Critical Review, Globalization - Good or Bad
Globalization refers to increased economic integration as a result of increased trade and investments which then leads to increased movement of people, goods, services, capital, and ideas across the world. The author of the article “Globalization - good or bad?” under review has highlighted the main reasons why globalization is a good thing that should be embraced by all nations. China and India have been cited as classical examples of how globalization can help transform the livelihoods of poor citizens and make them climb the social ladder into the middle class. In terms of International Trade, the author has described globalization as the platform that sets a level playground for both rich and poor countries. The author has also affirmed the less developed country can only improve their situation through the assistance of World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. I agree to a greater extent the assertions of the author except at some few issues which I total disagree.
The author overlooked the power of sovereignty of states, democracy, and the international justice system. The claim that developing countries can only improve their situation through these two global financial institutions is not accurate. Wallerstein (2004) pointed out that the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund is ‘training' poor countries to depend on them. Developing countries have difficulties servicing the loans they receive from these organizations. They find themselves overburdened by the huge interest rates and end up borrowing again from other sources including internal sources. This creates a scenario similar to the one of digging a hole to bury another hole. The problem still remains. In this regard, I view the two institutions as contributing to the slow growth of developing economies and not as the sole path to their economic prosperity.
[...] Martens & Zywietz (2006) suggest that globalization will improve cohesion and peace in this planet when all people shall see it as a single village which must be protected. This global peace and integration will ensure better environment for business hence increased economic development. Leaders of poor countries have predictably made the wrong inferences by imposing rich-country protectionist policies. Kaul, Grunberg & Stern (1999) pointed out that societal progress and development depends strongly on an adequate supply of global public goods and services. This is only possible through integration of nations. The author claims that multinationals are a powerful force, which benefits the world at large. [...]
[...] All nations should be encouraged to open up their business, and social structures invite opportunities of integration because they will lead to the betterment of livelihoods of the citizens through increased social-economic growth. Globalization is benefitting even those who really do not appreciate it. The benefits of globalization far outweigh the disadvantages. Those nations that embrace this new trend will experience higher economic growth rates. References Hurst E 2008,Social Inequality: Causes, Forms, and consequences, 6th ed., pp.41. Kaul, Grunberg, I &Stern, A 1999, Global communal Goods: global Cooperation in the 21st Century, UNDP, New York city, Oxford: University of Oxford Press. [...]
[...] In terms of International Trade, the author has described globalization as the platform that sets a level playground for both rich and poor countries. The author has also affirmed the less developed country can only improve their situation through the assistance of World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. I agree to a greater extent the assertions of the author except at some few issues which I total disagree. The author overlooked the power of sovereignty of states, democracy, and the international justice system. [...]
[...] The problem still remains. In this regard, I view the two institutions as contributing to the slow growth of developing economies and not as the sole path to their economic prosperity. Multinational companies in developing countries have been highlighted as better paying compared to the local firms and that foreign firms are not really oppressing their workers. Hurst (2008) claim that multinational companies are one of the social oppressions in less developed and poor countries. They offer jobs to locals at a higher wage than local firms, but this should not justify the poor, working conditions, job insecurity, or the prolonged hours of work often witnessed especially in the manufacturing industry. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
