Home / Debates / Economics and Finance / Globalisation is good

Globalisation is good

Globalisation comes in for a lot of flack from all sides. It is blamed for making the world more western, riding roughshod over other cultures. It damages the livelihood of millions, particularly of farmers but also in Manufacturing in countries like the USA. Globalisation however has many upsides, and most likely creates more good than bad. In the 20th Century the times of least Globalisation have been the worst times whole most or increasing globalisation have been the best – both in terms of the economy and war and peace.

All the Yes points:

  1. Peace and Globalisation
  2. Being rich because of globalisation is anyone’s game

All the No points:

  1. widens the gap between the rich and the poor
  2. Globalisation is disastrous for biodiversity.
  3. survival of the fittest
  4. Globalization and Decentralization
  5. Globalization reduces diversification

Peace and Globalisation

Yes because…

As mentioned in the summary peace and globalisation seem to fit together. The most peaceful periods in the history of the industrialised world (so since about 1820 or so) have been the times where there is globalisation in action. So following the second world war as trade recovered from war and depression and there was the GATT later WTO processes. Through the 1990s with US hegemony and the dominance of neo-liberalism, and the period from 1870-1914 when the European powers expanded around the globe opening up new markets. Liberals have argued for centuries that trade is good for peace and prosperity. Trade creates interdependence between countries meaning that starting a war is more painful economically. Of course so long as everyone is interested in making money through trade why go to war?

No because…

The period before 1914, well we know how that ended! Trade and globalisation does not mean peace. Just because people like to make money does not mean that they think that peace is the way to do it. Independent non-European/Western countries would not have thought the period up to 1914 as peaceful. It was a period of massive expansion by the west, at the expense of every other culture on earth. It involved numerous small wars around the world.

Similarly both the periods after WWII and in the 1990s may have been relatively peaceful with no really big wars but there were a lot of small wars, such as in the Balkans.

Being rich because of globalisation is anyone’s game

Yes because…

Kenichi Ohmae, a guru of global company management, (Japanese) feels the idea that boundaries are diminishing and corporations are becoming increasingly international is something to celebrate.

the closer we come together , the fewer prejudices,stereotypes and fears we have/hold for each other.

this coming-together creates entrepreneurial opportunities for even those people in the least developed parts of the world. Trade thrives on constant exposure/interaction and is the capitalist measure of progress.

Globalization prods everyone irrespective of race,colour,creed and/or destination to be able to grab the brass ring of international cosmopolitan economic success.
It is anyone’s game.

No because…

widens the gap between the rich and the poor

No because…

As with everything capitalist, yes everyone is rich than they were before but their wealth relative to each other is greater for some and lesser for others. it is a zero-sum game, when somebody wins another loses.

Suppose overall wealth increases ten fold.
Then the difference between any two people’s wealth also increases ten fold.

point being, progress discriminates; in terms of real value even if it doesn’t in terms of proportion.

Yes because…

Globalisation need not be a purely capitalist phenomenon.

The argument depends on how globalisation is defined.

Globalisation is disastrous for biodiversity.

No because…

Since humans have spread across the planet, biodiversity is lost at a rate comparable to mass extinctions.

To me, globalisation means people globalising the planet. People always want to develop and this is leading to exploitation of the environment an loss of biodiversity.

Yes because…

yes, but people were exploiting the environment long before nation states were no longer stringently centralized.

Japan was fairly isolated for very long but that did not stop Japan from grazing cows and polluting her land.

With globalisaton comes awareness(of what is good and bad in universal terms, such as what is pollution? or what are human rights? etc) with awareness/knowledge comes power and with power comes responsibility. As borders/boundaries diminish and our differences are allayed , we have a greater sense of our responsibility towards to entire planet and knowledge(from across the world) about what to do.

survival of the fittest

No because…

Most people get trampled on in an economically competitive Hobbesian-type set up with little or no regulation/protection/safety-nets/safe-guards from loss.

Counter to counter:
Actually the whole point of this debate/Copenhagen etc is that animals/plants/biodiversity/the-planet/us cannot survive natural evolution in terms of us competing with them for resources and killing them off(endangered species list, extinct species list) and expending lifeforms/ethereal-resources that we depend on; exponentially so that our own survival is threatened.

Yes because…

Evolution has served plants and animals well. There is no reason to suggest it can’t serve companies and countries well too.

Globalization and Decentralization

No because…

Most countries especially the developing ones around the world are facing external as well as internal pressures to decentralize and are actually becoming part of the trend which if not universal is nonetheless the dominant trend. General causes include systemic forces like democratization and economic development; specifc causes however are different for different countries.

In some countries the policies of opening up of economy and policies devised to deal with the challenges posed by new ‘globalized’ world are interacting with domestic political and economic institutions in such a way so as to create incentives for decentralization. In addition there is external pressure coming from IMF and WB who implicitly and explicitly have declared ‘decentralization’ as their most favoured policy prescription especially for the developing world.

Yes because…

Globalization reduces diversification

No because…

Although true globalization has not yet been reached, plenty of Sci Fi books have been written about it, and the tendencies are clear, despite ‘subsidiarity’ in Europe, and the autonomy of the States in the United States of America. Such globalized fundamentals as the electricity supply , telephones, TV, music and film media formats, and particularly the internet, have reduced the diversity of these products, formats and services.

Yes because…

Yes McDonalds has spread around the world, as have things like western styles of dress but this ‘americanisation’ has not usually meant the elimination of native cultures.

Notify of
1 Comment
oldest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments