Is globalisation really beneficial?

Article

Globalization - Good or Bad?
By Floyd Mann
Created 10/09/2003 - 23:00

"Globalization is not a phenomenon. It is not just some passing trend. Today it is an overarching international system shaping the domestic politics and foreign relations of virtually every country, and we need to understand it as such." As thoughtful people concerned about world affairs, our job is to pick up "globalization," examine it from all sides, dissect it, figure out what makes it tick, and then nurture and promote the good parts and mitigate or slow down the bad parts. Globalization is much like fire. Fire itself is neither good nor bad. Used properly, it can cook food, sterilize equipment, form iron, and heat our homes. Used carelessly, fire can destroy lives, towns and forests in an instant. As Friedman says: "[Globalization] can be incredibly empowering and incredibly coercive. It can democratize opportunity and democratize panic. It makes the whales bigger and the minnows stronger. It leaves you behind faster and faster, and it catches up to you faster and faster. While it is homogenizing cultures, it is also enabling people to share their unique individuality farther and wider."
Globalization has dangers and an ugly dark side. But it can also bring tremendous opportunities and benefits. Just as capitalism requires a network of governing systems to keep it from devouring societies, globalization requires vigilance and the rule of law. Anti-trust laws, the Securities and Exchange Commission, labor unions, charities, the Federal Trade Commission, and countless other agencies and organizations keep American capitalism in check. Similar transparent mechanisms are needed to make sure globalization is a positive force in the world. Globalization will always have cheerleaders who are blind to the destruction globalization can cause. And it will always have strident opponents blind to the way globalization gives some people their first opportunity to fulfill basic aspirations. As with most issues, the majority of people will be in the middle. They will see globalization not as something to worship or demonize. Instead, they will see it as something to mold, shape and manage for the betterment of everyone.




Commentary
Globalisation seems to be a reason as well as a solution to everything. People claim that some things, odd they might be, are done because the world is globalised. Such examples would be Englishmen making a Chicken Tikka Masala on a regular basis, claiming it as their own dish. This is despite the known north-Indian origin of the Chicken Tikka Masala. Enough said about globalisation, but is it really good or bad for the world? Will we humans be better off in a globalised world? To me, the answer is maybe. While globalisation has sensational implications in some areas, it does have its drawbacks in other areas. This is an essay to discuss and try to evaluate some of globalizations implications and outcomes.
On one hand, globalisation has done a few remarkable things for today’s workforce: Outsource. In his amazing book “The World is flat”, Thomas Friedman outlined some examples of outsourcing. He explained how most MNC’s have an office in India, where accountancy firms in America that “do” your taxes are outsourcing this work to accountants in India. There are even call-centers in India that take calls from all over the world. But how exactly does outsourcing benefit the world? Looking back, one can observe the answer. In the past, the world was a largely bipolar world: US vs. USSR. However, with ever more globalization, we are slowly stepping out of that phase and moving into a more multi-polar world, where there is the EU, BRIC, ASEAN, US, Gulf and so on. This “levelling” of the economic playing field has been an impetus to great economic growth.
On the political front, globalisation has also done great things. Ideas sharing and co-operation between governments has been very beneficial to the whole world. Furthermore, it has become much harder for governments to oppress its people. An apt example would be from Iran. This occurred when the election was supposedly rigged in Iran. Supporters or the opposition candidate were protesting in defiance of the government’s order’s, who threatened them that they would be arrested. Despite attempts to remove internet connection, mobile phone networks and foreign news, pictures and updates were still reaching all corners or the globe daily. This shows us how globalisation has brought a positive change in terms of certain restrictions on governmental power.

On the flip side of the coin, we see how crime and terrorism has become much more pronounced in a globalised world. In the past, countries not so connected and swift travel between different countries restricted to the rich. Nowadays, the world is so inter-connected and air fares are dropping. Crime is now an international threat. For instance, orders to hijack and crash a plane given from Afghanistan were carried out in New York. There are so many examples of criminals who carry out crimes in one country, before fleeing to the other side of the world. On a bigger level, criminal enterprises have become a global business. With such good connectivity, drug cartels and gangs communicate over the internet like all other humans do. This coupled with the cheap air fares could be one reason for the increase in drug crimes around the world, especially America. Drugs are transported from Latin America to the US through many different ways, including shipping, planes, border crossings and many more. Though the world has been trying to fix this problem by stepping up the battle to crackdown on drugs, it is believable that it is a lost cause. The problem has become too pronounced, and new crackdowns do not stop drug crimes, but just slightly lessen it. This justifies the claim that globalisation has brought some bad to the world.
There are other areas of human society like culture that have been short-changed through globalisation. The self-degradation of ethnic practises has been detrimental to betterment of society. In fact, very few people actually have their own culture. People and ideas move around some much and so fast that single nationalities are not really around. Global movement of people has contributed to “hyphenated identities”. For example, some people could be Indian-Chinese or Chindian, European-Asian or Eurasian, Australian-Indian etc. With such mixed up identities, things like art, music, food and other cultural activities are affected. You see British people claiming the Chicken Tikka Masala as their own favourite dish, and many “fusion” restaurants sprouting up in many places. You see interior designers furnishing rooms with a Indian-Ottoman theme. Such oddities might seem to add another dimension to a culture, but what you are actually doing is just losing 2 or more different cultures.
To conclude, I believe that that globalisation has both beneficial outcomes and constraints. Whether culture and crime prevention should come at the expense of promotion of economic activity and better political environment is impossible to decide. I think that maybe if people become aware of the changing nature of the world, we can actually make some changes to these issues and policies that shape our world. After all, “WE are the change we wish to see” Barack Obama