You are on page 1of 15

Globalization is the process of international integration arising from the interchange of world views, products, ideas, and other

aspects of culture. Globalization describes the interplay across cultures of macro-social forces. These forces include religion, politics, and economics. Globalization can erode and universalize the characteristics of a local group. Advances in transportation and telecommunications infrastructure, including the rise of the Internet, are major factors in globalization, generating further interdependence of economic and cultural activities. Though several scholars place the origins of globalization in modern times, others trace its history long before the European age of discovery and voyages to the New World. Some even trace the origins to the third millennium BCE. Since the beginning of the 20th century, the pace of globalization has proceeded at an rapid rate. The term globalization has been in increasing use since the mid 1980s and especially since the mid 1990s. In 2000, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) identified four basic aspects of globalization: trade and transactions, capital and investment movements, migration and movement of people and the dissemination of knowledge. Further, environmental challenges such as climate change, cross-boundary water and air pollution, and over-fishing of the ocean are linked with globalization. Globalizing processes affect and are affected by business and work organization, economics, socio-cultural resources, and the natural environment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalization

The worldwide movement toward economic, financial, trade, and communications integration. Globalization implies the opening of local and nationalistic perspectives to a broader outlook of an interconnected and interdependent world with free transfer of capital, goods, and services across national frontiers. However, it does not include unhindered movement of labor and, as suggested by some economists, may hurt smaller or fragile economies if applied indiscriminately. Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/globalization.html#ixzz2IiBx3EnI

Globalisation:-Meaning,Characteristics,Definition,ImpactsHistory
Today, we live in a global society. It is not a unitary society, nor is it an ideological community or state, but it is a single power network-. Mann 1993 Globalization' is both an historical fact and a political football. Toulmin 1999 Globalization is a fairly broad term that describes the phenomena of the local turning into the global, or the coming together of different aspects of the world into a single and identifiable state. Globalization is a process of interaction and integration among the people, companies, and governments of different nations, a process driven by international trade and investment and aided by information technology. This process has effects on the environment, on culture, on political systems, economic development and prosperity, and on human physical well-being in societies around the world.

Definiton David Held 1999-Globalization can be thought of as a process (or set of processes) which embodies a transformation in the spatial organisation of social relations and transactions - assessed in terms of their extensity, intensity, velocity and impact - generating transcontinental or interregional flows, and networks of activity, interaction, and the exercise of power Albrow-Globalization refers to all those processes by which the peoples of the world are incorporated into a single world society, global society International Monetary Fund -defines globalization as the growing economic interdependence of countries worldwide through increasing volume and variety of cross-border transactions in goods and services, free international capital flows, and more rapid and widespread diffusion of technology. International Forum on Globalization defines it as the present worldwide drive toward a globalized economic system dominated by supranational corporate trade and banking institutions that are not accountable to democratic processes or national governments. Immanuel Wallerstein, emphasize that globalization cannot be understood separately from the historical development of the capitalist world-system the different definitions highlight the ensuing debate of the roles and relationships of government, corporations, and the individual in maximizing social welfare within the globalization paradigms. McGrew 1992 -Globalization refers to the multiplicity of linkages and interconnections between the states and societes that make up the present world system. It describes the process by which events, decisions, and activities in one part of the world come to have significant consequences for individuals and communities in quite distant parts of the globe. Globalization has two distinct phenomena: scope (or stretching) and intensity (or deepening). On the one hand, it defines a set of processes which embrace most of the globe or which operate world-wide; the concept therefore has a spatial connotationit also implies an intensification of the levels of interaction, interc onnectedness or interdependence between the states and societies which constitute the world community. Accordingly, alongside the stretching goes a deepening of global processes. Robertson 1992-Globalisation is a process that comprises two simultaneous processes: global compression of the world and the intensification of consciousness of the world as a whole. Globalization does not simply refer to the objective process of increasing interconnectedness. It also refers to concsious and subjective matters (namely the scope and density of the consciousness of the world as a single place. "A social process in which the constraints of geography on social and cultural arrangements recede and in which people become increasingly aware that they are receding" (M. Waters, Globalization, 1995, p. 3). "[T]he 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 . . . . the spread of free-market capitalism to virtually every country in the world " (T.L. Friedman, The Lexus and the Olive Tree, 1999, p. 7-8). Meaning A precise definition of globalization is elusive, but it is widely accepted that the world is becoming increasingly interconnected in terms of its economic, political and cultural life and that information technology (IT) is deeply implicated in the change process. It is an often misused word, as are all of its derivatives: global market, global economy, global business, global players, global power elite and so on.J B Gelinas has defined globalization

as a system, a process and an ideology, a modern mythology and an alibi. Globalization may well be all these things, depending on ones point of view. System. As a system, globalization is the total control of the world by powerful supranational economic interests through a global deregulated market. It views, market as the mechanism by which transnational corporations exert and justify their influence. Their ambition is to convert the entire world in to one vast market which would encompass literally everything: water, the air, the soil, the sub surface, culture, health, education, information, money, work, the planets, gene pool and even the human genome. From this perspective, globalization is defined by its most direct effect, the comodification of the planet in toto. Process Globalization is also a process, a series of actions carried out in order to achieve a particular result.At the centre of the system there still remains insufficiently integrated sectors, such as agriculture, culture, services in general and life itself. Discourse Globalization is also a discourse. In this sense it is an ideology. Its role is to justify the established political and economic system and make people accept it as the only one that is legitimate, respectable and possible. The ideology of globalization is roughly the neo-liberal creed. The creed can be summed up in three articles of faith. I believe in private property. I believe in market laws. I believe in free enterprise and free trade Modern mythology As a modern mythology globalization stars the titans of triumphant capitalism at the zenith of its power. These titans are now tackling the colossal task of harnessing the earths technology and resources in their entirety in the pursuit of infinite economic growth. Alibi. Globalization is also a tremendous alibi. Presented as a natural, inevitable and irresistible phenomenon, it lets the major economic and political decision makers off the hook, in short it frees them of any social, environmental or moral responsibilities, the mantra being there is no alternative History of Globalisation When most people think of globalisation they think of the rapid expansion of trade, finance markets and corporate activity, and perhaps the associated decline in government power that has occurred in the last decade or two. Certainly, the term globalisation is little older than that, but the actual phenomenon of global expansion is much older and it has gone through a series of different stages that have culminated in the current situation. We need to understand this long history of globalisation to have some idea of where it is leading. Specifically, there have been five distinct but overlapping stages in the fifth-century long process of globalisation. We are currently in the

early phase of the last stage, which began around the middle of the 1990s and really accelerated after the 9-11 attacks. Still a long and complex debate is going on over the exact origin of economic globalization. One school argues it began as early as two thousand years ago when the Silk Road was established between the Mediterranean and China. Another school argues it began when Christopher Columbus sailed to the Americas in 1492. Historian Robbie Robertson claims there have been three major waves of globalization. First wave began with Columbus voyage in 1492 and that of Vasco da Gama in 1497 and ended before the industrial revolution which began in the eighteenth century. The second wave took off from the Industrial revolution up to the Second World War. The third wave has its beginnings since the Second World War up to the present day. Globalisation properly began in the late fifteenth century when one particular society consisting of the nations of northern Europe began to impose its ways onto the rest of the world through exploration, trade and conquest. This process, in which an increasingly large part of the worlds human, cultural and material resources were exploited to generate wealth and power for these European adventurers, changed from what was mainly an extensive operation to an intensive operation that eventually resulted in industrialisation in Britain, international mass industrialisation and then globalisation. The first stage of globalisation was from the late 1400s to 1815; the second stage was from 1815 to 1914; the third stage was from 1914 to 1968; the fourth stage was 1968 to 2001, whence the last stage began. The everdecreasing duration of each phase reflects the underlying impact of technology, the capacity of which has been advancing in an almost hyperbolic way. It was the late fifteenth century Portuguese prince, Henry the Navigator, who first sent his captains to explore the world and make a profit out of what they found. The rest of northern Europe followed and through force of arms, disease and religion, Europeans subjugated increasingly large regions and their populations. However, the expansion of the European powers was distorted and constrained by constant struggle at home for European and potentially global hegemonic ascendancy. This issue was disputed at various times by Portugal, Spain, the Netherlands, Britain and France. Nonetheless, whatever disruption it caused to world production and trade, military competition maintained pressure on development of technologies, which would form the basis of the industrial revolution. Furthermore, the constant warfare created the modern nation state and domestic and international finance operations. The power-struggle in Europe was resolved when Britain emerged as global hegemon after Waterloo, the Royal Navy policing the waves and sterling acting as defacto global currency. In this new liberal world order, new institutional forms (notably firms) and new technologies of transport (especially steam-powered rail and shipping) and communications (most importantly, telegraphy) enabled ever tighter control over day-to-day business, while the high financiers and statesmen maintained the system as a whole by wielding commercial and military power. It was mass industrialisation itself that caused the decline of the old system and the rise of the new, based on more direct control over industrial development by national governments and large, nationally oriented industrial firms. Unfortunately, a corollary of this trend was national chauvinism and warfare, the latter now highly industrialised. When the smoke eventually settled in 1945, a new hegemon, the United States, had arisen due to its unassailable industro-military power. A world order in which the American mode of development was translated across the world to those regions not controlled by communism lasted until around 1968. The stage that followed resulted from the weaknesses emerging in the existing system, the return to strength of private business interests - especially high finance - and the possibilities presented by new technologies largely developed out of the two world wars. These technologies, such as jet planes, computers and satellite communications, enabled the spread of intensified corporate activity across the globe. Along with this development went an ideological campaign by the private, increasingly corporate sector, and consequent privatisation and liberalisation of markets, all generally weakening the nation state. However, by the mid 1990s problems were

emerging just as the rise of the Internet seemed to epitomise the transformative structural power of what was now called globalisation. The continued rise of explicitly anti-globalisation movements, who fought police in Seattle and elsewhere, the demise of the multilateral agreement on investment (MAI), the Asian economic crisis and the dot.com bubble all indicated the limits of this stage of development. The response was clear in the strong ideological stance of the Bush Jr administration. The new unilateralism in fact reflected an intention to re-establish direct control over global issues by the US utilising new techno-military systems. The 9-11 attacks then gave Washington carte blanche. Although the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and growing pressure on other rogue states was the overt manifestation of this new control approach, the concomitant emplacement of systems of permanent surveillance and arrest over more and more of the worlds communications and transport arrangements was even more important. In effect, the current US government is endeavouring to re-establish direct control over global processes through increasingly extensive and intensive intelligence and military systems, and through a total dominance of the final contested realm, outer space. It is assumed that this combination of specific control systems and the maintenance of more abstract control though electronic finance markets will enable even greater extensive and intensive exploitation of human and material resources globally in the service of corporate-led economic development. Paradoxically, although this latest stage is manifestly American in authorship due to the central role of the US government, in reality it actually accelerates the creation of an increasingly integrated global society. Debates on Globalization : The Constraints and the Sceptics Globalization is complex and is constantly redefined as world trends keep shifting and changing.Sharply differing and conflicting views on the impacts and implications of globalization has been juxtaposed.These have ranged from a borderless world (Ohmae, 1990), deterritorialization of the world economy (Schotte 2000), skepticism about the extent and the novelty of globalization (Hirst and Thompson, 1995, 1996), and multinational domination (Korten 1995). An issue of central importance in the globalization debate today concerns the impact of increasing economic openness upon national economy. Openness has, therefore, been interpreted differently. There is a hot debate on the issue between two prominent schools of globalization Constraints and the Sceptics. The constraints school, often referred to as transformationalists observe that globalization is real, it has changed the nature and scope of state, but not displaced it. Globalization is seen to be intrinsically constraining, because openness involves the fall of national barriers to trade, investment and financial flows, exposure to increasing capital mobility (via the multinationalisation of production and growth of global financial markets). Also conformity with inter-governmental agreements requiring that governments should open their markets to foreign trade and financial institutions and eliminate certain subsidies to industry. The other school is the Skeptics often referred to as institutional adaptationists. They question the very existence of strong globalization. They often acknowledge important changes in the structure of international political economy. This school comprises of globophobes and globophiles. Both schools are anti-globalist. Globophobes advocates localization whereas globophobes advocates fair trade The Engines of Globalization The spread of globalization has been fed by many factors. One of the most important has undoubtedly been the ever compliant pro-globalization decisions made by the worlds governments. An another important one has

been institutions created by the economic globalization. Also of crucial importance has been the technology that allowed globalization to happen. Last but not least engine of globalization was global market. Transnational Corporations Transnational corporations (TNCs) operate across borders based in several countries at once. In the 1970s there were about 7000 TNCs in the world. By 1997 the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) estimateed 53000 of them with 448000 foreign affiliates.The area where TNCs wield some of the greatest influence is trade. Today the largest 500 TNCs control nearly 70 percent of global trade. About a third of world trade is conducted between different arms of the same TNCs. Seven TNCs control 85 percent of the worlds trade in grain, eight controls up to 60 percent of worlds trade in coffee seven account for 90 per cent of world trade in cocoa and three control 80 percent of the global trade in bananas.These TNCs are now the dominant catalyst of economic globalization and politics. Their growing power can be discerned from its economic might, reach and global sales. Like economic globalization, in general, the TNCs can be both negative and positive for domestic economy. If it brings in new technology, new employment and a significant level of foreign exchange, it can be a positive influence. If it crowds out existing business in a country, transfers little technology or know-how and ends up having an insignificant net influence on countrys foreign earnings, it can have a negative influence. The World Trade Organization (WTO) The Bretton Woods Twins: World Bank (WB) International Monetary Fund (IMF) Underpinning the influence of the WTO, IMF, WB and TNCs is what is known as the Washington Consensus or the Wall Street Treasury Complex. These are the labels for the common free market ideology. Several factors reinforce the influence of the Washington consensus. Historically it perpetuates an Anglo Saxon free market view. Much of the current economic liberalization ideology pursued by the Washington consensus was originally drawn from the philosophies of a high profile free market economist, Milton Friedman. He in turn was inspired by free market contemporary John Keynes and Austrian economist Friedrich Von Hayek. Their philosophies were championed by Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. These influences are reinforced by the decision-making structures of the IMF, the WB and the WTO. The Technological Engines of Globalization It was the technological change that allowed economic globalization to happen in the first place.Politicians facilitated economic development to happen, but technology has given it the means. Technological change, especially since the Second World War, has massively shrunk the world, making it more able than ever before to converge into one giant world supermarket and bank, The Telecmmunication Media IndustryAviation Industry Computer and Internet

Auto-mobile Industry Entertainment Tchnology Free Trade and Global Market: Supreme Institutions of Globalization Global Market Global market is powerful engine of globalization. It is the venerable innovation of the new global transnational economic order. In the global village, the market takes up all the space. It encompasses everything and tends to dominate all other institutions, particularly governments and the United Nations. The global market is totally dominated by transnational corporations. Global market is also private market. This market has predominance over all other social or political institutions. It has a permanent ambition to convert everything in to commodities including currencies, culture, information, education, health, services, water and air. It integrates all countries into a single homogenized model of development and trade. In the global market financial capital dominates all other sectors of the economy. This is the result of the predominant influence of banks, insurance companies, institutional sectors, hedge funds on the distribution of capital, mergers, acquisition and competition. Financial markets have become the judge and jury of all economic policies. The so-called free trade is done on this global market. It cannot be touched, smelled, sighted or percepted but all forms of transaction, from pharmaceuticals to even outsourcing contracts are done on this. Free - Trade Free trade is powerful catalyst of economic globalization. In simple terms, trade that is the buying and selling or the exchange of goods initially came about when certain resources and commodities could not be acquired locally or within specific societies. As societies grew and came into close contact with one another, barter and trade became a fundamental form of economic interaction.Trade is the most obvious manifestation of a globalizing economy. This international trade came about when essential raw materials were not available or it was not economically efficient to manufacture goods domestically. At the end of the Second World War, interest, enthusiasm and commitment to trade liberalization was exceedingly high among the major trading countries. This had persuaded more developing countries to integrate in to world economy, attracted by the possibilities of global market. The general decline in trade barriers, such as tariffs and import quotas, help further explosion in international commerce. The economic opening of countries that have traditionally been minor players in the world economy such as China and Mexico was another reason for intense international trade. But one force behind the import-export boom has passed all but unnoticed - the rapidly falling cost of getting goods to market. Characteristics of Globalisation Globalization / internationalisation has become identified with a number of trends, most of which may have developed since World War II. These include greater international movement of commodities, money, information, and people; and the development of technology, organizations, legal systems, and infrastructures to allow this movement. The actual existence of some of these trends is debated. Economically Increase in international trade at a much faster rate than the growth in the world economy Increase in international flow of capital including foreign direct investment Creation of international agreements leading to organizations like the WTO and OPEC Development of global financial systems

Increased role of international organizations such as WTO, WIPO, IMF that deal with international transactions Increase of economic practices like outsourcing, by multinational corporations Culturally Greater international cultural exchange,

Spreading of multiculturalism, and better individual access to cultural diversity, for example through the export of Hollywood and Bollywood movies. However, the imported culture can easily supplant the local culture, causing reduction in diversity through hybridization or even assimilation or synchronisation. The most prominent form of this is Westernization, but Sinicization of cultures also takes place. Greater international travel and tourism Greater immigration, including illegal immigration

Spread of local foods such as pizza, Chinese and Indian food/Pakistani Food to other countries (often adapted to local taste) World-wide Fads and Pop Culture such as Pokemon, Sudoku, Numa Numa, Origami,Idol series, YouTube, MySpace, and many others. Increasing usage of foriegn phrases. Example... "Amigo" and "Adios" are Spanish terms many non-speaking spanish people in the US understand, Most Americans understand some French, Spanish or Japanese without actually knowing the language. Development of a global telecommunications infrastructure and greater transborder data flow, using such technologies as the Internet, communication satellites and telephones Increase in the number of standards applied globally; e.g. copyright laws and patents Formation or development of a set of universal values

The push by many advocates for an international criminal court and international justice movements (see the International Criminal Court and International Court of Justice respectively). It is often argued that even terrorism has undergone globalization, with attacks in foreign countries that have no direct relation with the own country. Barriers to international trade have been considerably lowered since World War II through international agreements such as the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). Particular initiatives carried out as a result of GATT and the WTO, for which GATT is the foundation, have included: tariffs shipping. restrictions) Promotion of free trade Of goods: Reduction or elimination of tariffs; construction of free trade zones with small or no Reduced transportation costs, especially from development ofcontainerization for ocean Of capital: reduction or elimination of capital controls Reduction, elimination, or harmonization of subsidies for local businesses Intellectual property restrictions Harmonization of intellectual property laws across nations (generally speaking, with more

Supranational recognition of intellectual property restrictions (e.g. patents granted byChina would be recognized in the US) Impacts of Globalisation

Beck 2000-Globalization however the word is understood implies the weakening of state sovereignty and state structures. Beerkens 2004-The world-wide interconnectedness between nation-states becomes supplemented by globalisation as a process in which basic social arrangements (like power, culture, markets, politics, rights, values, norms, ideology, identity, citizenship, solidarity) become disembedded from their spatial context (mainly the nation-state) due to the acceleration, massification, flexibilisation, diffusion and expansion of transnational flows of people, products, finance, images and information Castelles 1998-The rise of [global] informationalism in this end of millenium is intertwined with rising inequality and social exclusion throughout the world.() Moreover, the process of social exclusion in the network society concerns both people and territories. So that, under certain conditions, entire countries, regions, cities and neighbourhoods become excluded embracing in this exclusion most, or all, of their populations. This is different from the traditional process of spatial segragation. Hoogvelt 1998-Globalization has rearranged the architecture of world order. Economic, social and power relations have been recast to resemble not a pyramid but a three tier structure of concentric circles. All three circles cut across national and regional boundaries. In the core circle we find the elites of all continents and nations, albeit in different proportions in relation to their respective geographic hinterlands. We may count in this core some 20 percent of the world population who are 'bankable'. They are encircled by a fluid, larger social layer of between 20 and 30 percent of the world population (workers and their families) who labour in insecure forms of employment, thrown into cutthroat competition in the global market. (...) The third and largest concentric circle comprises those who are already effectively excluded from the global system. Performing neither a productive function, nor presenting a potential consumor market in the present stage of high-tech information-driven capitalism Globalisation is dominated by transnational firms and financial institutions, operating independently of national boundaries or domestic economic considerations. Globalisation is associated with a restructuring of the nation state in terms of the deregulation of financial controls, the opening of markets, and notions of efficiency, and redefining the core business of the state. - Moja & Cloete 2001 The nation-state is no longer the organizing principle of capitalism and the 'institutional' container of class development and social life. - Robison&Harris 2000 Transnational class formation is therefore a key-aspect of the globalization process. () Dominant groups, especially the transnational capitalist class, have sought transnationalisation as a means of resolving problems of accumulation. - Robison&Harris 2000 There are five possible meanings for the word globalisation': internationalization, liberalization, universalization, westernization/ modernization and deterritorialisation. Globalization' has been used to describe each and all of these phenomena. Each of the first four possible meanings is declared redundant' as the basis of an adequate definition. Only the last deterritorialization' can provide that basis. For, according to Scholte, it alone identifies something which is historically new, which has a real causal significance that is irreducible to the others, and which therefore merits the use of a new term. - Scholte 1999 Why are so many people opposed to globalization? Once popular among business and corporate leaders, the term has been appropriated more recently by many groups on the political left. They are opposed to globalization for several reasons:

1. it is used as an ideology by the powerful to deceive the people about illusory benefits of a dehumanizing system; in other words, globalization is really a myth that needs to be exposed, a form of false consciousness that prevents people from seeing their true interests. 2. insofar as it stands for a real process, it perpetuates the inequity and exploitation inherent in capitalism; globalization polarizes the globe and therefore creates an even more unjust world. 3. it is not subject to democratic control and therefore cannot serve the interests of the people at large; new forms of democratic governance and economic regulation will be needed to overcome this problem. 4. due to the scale of change, it intensifies long-standing problems, such as the deterioration of the environment. Globalization has thus become a tool in the symbolic politics of oppositional movements, a rallying cry in their assault on diverse global ills. In part, this represents the revival of an old-left agenda after the end of the Cold War and the demise of communism as a viable ideological option. In part, it demonstrates the opportunities for mobilizing around new issues (e.g., human rights) presented by the concepts and networks created in globalization. Among "progressive" forces, it is fair to say, an anti-globalization consensus has been crystallizing that is also reflected in ties among activist organizations. Apart from this progressive opposition, there is also a more conservative kind. Various religious groups, notably Islamic activists, oppose globalization because to them it represents a civilizational threat: the imposition of alien values, homogenization of the globe on secular terms. Their opposition, supported by some nonreligious groups, often takes the form of a particularist defense of communal tradition. Both "right" and "left" opponents of globalization tend to regard the United States as a hegemonic power that influences globalization to its own advantage, harming the economic, cultural, and environmental interests of the rest of the world. Does globalization diminish cultural diversity? There are many reasons to think that globalization might undermine cultural diversity: multinational corporations promote a certain kind of consumerist culture, in which standard commodities, promoted by global marketing campaigns exploiting basic material desires, create similar lifestyles--"CocaColanization" backed by the power of certain states, Western ideals are falsely established as universal, overriding local traditions--"cultural imperialism" modern institutions have an inherently rationalizing thrust, making all human practices more efficient, controllable, and predictable, as exemplified by the spread of fast food--"McDonald" the United States exerts hegemonic influence in promoting its values and habits through popular culture and the news media--"Americanization" But there are also good reasons to think that globalization will foster diversity: interaction across boundaries leads to the mixing of cultures in particular places and practice--pluralization cultural flows occur differently in different spheres and may originate in many places--differentiation integration and the spread of ideas and images provoke reactions and resistance--contestation

global norms or practices are interpreted differently according to local tradition; the universal must take particular forms--glocalization diversity has itself become a global value, promoted through international organizations and movements, not to mention nation-states--institutionalization

To some extent, the issue of diversity is now the subject of global cultural politics, and therefore unlikely to be settled by argument and evidence. Scholars can offer some cautions: whether diversity diminishes depends on what yardstick you use (e.g., linguistic diversity may be more threatened than culinary diversity) homogenization and heterogenization may actually operate in tandem or even reinforce each other

Can globalization be controlled? The issue of controlling or regulating globalization concerns elite officials of states and intergovernmental organizations as well as opponents of neoliberalism in pursuit of global justice. They often share a sense that the current thrust of globalization may be irreversible and out of anyone's control. They have several good reasons to think so: one of globalization's driving forces, technological innovation, is inherently unpredictable

globalization results from the interplay of many parties (economic and political), none of which exerts dominant influence old regulatory agencies devised by states cannot control processes that exceed their territorial authority apart from minimal rules of competition itself, the world lacks a single set of rules that serves to regulate transnational behavior This concern has given rise to a now-fashionable interest in "global governance," or the design of institutions that authoritatively manage and regulate actions, processes, and problems of global scope or effect. While some believe such governance is desirable but lacking, others think it is in fact emerging in the work of various international organizations and groups active in civil society. Though advocates of global governance portray it as enhancing democracy, defenders of traditional democratic values and state interests have questioned such claims. How does globalization affect women? Many critics fear that globalization, in the sense of integration of a country into world society, will exacerbate gender inequality. It may harm women-especially in the South--in several ways: Economically, through discrimination in favor of male workers, marginalization of women in unpaid or informal labor, exploitation of women in low-wage sweatshop settings, and/or impoverishment though loss of traditional sources of income. Politically, through exclusion from the domestic political process and loss of control to global pressures. Culturally, through loss of identity and autonomy to a hegemonic global culture.

At the same time, many women's advocates recognize that globalization affects different groups of women in different ways, creates new standards for the treatment of women, and helps women's groups to mobilize. In situations where women have been historically repressed or discriminated under a patriarchal division of labor, some features of globalization may have liberating consequences. While in many countries women remain at a significant disadvantage, the precise role of globalization in causing or perpetuating that condition is in dispute. Does globalization cause poverty? Many people who are concerned about the fate of the world's poor now attribute their plight to globalization. They argue that globalization has weakened the position of poor countries and exposed poor people to harmful competition. Their concern is understandable, especially since the gap between rich and poor has indeed become more glaring in recent decades. However, proving a direct link between economic globalization and poverty is a complex task for several reasons:

Globalization as a single cause. Specifying how globalization affects the economic status of countries or individuals is not easy. The effects of "globalization" may be due to competition among workers, or foreign investment, or trade, or government borrowing. There is no single measure of integration into the world economy. Each aspect of integration can have variable effects. Poverty as a multidimensional phenomenon. Poverty can be measured in different ways-for example, relative to a country's average, by consumption capacity, or in terms of overall well-being. Many people in many places historically have been poor for many reasons. Attributing (increases in) poverty to globalization therefore requires proving that globalization has become a dominant factor in producing a new kind of poverty. Globalization and overall global poverty. By common consent, globalization has proceeded rapidly since the 1980s. Yet according to the recent Global Poverty Report, the proportion of the world population living in poverty has declined from 29% in 1988 to 26% in 1998. Moreover, social indicators for many poor countries also show improvement over several decades. Globalization and poverty in specific countries. If globalization causes poverty, then countries that become more economically integrated via trade and investment should do worse. But some that have become more integrated into the world economy, such as China, have made progress. Others, for example in sub-Saharan Africa, that have remained relatively isolated have experienced declines. Such overall differences do not settle the issue, since many other factors may be at work, but they do cast some doubt on the overall argument. Poverty vs. inequality. There is ample evidence that the gap between the richest and poorest countries, and between the richest and poorest groups of individuals in the world, has increased. But inequality may increase without an increase in poverty rates, for example if globalization increases opportunities for the wealthy more rapidly than for the poor. Since increasing wealth may be due to many causes, showing that the rich get richer because the poor get poorer is trickier than recording and lamenting the fact of inequality as such. Globalization as catchall. One characteristic of arguments linking globalization and poverty is the generalization from specific instances of impoverishment to grand global developments. When governments assume debt in private capital markets and declining world demand for their commodities depresses prices and they seek funds from the IMF to repay loans and they agree to conditions for internal reform and these conditions impose hardship on their people, it is tempting to conclude that therefore "globalization" causes poverty.

Impact of Globalisation on Developing Countries and India


Impact of Globalisation on Developing Countries and India by Chandrasekaran Balakrishnan

Introduction: Globalisation is the new buzzword that has come to dominate the world since the nineties of the last century with the end of the cold war and the break-up of the former Soviet Union and the global trend towards the rolling ball. The frontiers of the state with increased reliance on the market economy and renewed faith in the private capital and resources, a process of structural adjustment spurred by the studies and influences of the World Bank and other International organisations have started in many of the developing countries. Also Globalisation has brought in new opportunities to developing countries. Greater access to developed country markets and technology transfer hold out promise improved productivity and higher living standard. But globalisation has also thrown up new challenges like growing inequality across and within nations, volatility in financial market and environmental deteriorations. Another negative aspect of globalisation is that a great majority of developing countries remain removed from the process. Till the nineties the process of globalisation of the Indian economy was constrained by the barriers to trade and investment liberalisation of trade, investment and financial flows initiated in the nineties has progressively lowered the barriers to competition and hastened the pace of globalisation

Definition: Globalised World - What does it mean? Does it mean the fast movement of people which results in greater interaction? Does it mean that because of IT revolution people can be in touch with each other in any part of the world? Does it mean trade and economy of each country is open in Non-Intrusive way so that all varieties are available to consumer of his choice? Does it mean that mankind has achieved emancipation to a level of where we can say it means a social, economic and political globalisation? Though the precise definition of globalisation is still unavailable a few definitions worth viewing, Stephen Gill: defines globalisation as the reduction of transaction cost of transborder movements of capital and goods thus of factors of production and goods.Guy Brainbant: says that the process of globalisation not only includes opening up of world trade, development of advanced means of communication, internationalisation of financial markets, growing importance of MNC's, population migrations and more generally increased mobility of persons, goods, capital, data and ideas but also infections, diseases and pollution
Impact on India: India opened up the economy in the early nineties following a major crisis that led by a foreign exchange crunch that dragged the economy close to defaulting on loans. The response was a slew of Domestic and external sector policy measures partly prompted by the immediate needs and partly by the demand of the multilateral organisations. The new policy regime radically pushed forward in favour of amore open and market oriented economy. Major measures initiated as a part of the liberalisation and globalisation strategy in the early nineties included scrapping of the industrial licensing regime, reduction in the number of areas reserved for the public sector, amendment of the monopolies and the restrictive trade practices act, start of the privatisation programme, reduction in tariff rates and change over to market determined exchange rates. Over the years there has been a steady liberalisation of the current account transactions, more and more sectors opened up for foreign direct investments and portfolio investments facilitating entry of foreign investors in telecom, roads, ports, airports, insurance and other major sectors. The Indian tariff rates reduced sharply over the decade from a weighted average of 72.5% in 1991-92 to 24.6 in 1996-97.Though tariff rates went up slowly in the late nineties it touched 35.1% in 2001-02. India is committed to reduced tariff rates. Peak tariff rates are to be reduced to be reduced to the minimum with a peak rate of 20%, in another 2 years most non-tariff barriers have been dismantled by march 2002, including almost all quantitative restrictions. India is Global: The liberalisation of the domestic economy and the increasing integration of India with the global economy have helped step up GDP growth rates, which picked up from 5.6% in 1990-91 to a peak level of 77.8% in 1996-97. Growth rates have slowed down since the country has still bee able to achieve 5-6% growth rate in three of the last six years. Though growth rates has slumped to the lowest level 4.3% in 2002-03 mainly

because of the worst droughts in two decades the growth rates are expected to go up close to 70% in 2003-04. A Global comparison shows that India is now the fastest growing just after China. This is major improvement given that India is growth rate in the 1970's was very low at 3% and GDP growth in countries like Brazil, Indonesia, Korea, and Mexico was more than twice that of India. Though India's average annual growth rate almost doubled in the eighties to 5.9% it was still lower than the growth rate in China, Korea and Indonesia. The pick up in GDP growth has helped improve India's global position. Consequently India's position in the global economy has improved from the 8th position in 1991 to 4th place in 2001. When GDP is calculated on a purchasing power parity basis.

Globalisation and Poverty: Globalisation in the form of increased integration though trade and investment is an important reason why much progress has been made in reducing poverty and global inequality over recent decades. But it is not the only reason for this often unrecognised progress, good national polices , sound institutions and domestic political stability also matter. Despite this progress, poverty remains one of the most serious international challenges we face up to 1.2 billion of the developing world 4.8 billion people still live in extreme poverty. But the proportion of the world population living in poverty has been steadily declining and since 1980 the absolute number of poor people has stopped rising and appears to have fallen in recent years despite strong population growth in poor countries. If the proportion living in poverty had not fallen since 1987 alone a further 215million people would be living in extreme poverty today. India has to concentrate on five important areas or things to follow to achieve this goal. The areas like technological entrepreneurship, new business openings for small and medium enterprises, importance of quality management, new prospects in rural areas and privatisation of financial institutions. The manufacturing of technology and management of technology are two different significant areas in the country. There will be new prospects in rural India. The growth of Indian economy very much depends upon rural participation in the global race. After implementing the new economic policy the role of villages got its own significance because of its unique outlook and branding methods. For example food processing and packaging are the one of the area where new entrepreneurs can enter into a big way. It may be organised in a collective way with the help of co-operatives to meet the global demand. Understanding the current status of globalisation is necessary for setting course for future. For all nations to reap the full benefits of globalisation it is essential to create a level playing field. President Bush's recent proposal to eliminate all tariffs on all manufactured goods by 2015 will do it. In fact it may exacerbate the prevalent inequalities. According to this proposal, tariffs of 5% or less on all manufactured goods will be eliminated by 2005 and higher than 5% will be lowered to 8%. Starting 2010 the 8% tariffs will be lowered each year until they are eliminated by 2015. GDP Growth rate: The Indian economy is passing through a difficult phase caused by several unfavourable domestic and external developments; Domestic output and Demand conditions were adversely affected by poor performance in agriculture in the past two years. The global economy experienced an overall deceleration and recorded an output growth of 2.4% during the past year growth in real GDP in 2001-02 was 5.4% as per the Economic Survey in 2000-01. The performance in the first quarter of the financial year is5.8% and second quarter is 6.1%. Export and Import: India's Export and Import in the year 2001-02 was to the extent of 32,572 and 38,362 million respectively. Many Indian companies have started becoming respectable players in the International scene. Agriculture exports account for about 13 to 18% of total annual of annual export of the country. In 2000-01 Agricultural products valued at more than US $ 6million were exported from the country 23% of which was contributed by the marine products alone. Marine products in recent years have emerged as the single largest contributor to the total agricultural export from the country accounting for over one fifth of the total agricultural exports. Cereals (mostly basmati rice and non-basmati rice), oil seeds, tea and coffee are the other prominent products each of which accounts fro nearly 5 to 10% of the countries total agricultural exports. Where does Indian stand in terms of Global Integration?

India clearly lags in globalisation. Number of countries have a clear lead among them China, large part of east and far east Asia and eastern Europe. Lets look at a few indicators how much we lag. Over the past decade FDI flows into India have averaged around 0.5% of GDP against 5% for China 5.5% for Brazil. Whereas FDI inflows into China now exceeds US $ 50 billion annually. It is only US $ 4billion in the case of India Consider global trade - India's share of world merchandise exports increased from .05% to .07% over the pat 20 years. Over the same period China's share has tripled to almost 4%. India's share of global trade is similar to that of the Philippines an economy 6 times smaller according to IMF estimates. India under trades by 70-80% given its size, proximity to markets and labour cost advantages. It is interesting to note the remark made last year by Mr. Bimal Jalan, Governor of RBI. Despite all the talk, we are now where ever close being globalised in terms of any commonly used indicator of globalisation. In fact we are one of the least globalised among the major countries - however we look at it. As Amartya Sen and many other have pointed out that India, as a geographical, politico-cultural entity has been interacting with the outside world throughout history and still continues to do so. It has to adapt, assimilate and contribute. This goes without saying even as we move into what is called a globalised world which is distinguished from previous eras from by faster travel and communication, greater trade linkages, denting of political and economic sovereignty and greater acceptance of democracy as a way of life. Consequences: The implications of globalisation for a national economy are many. Globalisation has intensified interdependence and competition between economies in the world market. This is reflected in Interdependence in regard to trading in goods and services and in movement of capital. As a result domestic economic developments are not determined entirely by domestic policies and market conditions. Rather, they are influenced by both domestic and international policies and economic conditions. It is thus clear that a globalising economy, while formulating and evaluating its domestic policy cannot afford to ignore the possible actions and reactions of policies and developments in the rest of the world. This constrained the policy option available to the government which implies loss of policy autonomy to some extent, in decision-making at the national level. ~ References: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Globalisation and Poverty: Centre for International Economics, Australia. WIDER ANNUAL LECTURE 6: Winners and Losers over two centuries of Globalisation: Jeffery G. Williamson. Globalisation Trend and Issues - T.K.Velayudham, Page 3, 66. Globalisation and India -Lecture : Prof .Sagar Jain, University of N.Carolina. Repositioning India in the Globalised World - Lecture : V.N.Rai. Globalisation and India's Business prospectives - Lecture - Ravi Kastia. "Globalisation and Liberalisation" Prospects of New World Order - Dr.A.K.Ojha, Third Concept - An International Journal of Ideas, Aug 2002. The Indian and Global Business - Jan 2004, Page 30. Globalisation: Imperatives, Challenges and the Strategies, Page 39.

You might also like