According of culture, it is understood above all that

According to Redding (1999), globalisation
is the process of increased integration between the goods, capital and service
markets, as well as the interconnection of countries as though the world was
one civilisation. It is a market generated process, whereby it expands the economic,
cultural and political dependence of countries, as a direct result of increase
in international activity, global trade in goods and services, the flow of
capital, and advancement in information, communication technologies and
transport. It is the process of general integration experienced by individuals
and organizations in all countries, largely enabled by new information
technologies. This essay will critically assess the statement mentioned in the
question; concluding that globalisation will always benefit those with
resources and capital.

 

Globalization is a phenomenon of
international character: its action consists mainly of achieving a global
penetration of capital (financial, commercial and industrial), it has allowed
the world economy (mechanisms that integrate it: trade, production, and
finance) open spaces of active integration that intensify the world economic
life and arise as a consequence of the increasingly accentuated
internationalization of economic processes, social conflicts and political-cultural
phenomena. It has been defined as the process of denationalization of markets,
laws and politics in the sense of interrelating peoples and individuals for the
common good. Although it may be arguable that this leads to good, it can be argued
as being the phase in which capitalism is found at the global level,
characterized by the elimination of the economic frontiers that impede the free
circulation of goods and services, mainly capital. It is also a historical
process, the result of human innovation and technological progress. It refers
to the extension beyond national borders, to the growing interdependence among
countries, to the increasing integration of economies around the world (this at
all levels of human economic activity), especially through trade and commerce.
The financial flows also cover broader cultural, political and environmental
aspects. So, one can say that globalization is a concept that aims to describe
the immediate reality as a planetary society, beyond borders, tariff barriers,
ethnic differences, religious creeds, political ideologies and socio-economic
or cultural conditions, that is, an attempt to make a world that is not
divided, but generalized, in which most things are equal or mean the same
thing.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

 

Globalization in culture is
manifested in the integration and contact of cultural practices: brands,
consumption of media, values, icons, characters, collective imagination,
customs, relationships, etc. In a restrictive sense of the concept of culture,
it is understood above all that related to the dissemination and consumption of
cultural products in the world, cinema, television, literature and music, in
which the technological factor multiplies its capacity of diffusion to great
scale. From the economic point of view, globalization is the process of market
integration on a global scale. To do this, it has been essential to form
economic blocks oriented under the logic of free trade, in order to reproduce
capital. This process has involved the growing interconnection of markets
around the world. In this way, the events and crises of the economic system
increasingly affect all the countries of the world with greater speed and
strength. In the social field, it implies the reduction of distances between
all countries. The development of communications plays a key role, an example
of this is the use of the Internet. This process has gained strength after the
end of the cold war, a fact that allowed power and economic relations to be
dominated by the United States, but this hegemony today faces blocks like the
European Union, and other blocks in Asia, Latin America and Africa.

 

It is a universal process, since it
affects all the countries of the planet, regardless of the position they occupy
within the world economy and the political order. When there is an irreversible
process of market integration, the existence of countries starts which are
better positioned than others, that is to say that their economic nature is
exclusive, because those nations or regions that cannot be competitive will remain
in the saga of development, being in the market the primordial element of
globalization, the State as a political unit and as a space in which the
government and the sovereignty of the countries are developed, remains in the
background, since the market is the mechanism that governs relations between
countries and regions, consumption capacity will determine its value and not
its human condition. For that reason, it is said that globalization is
dehumanizing; it is founded by the Mass Media, and its influence is on the
socio-cultural, political and economic aspects of those involved (the whole
world, in other words), because they allow the dissemination of ideas to
hundreds of billions of people. Markets, capital, production, management,
workforce, information, knowledge and technology are organized in flows that
cross national borders.

Competition and economic strategies,
both large and small and medium enterprises, tend to be defined and decided in
a regional, global or global space. Globalization pushes companies and markets
to organize themselves in tightly knit networks on a planetary scale.

 

An advantage of the
globalisation process, is the increase in job opportunities a host country can
provide. When Multi-National Corporations move their production operation into
developing countries, it automatically stimulates employment. According to Rama
(2003), job growth will only occur in export-processing areas where a large
work force is essential to keep production active. A good example of this is
the Coca-Cola investment in Malaysia; with an innovative bottling plant, entailing
a $301 million investment. This stimulated a creation of 600 to 800 jobs, with
8,000 jobs linked to local suppliers (Agence France Presse, 2010). The reason
why job growth is considered as an advantage in a country that is trying to
become developed, is due to the aid it provides in social change. This
indicates that globalisation does help a country develop, not just those with
money and resources, as it stimulates development in a country on a grass roots
level whereby the citizens are able to become independent. It also begins to
reign in rights for women where they are able to work and provide for
themselves resulting in freedom, where they must no longer rely nor forcefully
stay in neglected marriages and more social issues pertaining women and
children.

 

However, this can be
counter-argued with the fact that the deregulation of policies was necessary to
attract foreign investment, resulting in profit being made for those with capital
and resources whilst citizens and workers were left to be faced with a lack of
rights and consequences. Woods (2000) argued that developing states began to
compete with one another by deregulating their policy to attract foreign direct
investment and Multi-National Corporations. Hence, with lower wages and tax
rates, it enables investors to increase their capital investment profit as
opposed to a developing country. Research done by The Economist (2001) indicated
that when a developing state increases its minimum wage and employment safety regulations,
to defend workers’ rights, Multi-National Corporations are more likely to
relocate their base to another developing state. This tends to be where there
is an acceptance for low wages, lack of union representation and legal
protections such as child labour. Despite this, a state is still able to
attract foreign investment, which is necessary for growth and development of
the state itself, regardless of the price that laymen must pay. Thus,
indicating that it can be questionable whether everyone really does benefit
when one compares the profit made by those with resources and capital, with
those who do not. A key example is Indonesia. On the 9th of September
2015, President Joko Widodo announced that there would be a deregulation in
economic policies. Whereby according to the Jakarta Post (2016), this would
allow for an increase of foreign investment in the State, resulting in
development for the country. However, Indonesian citizens and workers are
continuously faced with inhumane working conditions without any representation
by unions.   

 

A second advantage to
globalisation is that it allows developing countries to become advanced in
technology, which is necessary for a state to develop in this fast-paced
technological era. They are used for transfers in technology, dependent upon
the resource availability by foreign investors and Multi-National Corporations,
giving them the aptitude to achieve a secure competitive level on the global
marketplace. Globalisation in this instance benefits both; those with capital
and resources (in this instance, the developed countries) as they are able to
utilise the resources and workers of the developing countries. As well as,
benefiting those who do not have as much capital and resources (in this case,
developing countries) because they are unable to produce such developed
technologies alone, thus are able to be provided this. Hipkin and Bennett
(2003) state that the extent to which developing countries take part the in the
global economy, depends on their capacity to ‘respect where the importance of
technological transfer cannot be overemphasized.’ Okimoto and Saxonhouse (2012)
claimed that in Japan the proportion of exports of technology to imports augmented
from 0.12 in 1971 to 0.30 in 1983, due to foreign investment by Multi-National
Corporations, indicating an extensive amount of growth thanks to globalisation.

 

Nevertheless, foreign
investment in the form of technology development comes with a price for those
who do not have capital and resources. The lack of worker’s rights results in
many employees and local citizens being vulnerable to poor health conditions. This
clearly indicates how despite globalisation having the façade of benefiting
all, many people suffer due to it. A key example here is the Bhopal Disaster of
1984 where the American Multi-National Corporation, Union Carbide, exploded in
India. This pesticide-producing company brought developed technology into the
region, but nevertheless 500,000 suffered the consequences from the chemical
leak (Eckerman, 2005). This indicates the extent to which globalisation can
have negative impacts thrown at those who do not have the reliance of resources
and capital.

 

A third advantage outlined is that of
an enhancement in economic prosperity due to globalisation. Per Baghwati
(2004), globalisation has had a noteworthy part to play in the economic
development of developing countries, by offering them a ray of hope in the competing
global markets. Gangopadhyay and Chatterji (2005) further develop this
argument, stating that the decline in trade barriers has resulted in an
increase of movement in commerce from one country to other countries. An
example of this is the South Asian Free Trade Area (SAFTA) which was agreed on
the 6th of January 2004 in Pakistan, coming into effect in 2006. It allowed
free trade across the majority of South Asian countries such as Sri Lanka,
Afghanistan and Pakistan. This allows for competition to occur within the
integrated region, allowing countries to develop and grow, within the
globalised markets. Corsi (2009) argues that ‘competition is always an
effective way of enhancing innovation to produce better quality goods’. This
indicates globalisation’s attempt to include developing countries within the
global trade markets, so that products and trade can be easily accessible, by
making them more affordable and competitive in the area; even though they do
not have a large amount of capital and resources.

 

Despite this attempt at inclusivity of developing countries, a
stronger argument would suggest that globalisation still favours those with
capital and resources. According to the International Monetary Fund (2002),
‘the most recent World Economic Outlook studied 42 countries…for the entire
20th century. It reaches the conclusion that the distribution of income among
countries has become more unequal than at the beginning of the century.’
Although globalisation has allowed developing countries capital flow to
increase, Chan and Scarritt (2001) argue that this was the result of a rise in
exchange rates and inflammation pressures which has had a direct influence on
the current account of a State.  Despite this appearing to be effective,
it only benefits those with the resources and capital because the economy can
only develop in globalised markets if the export is higher than the import.
However, when trade barriers were reduced and deregulated policies were put in
place, only those who have the capital and goods can use those with less of
this, to produce commodities using the least cost possible, as well as
increasing their export. This system when analysed can seem to always favour
those with the capital and resources because the globalised markets only exist
on the basis and platform of both of these things; without capital and
resources the system would crash; thus, it can only ever empower those who have
both, leaving those who do not have either to straddle behind. 

 

Another key consequence of globalisation is the environmental
problems it poses. The deregulated environmental policies in developing
countries are one of the key attractions, developed countries look for. The
agricultural and urban activity, as well as factory conditions result in an
increasing amount of ecological devastation. As stated by Long (1990) ‘this is
clearly visible in soil erosion, deforestation, urban congestion, chemical
leaking, and air pollutants. An alarming example to illustrate this is China.
The Environmental Protection Agency outlines that any rating above 300 on the
air quality scale means that citizens should remain indoors as it is unsafe to
breathe. However, according to The Wall Street Journal (2013) China often
reaches the scale of 500 and 886. This is a direct result of globalisation,
whereby products are produced in developing countries thus resulting in environmental
damage on their land such as air pollution in China, in this scenario, which
leaves the developed countries to remain in an undamaged condition. Another key
example is Thailand and Indonesia, where about 70% of river pollution is due to
the textile industry being negligent towards its disposing of resources, which
in turn pollutes the citizens drinking water and medical help (Intal 1996). This
clearly indicates how globalisation favours those with resources and capital,
because those who do not have either must face the consequences of the damage
it creates, whereas those who do own both capital and resources remain
undamaged and must not invest in any repairs, or healthcare for its citizens
which face health problems from these environmental issues. 

 

Ecological modernisation has been noted to be a means of
sustainable development during the process of globalisation. This was produced
in mind for all countries, even those without capital and resources, with the
purpose to create less material waste and less energy intensive sectors. 

 

Despite all of these ecological methods, only developing countries
are able to afford and maintain sustainable development. The practicality
perhaps lies in the priority of the government whilst serving a country, which
is more than likely to be the growth of the economy and the stability of the
country. Once the country becomes ‘developed’ it is then on a stable platform
to consider sustainable development. This indicates that it is more accessible
and realistic for sustainable development to occur for those with capital and
resources, making globalisation once again a system that favours those with,
rather than without. According to Freeman (1987), this
technologically-intensive mode of production is not a realistic possibility for
developing or under-developed nations, due to the lack of financial funding and
maintenance. He continues by arguing that ‘rapid global technological progress
has often resulted in the intensification of uneven development rather than
enhanced opportunities’ for those without capital and resources.  

 

In conclusion, despite
the façade that globalisation is a system created to allow the world to develop
as one, the reality as illustrated by this essay indicates the opposite. Through
the sharing of resources and markets, by the developed countries who have
capital, and the developing countries who have resources, it attempts to show a
constructive way of acting like a ‘helping hand,’ whereby everyone benefits and
develops together. However, as studies have indicated, in the end globalisation
always favours those who have the resources and capital as it allows them to
control those who do not own them. Despite globalisation creating many job
opportunities in areas where poverty is high, the deregulation of policies to
attract host countries and Foreign Direct Investment, has resulted in worker’s
and citizen’s rights to also be deregulated, as seen in Indonesia.
Globalisation has also allowed for development in technological spheres,
however once again the technology development is monitored and utilised under
very poor working conditions, resulting in an enormous impact on citizen’s
health, as seen in India during the Pesticide Company leakage. Furthermore, globalisation
has somewhat been successful to create integrated regions with competition to
expand growth and development within regions by removing trade barriers, such
as the SAFTA. Yet, the environmental damage caused by the globalised world has
resulted in more death and costs, that indicate the struggle for growth faced
by developing and under-developed countries. Thus, one can conclude that
despite there being many strengths to Globalisation, there is always a weakness
which outweighs it proving that its structure always favours those with
resources and capital.