1 Globalization is a subject often talked about today, and no writing can be expected to

2 adequately cover every part of it. However, any aspect of society can be divided into
3 component parts and in analyzing the relative worth of globalization, the four most
4 contentious areas are worth examining.
5 To begin, we need a definition of “globalization”, both academically and in the
6 personal effects on our lives. Academically, the term refers to the growing
7 internationalization of the world’s economies, financial markets, people and populations, as
8 well as internationalization of the production, distribution, and consumption of goods.
9 Looking at this in a more personal sense, globalization means activity such as watching
10 foreign films, wearing American fashion, buying international brands, eating food in
11 different ethnic restaurants or in fast food chains. It means living in multi-cultural societies,
12 investing in international markets, using the internet, or traveling to other countries for
13 work, study, or pleasure. Globalization is truly touching on the lives of almost everyone on
14 earth.
15 One controversial issue is whether globalization is actually “Americanization”-that
16 is, a means by which America can spread economic and cultural dominance. Globalization
17 is certainly bringing changes to the country it reaches, but perhaps change is an essential
18 and natural part of life. We could say that the fact that American products are successful in
19 world markets simply shows that they are well-made, and see nothing more to it than that.
20 However, we could also say that the whole world seems to drink Coca-cola, watch
21 American TV dramas, and eat at American fast-food restaurants. Especially in film, music,
22 and television, there is an overwhelming and growing dominance of US products, mostly at
23 the expense of local economies and culture.
24 The nest issue is whether globalization causes inequality. On the one hand, there is
25 evidence that inequalities in global income and poverty are decreasing, as shown by the
26 rise in income and living standards in China. The actual countries that are becoming poorer
27 are those that are not open to world trade, such as many nations in Africa. But there is
28 equal evidence that this gap between the rich and the poor, among nations and within
29 nations, is increasing. Market forces give the rich power to add further to their wealth.
30 Large corporations invest in poorer countries not particularly to help them, but instead so
31 they can make greater profits from lower wage levels, often exploiting the country, and
32 ultimately leaving it more debt-ridden than even before.
33 The role of the internet is also open to debate. English, is for example, is the main
34 language of the internet because it is the rich English-speaking countries generating most
35 of the content. Perhaps then, the internet has become a method of cultural takeover, in
36 which Western values dominate and try to intrude upon other legitimate ways of thinking.
37 Contrasting this completely, many people within developing countries see the interne as an
38 opportunity to obtain knowledge and communication from around the world in a way that,
39 before, they would have not thought possible. This gives chances for economic
40 development in many industries, such as tourism-and this very important in developing
41 countries such as Thailand.
42 The environmental impact of globalization is perhaps the biggest bones of
43 contention. Being connected to the world economy contributes to environmental
44 improvements in some ways. It helps knowledge-sharing, which in turn increases some
45 incomes and improve property-rights, the latter resulting in regulating the distribution and
46 use of agricultural lands more efficiently. Yet, multinational companies have a poor record
47 in environmental protection. Notoriously, industries such as forestry, mining, and fishing,
48 often exploit the many natural resources of poor countries, showing little regard to the
49 long-term cost, as in the case of New Guinea and Indonesia. The companies take advantage
50 of less stringent protection policy, which may result in the loss, through rampant and one-
51 sided economic development, of an irreplaceable national treasure.
52