Economic Globalization: Arguments For and Against

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Benefits of globalization
The similarity between privatization and globalization
Global operations by TNCs
Negative influence of globalization
Conclusion
Bibliography

Introduction

Many people associate economic globalization with the controversial issue of free trade. In some cases, economic globalization is associated with free trade and liberalization, improvements in economic conditions of less developed countries and enormous opportunities for multinational (MNEs) and transnational corporations (TNCs). Thus, there are many critics and economists who oppose economic globalization citing alleged benefits of globalization.

Benefits of globalization

Wade criticizes economic benefits of globalization and states that rich and powerful states exploit less developed countries. One of the ways by which the rich get richer (and the poor are made poorer) is through increased economic globalization. Globalization has been defined as the collapse of time and space, but more detailed explanations distinguish between “interdependence of markets and production in different countries;” “(perception of) living and working in a world-wide context;” and a “process that affects every aspect in the life of a person, community or nation” (Brown & Lauder 2001, p. 43).

In return for supplying much-needed loans to developing countries, the IMF and the World Bank demand from their creditor nations the implementation of so-called ‘structural adjustment programs’. Unleashed on developing countries in the 1990s, this set of neo-liberal policies is often referred to as the ‘Washington Consensus’. The various sections of the program were mainly directed at countries with large foreign debts remaining from the 1970s and 1980s.

The official purpose of the document was to reform the internal economic mechanisms of debtor countries in the developing world so that they would be in a better position to repay the debts they had incurred. In practice, however, the terms of the program spelled out a new form of colonialism (Wade et al 2006). The ten points of the Washington Consensus, as defined by Williamson, required governments to implement the following structural adjustments in order to qualify for loans: It is no coincidence that this program is called the ‘Washington Consensus’ (Hirst & Thompson 1999), for, from the outset, the United States has been the dominant power in the IMF and the World Bank.

Unfortunately, however, large portions of the ‘development loans’ granted by these institutions have either been pocketed by authoritarian political leaders or have enriched local businesses and the Northern corporations they usually serve. Sometimes, exorbitant sums are spent on ill-considered construction projects (Hirst & Thompson 1999). Most importantly, however, structural adjustment programs rarely produce the desired result of ‘developing’ debtor societies, because mandated cuts in public spending translate into fewer social programs, reduced educational opportunities, more environmental pollution, and greater poverty for the vast majority of people. Typically, the largest share of the national budget is spent on servicing outstanding debts.

Economic globalization increases world poverty in less developed nations. An addition to all of the factors making for world poverty has cropped up during the last few decades, in the form of widespread privatization of former governmental and voluntary functions. The most common meaning of privatization is the shifting of governmental functions and services to non-governmental entities, either to voluntary not-for-profit organizations, or to for profit businesses (Hirst & Thompson 1999).

The net result of privatization is more profit for some and less well-being for a vastly greater number of others; and purported efficiency at the cost of effective distribution among the population as a whole, with widening gaps, both socially and economically. “Even though growth opens the doors, the traction in the legs of the poor may not be enough to carry them through these doors. For example, tribal areas in India where poverty is acute may not be connected sufficiently to the mainstream economy where growth occurs” (Bhagwati 2004, p. 57).

The similarity between privatization and globalization

Such critics as Ohmae (1985) and Stiglitz (2002) underline that there is a symbiotic relationship between privatization and globalization. They go hand-in-hand because they both have the same ultimate goal: profits— profits at all costs and regardless of consequences. Corruption, ecological disaster, fraudulent practices, poverty, human degradation and a score of other ills stem from the oft-expressed (although usually cynical) ideology that in the long run, the market-driven society improves the lot of everyone. Stiglitz (2002) underlines that globalization is not simply a market-driven phenomenon; it has an ideological and political base.

That base holds that anything that increases profits is not only desirable and even moral, but absolutely imperative. This drive for profits enables and causes multinational corporations to exploit the cheapest labor, methods and materials they can find. Unfortunately, even the rise of such a person or persons would probably lead to minimal change in their own country or countries at best, since the very essence of globalization, as its name implies, is that it is supra-national. Consequently, even a towering figure with mobs of adherents in any one country would probably make little impact on events world-wide (Hirst & Thompson 1999).

Where privatization and globalization are concerned, there are very few organizations as such with the declared aim of opposing them, or even ameliorating their effects, although a few have come into being. Interestingly, the anti-capitalist movement—so far disparate, to judge by its many names—seems to be beginning once again to coalesce, and is taking on the nature of a movement formed through protests, rather than protests sponsored by movements. Its most significant activity so far has been the organization of demonstrations at international meetings of world-wide financial institutions, such as G-8, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization, as well as international conferences concerning social protest.

As concerns poverty as such, there is a dearth of anti-poverty organizations, movements against domestic poverty, or even protests specifically naming poverty as the enemy (Hirst & Thompson 1999). Israel, as one exception, has an anti-poverty lobby made up of representatives of organizations and individuals (including some of the poor), concentrating almost entirely on pressuring politicians. Most activities of anti-poverty organizations elsewhere are subsumed under general anti-capitalist activities, which may focus on ecology, empowerment, governmental changes, etc. It is difficult to conceive of a figure so popular and so powerful that he or she could halt the relentless growth of privatization and globalization. Kenichi Ohmae (1985) states:

“The global economy is becoming so powerful that it has swallowed most consumers and corporations, made traditional national borders almost disappear, and pushed bureaucrats, politicians, and the military toward the status of declining industries” (45).

Increase investments from rich to poor countries subordinate developing economies and prevent their unique economic growth. A distinction has been made between internationalization, in which a national unit engages in international trade; international agreements such as GATT; and globalization, in which the national unit ceases to exist and becomes a global enterprise A number of factors have led to the process called “globalization.”

As large corporations began diversifying their products and services by buying up smaller enterprises—usually for stock-market, income tax or other financial benefits—they became conglomerates.. The economic breakdown of the Soviet Union gave further impetus to globalization as many foreign firms hurried to establish units in so-called economies in transition. Free trade agreements of various kinds further supported this process. MNCs now account for between a quarter and a third of the world’s output, 70 percent of world trade and 80 percent of direct international investment (Yip 1995).

Contracting economies invariably react by cutting spending in the social sector, thereby exacerbating the condition of the poor. The paradox here is that when countries think they are doing well economically, they believe this is enough to lighten the burden on the lower-income classes; and when they are in a recession, they obviously don’t have the money to spend helping the same classes (Hirst & Thompson 1999).

On the one hand, globalization of financial trading allows for increased mobility among different segments of the financial industry, with fewer restrictions and greater investment opportunities. Dominated by highly sensitive stock markets that drive high-risk innovation, the world’s financial systems are characterized by high volatility, rampant competition, and general insecurity. Following Stiglitz (2002):

”Globalization can further be defined as the arrival of ‘self-generating capital’ at the global level: that is, capital as capital, capital in the form of the TNC, free of national loyalties, controls, and interests. This is different from the mere internationalization of capital, which assumes a world of national capitals and nation states; it is the supersession by capital of the nation state (10).

Global speculators often take advantage of weak financial and banking regulations to make astronomical profits in emerging markets of developing countries. However, since these international capital flows can be reversed swiftly, they are capable of creating artificial boom-and-bust cycles that endanger the social welfare of entire regions. Wade et al (2006) underline a negative impact of MNEs and TNCs on developing countries and their growth opportunities. This means that while MNCs may be sued or charged by the individual countries in which they operate, insofar as they operate in tens of countries, with immense resources, and the power to withdraw both personnel and assets at will, they are almost invulnerable to local laws. Following Friedman (2000):

“Globalization is the inexorable integration of markets, nation-states and technologies to a degree never witnessed before—in a way that is enabling individuals, corporations and nation-states to reach around the world farther, faster, deeper and cheaper than ever before” (p. 9).

The tobacco industry is one of the vivid examples of globalization and its impact on developing countries. Heavily fined for mendacity and creating health risks in the United States, they have blithely paid the fines (by raising their prices) and continued these practices in other parts of the world. For instance, in Papua-New Guinea, almost the only billboards on the roads—including narrow, unpaved country roads—are those of foreign cigarette companies (Brown & Lauder 2010).

Throughout Europe, the umbrellas that deck the much-vaunted sidewalk cafes are almost invariably decorated with ads for tobacco companies. Indeed, tobacco corporations have publicly declared that their next areas of exploitation are in Europe and in Africa where anti-tobacco legislation lags far behind (Yip 1995). Transnational corporations are the contemporary versions of the early modern commercial enterprises. Powerful firms with subsidiaries in several countries, their numbers skyrocketed from 7,000 in 1970 to about 50,000 in 2000 (Brown & Lauder 2001).

Enterprises like General Motors, Walmart, Exxon-Mobil, Mitsubishi, and Siemens belong to the 200 largest TNCs, which account for over half of the world’s industrial output. None of these corporations maintains headquarters outside of North America, Europe, Japan, and South Korea. This geographical concentration reflects existing asymmetrical power relations between the North and the South. Yet, clear power differentials can also be found within the global North. In 1999, 142 of the leading 200 TNCs were based in only three countries – the United States, Japan, and Germany (Brown & Lauder 2001).

Rivaling nation-states in their economic power, these corporations control much of the world’s investment capital, technology, and access to international markets. In order to maintain their prominent positions in the global marketplace, TNCs frequently merge with other corporations (Bhagwati 2004). Some of these recent mergers include the $160-billion marriage of the world’s largest Internet provider, AOL, with entertainment giant Time-Warner; the purchase of Chrysler Motors by Daimler-Benz for $43 billion; and the $115-billion merger between Sprint Corporation and MCI WorldCom.

A close look at corporate sales and country GDPs reveals that 51 of the world’s 100 largest economies are corporations; only 49 are countries. Hence, it is not surprising that some critics have characterized economic globalization as ‘corporate globalization’ or ‘globalization-from-above’ (Brown & Lauder 2004).

Global operations by TNCs

TNCs have consolidated their global operations in an increasingly deregulated global labor market. The availability of cheap labor, resources, and favorable production conditions in the global South has enhanced corporate mobility and profitability.

Accounting for over 70% of world trade, TNCs have boosted their foreign direct investments by approximately 15% annually during the 1990s. Their ability to disperse manufacturing processes into many discrete phases carried out in many different locations around the world reflects the changing nature of global production. Such transnational production networks allow TNCs like Nike, General Motors, and Volkswagen to produce, distribute, and market their products on a global scale. Nike, for example, subcontracts 100% of its goods production to 75,000 workers in China, South Korea, Malaysia, Taiwan, and Thailand (Yip 1995).

Transnational production networks augment the power of global capitalism by making it easier for TNCs to bypass nationally based trade unions and other workers’ organizations. Anti-sweatshop activists around the world have responded to these tactics by enlisting public participation in several successful consumer boycotts and other forms of nonviolent direct action. As a consequence, TNCs have become extremely important players that influence the economic, political, and social welfare of many nations.

High inflation and the frequent attempts of the government to deal with it created extremely turbulent and unpredictable business conditions. Economic stabilization plans caused turmoil all across industry as firms tried to understand the new rules of the game. Even minor interventions such as changes in price adjustment rules, foreign exchange regulations, or changes in interest rates and credit regulations caused problems. There was a strong incentive for firms to try to insulate themselves as much as possible from this environment, and vertical integration was one means of doing this (Yip 1995).

Thirdly, the regulatory regime used to be, and actually continues to be, complex, contradictory, and lack transparency. It is in fact almost impossible for an entrepreneur to be a law-abiding citizen, respecting all tax, safety, and other regulations that exist. Therefore, firms have various matters to hide at any given time. This creates a situation where firm owners and managers are suspicious of any contact that goes beyond arm’s-length business transactions. Firm owners repeatedly told me that this was one reason why they would neither let outsiders enter their premises, nor enter into any kind of information exchange with other business people (Wade et al 2006).

Following Hirst & Thompson (1999) there is evidence that some national economies have increased their productivity as a result of free trade. Moreover, there are some benefits that accrue to societies through specialization, competition, and the spread of technology. It is less clear whether the profits resulting from free trade have been distributed fairly within and among countries. Most studies show that the gap between rich and poor countries is widening at a fast pace. Free trade proponents have encountered severe criticism from labor unions and environmental groups who claim that the elimination of social control mechanisms has resulted in a lowering of global labor standards, severe forms of ecological degradation, and the growing indebtedness of the global South to the North. Following Bhagwati (2004):

The problem with this policy was that it often resulted in bad debts. A breakthrough, however, came with the invention of microcredit programs, which go down to the very poor. The problem was solved by lending very small sums to a number of poor clients for tiny investments that improved their ability to earn a livelihood, and by letting each borrower effectively monitor other borrowers” (p. 57).

The existing power structure and the compliance of the middle classes to date has militated against widespread success by this means in the more developed countries though it is difficult to foretell what direction middle class protest might take, were its own well-being to be threatened by the increasing tendency of the global economy to stream the world into rich and poor (Wade et al 2006).

Negative influence of globalization

Economic globalization has a negative impact on social security funds are invested, how they used by governments, and other such fiscal changes. Among the most widely bruited of these is the proposal to privatize social security by investing premiums in stock market shares, banks, insurance companies, and other financial institutions. In some of these proposals, the government would simply invest the sums received through the payroll tax, and make payments from the profits (Wade et al 2006).

In other cases, the investments would be made in the name of the individual beneficiaries. In still others, workers would be free to make their own investments with the funds they would previously have paid into the program; and in still others there would be a combination of investments and continuation of social security coverage (Stiglitz 2002).

Conclusion

In sum, economic globalization has a negative impact on developing countries and allows rich states and their corporations exploit poor countries and use their resources as the main source of profits. During the last decade, wealthy countries have increased their attempts to establish a single global market through regional and international agreements such NAFTA and GATT. Rich states assure the public that the elimination or reduction of existing trade barriers among nations will enhance consumer choice, increase global wealth, secure peaceful international relations, and spread new technologies around the world. Thus, these actions and liberalization of trade lead to poverty and slow economic development of less developed states around the globe.

Bibliography

Bhagwati, J. 2004, In Defense of Globalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brown, P. and Lauder, H. Capitalism and Social Progress: The Future of Society in a Global Economy, London: Palgrave, 2001.
Friedman, Th. 2000, The Lexus and the Olive Tree: Understanding Globalization. Anchor; 1 Anchor edition.
Hirst, P. and Thompson, K. 1999, Globalization in Question: The International Economy and the Possibility of Governance, Second Edition; Cambridge: Polity Press.
Levitt, Theodore. 1983, “The Globalization of Markets.” Harvard Business Review, pp. 92-102.
Ohmae, Kenichi. 1985, Triad Power – The Coming Shape of Global Competition. New York: Freepress.
Stiglitz, J. 2002, Globalization and its Discontents, London: Allen Lane.
Wade, R., Kambhampati, U. S., Guista, M. D. 2006, Critical Perspectives on Globalization. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Yip, George S. 1995, Total Global Strategy – Managing for Wordwide Competitive Advantage. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.

Click Here To Order Now!