will have to be simultaneously pursued. It will take enormous courage and political will. To learn more visit the website of the book by Michael Watts and National Geographic photographer Ed Kashi,Curse of the Black Gold. Interview conducted and edited by Ted O'Callahan.

CONTRIBUTION OF GLOBALIZATION TO THE NATION http://education.nationalgeographic.co.in/education/encyclopedia/globa lization/?ar_a=1

HOME |

RUNAWAY WORLD

1.
EMAIL THE DEBATE

LECTURE 1 - GLOBALISATION - LONDON To watch or listen to the lecture click on the appropriate button. The audio file includes a question and answer session following the lecture.

PROFESSOR ANTHONY GIDDENS

GLOBALISATION
A friend of mine studies village life in central Africa. A few years ago, she paid her first visit to a remote area where she was to carry out her fieldwork. The evening she got there, she was invited to a local home for an evening's entertainment. She expected to find out about the traditional pastimes of this isolated community. Instead, the evening turned out to be a viewing of Basic Instinct on video. The film at that point hadn't even reached the cinemas in London. Such vignettes reveal something about our world. And what they reveal isn't trivial. It isn't just a matter of people adding modern paraphernalia - videos, TVs, personal computers and so forth - to their traditional ways of life. We live in a world of transformations, affecting almost every aspect of what we do. For better or worse, we are being propelled into a global order that no one fully understands,

READ THE DEBATE

WATCH THE LECTURE

LISTEN TO THE LECTURE

TEXT ONLY LECTURE

but which is making its effects felt upon all of us. Globalisation is the main theme of my lecture tonight, and of the lectures as a whole. The term may not be - it isn't - a particularly attractive or elegant one. But absolutely no-one who wants to understand our prospects and possibilities at century's end can ignore it. I travel a lot to speak abroad. I haven't been to a single country recently where globalisation isn't being intensively discussed. In France, the word is mondialisation. In Spain and Latin America, it is globalizacion. The Germans say globalisierung. The global spread of the term is evidence of the very developments to which it refers. Every business guru talks about it. No political speech is complete without reference to it. Yet as little as 10 years ago the term was hardly used, either in the academic literature or in everyday language. It has come from nowhere to be almost everywhere. Given its sudden popularity, we shouldn't be surprised that the meaning of the notion isn't always clear, or that an intellectual reaction has set in against it. Globalisation has something to do with the thesis that we now all live in one world - but in what ways exactly, and is the idea really valid? Different thinkers have taken almost completely opposite views about globalisation in debates that have sprung up over the past few years. Some dispute the whole thing. I'll call them the sceptics. According to the sceptics, all the talk about globalisation is only that - just talk. Whatever its benefits, its trials and tribulations, the global economy isn't especially different from that which existed at previous periods. The world carries on much the same as it has done for many years. Most countries, the sceptics argue, only gain a small amount of their income from external trade. Moreover, a good deal of economic exchange is between regions, rather than being truly world-wide. The countries of the European Union, for example, mostly trade among themselves. The same is true of the other main trading blocs, such as those of the Asia Pacific or North America. Others, however, take a very different position. I'll label them the radicals. The radicals argue that not only is globalisation very real, but that its consequences can be felt everywhere. The global marketplace, they say, is much more developed than even two or three decades ago, and is indifferent to national borders. Nations have lost most of the sovereignty they once had, and politicians have lost most of their capability to influence events. It isn't surprising that no one respects political leaders any more, or has much interest in what they have to say. The era of the nation state is over. Nations, as the Japanese business writer Keniche Ohmae puts it, have become mere 'fictions'. Authors like Ohmae see the economic difficulties of last year and this as demonstrating the reality of globalisation, albeit seen from its disruptive side. The sceptics tend to be on the political left, especially the old left. For if all of this is essentially a myth, governments can still intervene in economic life and the welfare state remain intact. The notion of

READ OUR INTERVIEW

MORE ON GIDDENS

globalisation, according to the sceptics, is an ideology put about by free-marketeers who wish to dismantle welfare systems and cut back on state expenditures. What has happened is at most a reversion to how the world was a century ago. In the late 19th Century there was already an open global economy, with a great deal of trade, including trade in currencies. Well, who is right in this debate? I think it is the radicals. The level of world trade today is much higher than it ever was before, and involves a much wider range of goods and services. But the biggest difference is in the level of finance and capital flows. Geared as it is to electronic money - money that exists only as digits in computers the current world economy has no parallels in earlier times. In the new global electronic economy, fund managers, banks, corporations, as well as millions of individual investors, can transfer vast amounts of capital from one side of the world to another at the click of a mouse. As they do so, they can destabilise what might have seemed rock-solid economies - as happened in East Asia. The volume of world financial transactions is usually measured in US dollars. A million dollars is a lot of money for most people. Measured as a stack of thousand dollar notes, it would be eight inches high. A billion dollars - in other words, a million million - would be over 120 miles high, 20 times higher than Mount Everest. Yet far more than a trillion dollars is now turned over each day on global currency markets, a massive increase from only 10 years ago, let alone the more distant past. The value of whatever money we may have in our pockets, or our bank accounts, shifts from moment to moment according to fluctuations in such markets. I would have no hesitation, therefore, in saying that globalisation, as we are experiencing it, is in many respects not only new, but revolutionary. However, I don't believe either the sceptics or the radicals have properly understood either what it is or its implications for us. Both groups see the phenomenon almost solely in economic terms. This is a mistake. Globalisation is political, technological and cultural, as well as economic. It has been influenced above all by developments in systems of communication, dating back only to the late 1960's. In the mid-19th Century, a Massachusetts portrait painter, Samuel Morse, transmitted the first message, "What hath god wrought?", by electric telegraph. In so doing, he initiated a new phase in world history. Never before could a message be sent without someone going somewhere to carry it. Yet the advent of satellite communications marks every bit as dramatic a break with the past. The first communications satellite was launched only just over 30 years ago. Now there are more than 200 such satellites above the earth, each carrying a vast range of information. For the first time ever, instantaneous communication is possible from one side of the world to the other. Other types of electronic communication, more and more integrated with satellite transmission, have also accelerated over the past few years. No dedicated transatlantic or transpacific cables existed at all until the late 1950's. The first held

less than 100 voice paths. Those of today carry more than a million. On the first of February 1999, about 150 years after Morse invented his system of dots and dashes, Morse code finally disappeared from the world stage, discontinued as a means of communication for the sea. In its place has come a system using satellite technology, whereby any ship in distress can be pinpointed immediately. Most countries prepared for the transition some while before. The French, for example, stopped using Morse as a distress code in their local waters two years ago, signing off with a Gallic flourish: 'Calling all. This is our last cry before our eternal silence'. Instantaneous electronic communication isn't just a way in which news or information is conveyed more quickly. Its existence alters the very texture of our lives, rich and poor alike. When the image of Nelson Mandela maybe is more familiar to us than the face of our next door neighbour, something has changed in the nature of our everyday experience. Nelson Mandela is a global celebrity, and celebrity itself is largely a product of new communications technology. The reach of media technologies is growing with each wave of innovation. It took 40 years for radio in the United States to gain an audience of 50 million. The same number were using personal computers only 15 years after the PC was introduced. It needed a mere four years, after it was made available for 50 million Americans to be regularly using the Internet. It is wrong to think of globalisation as just concerning the big systems, like the world financial order. Globalisation isn't only about what is 'out there', remote and far away from the individual. It is an 'in here' phenomenon too, influencing intimate and personal aspects of our lives. The debate about family values, for example, that is going on in many countries, might seem far removed from globalising influences. It isn't. Traditional family systems are becoming transformed, or are under strain, in many parts of the world, particularly as women stake claim to greater equality. There has never before been a society, so far as we know from the historical record, in which women have been even approximately equal to men. This is a truly global revolution in everyday life, whose consequences are being felt around the world in spheres from work to politics. Globalisation thus is a complex set of processes, not a single one. And these operate in a contradictory or oppositional fashion. Most people think of it as simply 'pulling away' power or influence from local communities and nations into the global arena. And indeed this is one of its consequences. Nations do lose some of the economic power they once had. However, it also has an opposite effect. Globalisation not only pulls upwards, it pushes downwards, creating new pressures for local autonomy. The American sociologist Daniel Bell expresses this very well when he says that the nation becomes too small to solve the big problems, but also too large to solve the small ones.

Globalisation is the reason for the revival of local cultural identities in different parts of the world. If one asks, for example, why the Scots want more independence in the UK, or why there is a strong separatist movement in Quebec, the answer is not to be found only in their cultural history. Local nationalisms spring up as a response to globalising tendencies, as the hold of older nation-states weakens. Globalisation also squeezes sideways. It creates new economic and cultural zones within and across nations. Examples are the Hong Kong region, northern Italy, or Silicon Valley in California. The area around Barcelona in northern Spain extends over into France. Catalonia, where Barcelona is located, is closely integrated into the European Union. It is part of Spain, yet also looks outwards. The changes are being propelled by a range of factors, some structural, others more specific and historical. Economic influences are certainly among the driving forces, especially the global financial system. Yet they aren't like forces of nature. They have been shaped by technology, and cultural diffusion, as well as by the decisions of governments to liberalise and deregulate their national economies. The collapse of Soviet communism has added further weight to such developments, since no significant group of countries any longer stands outside. That collapse wasn't just something that happened to occur. Globalisation explains both why and how Soviet communism met its end. The Soviet Union and the East European countries were comparable to the West in terms of growth rates until somewhere around the early 1970s. After that point, they fell rapidly behind. Soviet communism, with its emphasis upon state-run enterprise and heavy industry, could not compete in the global electronic economy. The ideological and cultural control upon which communist political authority was based similarly could not survive in an era of global media. The Soviet and the East European regimes were unable to prevent the reception of western radio and TV broadcasts. Television played a direct role in the 1989 revolutions, which have rightly been called the first "television revolutions". Street protests taking place in one country were watched by the audiences in others, large numbers of whom then took to the streets themselves. Globalisation, of course, isn't developing in an even-handed way, and is by no means wholly benign in its consequences. To many living outside Europe and North America, it looks uncomfortably like Westernisation - or, perhaps, Americanisation, since the US is now the sole superpower, with a dominant economic, cultural and military position in the global order. Many of the most visible cultural expressions of globalisation are American - Coca-Cola, McDonald's. Most of giant multinational companies are based in the US too. Those that aren't all come from the rich countries, not the poorer areas of the world. A pessimistic view of globalisation would consider it largely an affair of the industrial North, in which the developing societies of the South play little or no active part. It would see it as destroying

local cultures, widening world inequalities and worsening the lot of the impoverished. Globalisation, some argue, creates a world of winners and losers, a few on the fast track to prosperity, the majority condemned to a life of misery and despair. And indeed the statistics are daunting. The share of the poorest fifth of the world's population in global income has dropped from 2.3% to 1.4% over the past 10 years. The proportion taken by the richest fifth, on the other hand, has risen from 70% to 85%. In Sub-Saharan Africa, 20 countries have lower incomes per head in real terms than they did two decades ago. In many less developed countries, safety and environmental regulations are low or virtually non-existent. Some trans-national companies sell goods there that are controlled or banned in the industrial countries - poor quality medical drugs, destructive pesticides or high tar and nicotine content cigarettes. As one writer put it recently, rather than a global village, this is more like global pillage. Along with ecological risk, to which it is related, expanding inequality is the most serious problem facing world society. It will not do, however, merely to blame it on the wealthy. It is fundamental to my argument that globalisation today is only partly Westernisation. Of course the western nations, and more generally the industrial countries, still have far more influence over world affairs than do the poorer states. But globalisation is becoming increasingly de-centred not under the control of any group of nations, and still less of the large corporations. Its effects are felt just as much in the western countries as elsewhere. This is true of the global financial system, communications and media, and of changes affecting the nature of government itself. Examples of 'reverse colonisation' are becoming more and more common. Reverse colonisation means that non-western countries influence developments in the west. Examples abound - such as the Latinising of Los Angeles, the emergence of a globally-oriented hightech sector in India, or the selling of Brazilian TV programmes to Portugal. Is globalisation a force promoting the general good? The question can't be answered in simple way, given the complexity of the phenomenon. People who ask it, and who blame globalisation for deepening world inequalities, usually have in mind economic globalisation, and within that, free trade. Now it is surely obvious that free trade is not an unalloyed benefit. This is especially so as concerns the less developed countries. Opening up a country, or regions within it, to free trade can undermine a local subsistence economy. An area that becomes dependent upon a few products sold on world markets is very vulnerable to shifts in prices as well as to technological change. Trade always needs a framework of institutions, as do other forms of economic development. Markets cannot be created by purely economic means, and how far a given economy should be exposed to the world marketplace must depend upon a range of criteria. Yet to

oppose economic globalisation, and to opt for economic protectionism, would be a misplaced tactic for rich and poor nations alike. Protectionism may be a necessary strategy at some times and in some countries. In my view, for example, Malaysia was correct to introduce controls in 1998, to stem the flood of capital from the country. But more permanent forms of protectionism will not help the development of the poor countries, and among the rich would lead to warring trade blocs. The debates about globalisation I mentioned at the beginning have concentrated mainly upon its implications for the nation-state. Are nation-states, and hence national political leaders, still powerful, or are they becoming largely irrelevant to the forces shaping the world? Nation-states are indeed still powerful and political leaders have a large role to play in the world. Yet at the same time the nation-state is being reshaped before our eyes. National economic policy can't be as effective as it once was. More importantly, nations have to rethink their identities now the older forms of geopolitics are becoming obsolete. Although this is a contentious point, I would say that, following the dissolving of the cold war, nations no longer have enemies. Who are the enemies of Britain, or France, or Japan? Nations today face risks and dangers rather than enemies, a massive shift in their very nature. It isn't only of the nation that such comments could be made. Everywhere we look, we see institutions that appear the same as they used to be from the outside, and carry the same names, but inside have become quite different. We continue to talk of the nation, the family, work, tradition, nature, as if they were all the same as in the past. They are not. The outer shell remains, but inside all is different - and this is happening not only in the US, Britain, or France, but almost everywhere. They are what I call shell institutions, and I shall talk about them quite a bit in the lectures to come. They are institutions that have become inadequate to the tasks they are called upon to perform. As the changes I have described in this lecture gather weight, they are creating something that has never existed before, a global cosmopolitan society. We are the first generation to live in this society, whose contours we can as yet only dimly see. It is shaking up our existing ways of life, no matter where we happen to be. This is not - at least at the moment - a global order driven by collective human will. Instead, it is emerging in an anarchic, haphazard, fashion, carried along by a mixture of economic, technological and cultural imperatives. It is not settled or secure, but fraught with anxieties, as well as scarred by deep divisions. Many of us feel in the grip of forces over which we have no control. Can we re-impose our will upon them? I believe we can. The powerlessness we experience is not a sign of personal failings, but reflects the incapacities of our institutions. We need to reconstruct those we have, or create new ones, in ways appropriate to the global age.

We should and we can look to achieve greater control over our runaway world. We shan't be able to do so if we shirk the challenges, or pretend that all can go on as before. For globalisation is not incidental to our lives today. It is a shift in our very life circumstances. It is the way we now live.

1999 Reith Lectures Home | BBC Radio 4 Home | BBC Homepage

INTRODUCTION TO CSR EMERGING NEED OF CSR GROWING IMPORTANCE OF CSR HOW GLOBALIZATION AND CSR ARE COMPLEMENTARY AND GO HAND IN HAND CSR NORMS AND LAWS IN FEW COUNTRIES ACCORDING TO PESTLE ANALYSIS Companies Bill passed with mandate on CSR spending
AA

ENS ECONOMIC BUREAU: NEW DELHI, DEC 19 2012, 01:19 IST

Tags: Companies Bill | CSR Spending | Lok Sabha | Companies Act | Companies Bill | Rajya Sabha

Lok Sabha on Tuesday voted to replace Indias 56-year-old omnibus Companies Act with the Companies Bill, 2011, that brings the management of the corporate sector in line with global norms. It introduces concepts like responsible self-regulation with adequate disclosure and accountability, ushers in enhanced shareholders participation and provides for a single forum to approve mergers and acquisitions.

The Bill, which will now travel to the Rajya Sabha, has said companies must ensure they spend at least 2 per cent of their net profit towards corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities, a move that has drawn both criticism and appreciation from the stakeholders but one that promises to change the way CSR has been perceived so far. Corporate affairs minister Sachin Pilot said CSR would be mandatory for companies like their tax liabilities. Severity of law is not deterrent, it is surety which is deterrent, he said, adding the companies may engage in promoting education, reducing child mortality and any other matter they feel can contribute for social welfare. The Bill has gone through several versions since 2008 when it was first introduced. It includes learnings from the Satyam fiasco in its investor protection clauses. The government has also introduced the concept of class action suit wherein depositors or a unit of shareholders can collectively sue the company committing fraud. The Bill will also provide the serious fraud investigation office (SFIO) with powers to conduct searches and seizures on the premise of a fraudulent company. While steering the Bill, Pilot said when Companies Act, 1956, was promulgated there were only 30,000 companies in the country while in 2012, there are 8,50,000 firms in India. Apart from introducing concepts like one person company and making independent directors and company auditors more accountable, the Bill also seeks to keep a tab on remunerations for the board of directors and other executives of the companies to protect the interest of shareholders and workmen. Disapproving of vulgar display of wealth, Pilot said the law provides that remuneration of a director of a company should not be more than 5 per cent of the net profit. The new legislation, which is a much shorter than the earlier one has also harmonised the company law framework with sectoral regulations. It has 480 sections compared to over 600 sections in the 1956 Act. In line with global norms The Bill, which will now travel to the Rajya Sabha, says companies must ensure they spend at least 2 per cent of their net profit towards CSR activities Corporate affairs minister Sachin Pilot said CSR would be mandatory for companies like their tax liabilities The government has introduced the concept of class action suit wherein depositors or a unit of shareholders can sue the firm committing fraud

CSR CASE STUDIES CONCLUSION