What are your views? Will globalization create a more peaceful or conflict laden world?
Globalization is a process of global economical, political and cultural integration. Yet as one may logically deduce its motive to be one that is altruistic, – to create a more homogenized and thereby peaceful world – what is apparent in the modern paradigm is one that is far from its original intention. On its way to creating a more peaceful world, globalization has instead engendered more conflicts than ever, an irony in itself.
The concept of globalization is not just confined to the economic or political realm, but it has also pervaded the sphere of cultures. True enough, globalization has opened doors for the exchange of cultures and traditions between nations. But what this brings with it is also the repercussion of culture and identity dilution. All thanks to globalization, nations around the world have been increasingly homogenized and their traditional rituals and practices have also been gradually eroded, or else tainted by the influences of other cultures. While homogeneity amongst people may serve to promote equality or at least equity, it may also breed conflicts sparked off by people who are hungry for a sense of identity. To these people, the paramount need to break out of the homogeneity could give rise to conflicts in order to show their dissatisfaction for the wearing away of their local cultures.
What are your views? Can we be part of the global economy and still retain our own unique cultures and traditions, or would we end up being mini-Americas?
If we pay close attention to the world’s most active markets, they are mostly economies that are globalized and in some way or another, westernized and Americanized. Being part of the global economy requires us to advance towards the next stage of development, and that implies in part that we have to adopt the ways and cultures of America. However, it must be understood that nations in the global economy may be mistaken to end up being ‘mini-Americas’ for the simple reason that America is the modern epitome of a nation in its most mature stage of development. Hence, in trying to align themselves closer to the Americans’ ways of life in hope that economic success comes their way too, nations aspiring to have a bigger share of the global market tend to mimic Americans in all their endeavours, and in the process, trade off their own cultures and traditions. Having said this, it is not impossible to retain the unique cultures and traditions a country has. Albeit the corroding effects of globalization on local cultures and traditions, something can be done by the locals in a bid to retain the cultures in the country, and this hinges on the extent of the willingness of people to carry out such course of actions and inadvertently, it also pivots on the level of acceptance on the part of the rest of the nation. Governments should take the lead in the preservation of unique local cultures and traditions. Already, many schemes have been piloted for this purpose. For instance, in Singapore, the National Heritage Board has been set up to help champion the development of heritage and cultures in the local context, and in recent years, annual national heritage week has been celebrated by an increasing numbe people. The abovementioned shows us that while we cannot entirely shun away from being influenced by America’s cultures if we want to be part of the global economy, we still have some deciding power over the preservation of local cultures and traditions.
Is Globalization Imperialism repackaged?
Because of the increased interconnectedness of the world due to globalization, with the transfer of manpower and knowledge, comes the exchange of cultures as well. However, the appeal of certain cultures, especially that of American popular culture, stands out more than that of others. Thus, globalization could be argued to be a new form of cultural imperialism, particular by the West.
This is because in many countries, such as in the third world, the effects of globalization can be best seen from the Westernization of the locals. For example in the case of Bangalore, the newfound financial and domestic independence that young women experience has been influenced by Wilsonian idealism on self-determination. Furthermore, consumerism in such countries has soared, and demand for American brands and modes of entertainment has soared. Thus, with American culture seeping into such countries at such rapid rates, it seems as if it is a new form of imperialism.
However, the extent of these influences is determined by the people in that country – how Westernized Asia has become depends on how much its people subscribe to these foreign ideas. Thus, it cannot be said that globalization is a new form of imperialism, as the adoption of new culture are not being forced onto people; rather, people in increasingly cosmopolitan cities have decided to embrace these cultures for themselves. Thus, even though there is a form of cultural supremacy, it is one that has been created by the choice of the people being captivated by it.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Globalisation - Response
1) Is globalization imperialism repackaged?
Imperialism is defined as extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, usually dominating its economic, cultural and political workings. On the other hand, globalisation reflects the increasing interconnectedness, integration and interdependency of the world today brought about by improvements in technology and telecommunication services.
Globalisation can be said to be imperialism repackaged
- Similar economic motives and hence outcomes for both processes: Imperialism resulted from the need for developed countries due to increased demand of cheap raw materials as well as to gain more markets and increase their consumer base as a form of maintaining their booming economy. Globalisation, similarly, is a process where countries seek to maintain their economic competitiveness by outsourcing their factories to lower-cost locations by utilising cheaper factors of production (i.e. labour) in those countries.
- In both processes, the winners (i.e. countries that benefit the most at the expense of others) are usually the developed countries that are economic juggernauts and have a strong political clout over other developing countries that may benefit unequally (e.g. due to profit repatriation in manufacturing industries) due to globalisation/ imperialism.
- Dilution of cultures may occur as a result of both the influx of foreign ideas from the colonial masters due to imperialism as well as increasing consumer convergence due to globalisation (i.e. more countries are consuming goods from all around the world)
Globalisation is not imperialism repackaged
- Imperialism means that a country loses its identity/ nationality totally as it is under the rule of another nation. However, globalisation retains the identity of each country, just that there is increasing interdependency between various countries.
- An advantage of globalisation involves the transfer of technology and skills to the developing world as workers learn to manufacture goods, but this is not seen in imperialism.
2) Will globalization create a more peaceful or conflict-laden world?
More peaceful
- Part of globalization deals with the creation of Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) and trade blocs (e.g. European Union) that allow more economic cooperation between countries
- Creation of international aid agencies such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank (WB) has alleviated poverty in some of the poorest countries e.g. the Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative by the IMF and offered assistance during emergency crises e.g. Debt Crisis in 1982
More conflict-laden
- Protectionistic measures by developed countries results in increased income inequality between the “haves” and the “have-nots”: measures such as the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) in Europe and huge subsidies given to cotton farmers in America have led to the developing countries being unable to match the low prices of those in developed countries and are thus unable to sell off their exports and earn income
- Despite the creation of agencies such as the IMF and WB, aid given usually comes with strings/ conditionalities attached such that developing countries are unable to repay their loans in the future and become worse off. Moreover, these bodies are designed such that the powerful Western nations are favoured (e.g. countries like US are allowed a veto, enabling to block decisions that go against their own economic interests.)
3) Can we be part of the global economy and still retain our own unique culture/ traditions? Or would we end up being mini-Americans?
Culture Retained
- Globalization will definitely impact countries, but their culture can be retained if there is government intervention. By continuing to celebrate different religious festivals such as Deepavali or Hari Raya, it will help to retain a country’s unique culture/traditions.
Culture not Retained
- Globalization will affect local culture due to language barriers. English is widely accepted as the universal language. As such, this will give rise to the erosion of certain languages such as dialects. As countries become more and more globalised, dialects will slowly be forgotten and eventually be gone for good.
Done by: Christian Chow, Eugene Ang, Samantha Tang, Justin Liu, Vionna Luah
09S07A
Imperialism is defined as extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, usually dominating its economic, cultural and political workings. On the other hand, globalisation reflects the increasing interconnectedness, integration and interdependency of the world today brought about by improvements in technology and telecommunication services.
Globalisation can be said to be imperialism repackaged
- Similar economic motives and hence outcomes for both processes: Imperialism resulted from the need for developed countries due to increased demand of cheap raw materials as well as to gain more markets and increase their consumer base as a form of maintaining their booming economy. Globalisation, similarly, is a process where countries seek to maintain their economic competitiveness by outsourcing their factories to lower-cost locations by utilising cheaper factors of production (i.e. labour) in those countries.
- In both processes, the winners (i.e. countries that benefit the most at the expense of others) are usually the developed countries that are economic juggernauts and have a strong political clout over other developing countries that may benefit unequally (e.g. due to profit repatriation in manufacturing industries) due to globalisation/ imperialism.
- Dilution of cultures may occur as a result of both the influx of foreign ideas from the colonial masters due to imperialism as well as increasing consumer convergence due to globalisation (i.e. more countries are consuming goods from all around the world)
Globalisation is not imperialism repackaged
- Imperialism means that a country loses its identity/ nationality totally as it is under the rule of another nation. However, globalisation retains the identity of each country, just that there is increasing interdependency between various countries.
- An advantage of globalisation involves the transfer of technology and skills to the developing world as workers learn to manufacture goods, but this is not seen in imperialism.
2) Will globalization create a more peaceful or conflict-laden world?
More peaceful
- Part of globalization deals with the creation of Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) and trade blocs (e.g. European Union) that allow more economic cooperation between countries
- Creation of international aid agencies such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank (WB) has alleviated poverty in some of the poorest countries e.g. the Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative by the IMF and offered assistance during emergency crises e.g. Debt Crisis in 1982
More conflict-laden
- Protectionistic measures by developed countries results in increased income inequality between the “haves” and the “have-nots”: measures such as the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) in Europe and huge subsidies given to cotton farmers in America have led to the developing countries being unable to match the low prices of those in developed countries and are thus unable to sell off their exports and earn income
- Despite the creation of agencies such as the IMF and WB, aid given usually comes with strings/ conditionalities attached such that developing countries are unable to repay their loans in the future and become worse off. Moreover, these bodies are designed such that the powerful Western nations are favoured (e.g. countries like US are allowed a veto, enabling to block decisions that go against their own economic interests.)
3) Can we be part of the global economy and still retain our own unique culture/ traditions? Or would we end up being mini-Americans?
Culture Retained
- Globalization will definitely impact countries, but their culture can be retained if there is government intervention. By continuing to celebrate different religious festivals such as Deepavali or Hari Raya, it will help to retain a country’s unique culture/traditions.
Culture not Retained
- Globalization will affect local culture due to language barriers. English is widely accepted as the universal language. As such, this will give rise to the erosion of certain languages such as dialects. As countries become more and more globalised, dialects will slowly be forgotten and eventually be gone for good.
Done by: Christian Chow, Eugene Ang, Samantha Tang, Justin Liu, Vionna Luah
09S07A
Monday, April 20, 2009
Response - Globalization
Is globalization imperialism repackaged?
At heart, imperialism refers to the policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations. Globalization on the other hand, is the process of transformation of local or regional phenomena into global ones, by which the people of the world are unified into a single society and function together.
The statement is true to the extent that Western Leaders, particularly the USA, have been the forerunner and leader in the global economic order, extending their power and influence all over the world. With globalization, we witness an integration of national economies into the international economy through mediums such as trade, foreign investment, capital flows and technology. For instance, through the creation of the Bretton Woods system (backed by USA) in 1944, consisting of the IMF, World Bank and GATT, 2nd, 3rd world economies are now exposed to western capitalist style of governance, one widely advocated and used by these Western Leaders. This is an illustration of how imperialism, under the hood of globalization, has allowed for the USA to establish economic control and influence over these benefitting nations.
Nonetheless, it is an overgeneralization to commit to the statement, as national sovereignty is still very much relevant in today’s context. Countries affected by globalization still have control over state affairs and policies, unlike that of Western Imperialism in the past. For instance, in the 1980s, socialist Burma and Vietnam had closed their doors to international trade through adoption of a ‘closed economy’. Furthermore, it is obvious that the global economy and international relations today are upheld by interdependency between nations, in order to benefit mutually. Thus, it is safe to conclude that globalization is not imperialism repackaged, but a showcase of Western influence over global issues.
Will globalization create a more peaceful or conflict-laden world?
According to the Dell Theory, it is believed that no two countries in a major global supply chain will ever fight a war against each other. In other words, one of the reasons why countries will refrain from attacking each other is because they stand to gain economic benefits through cooperation. With globalization, increased interaction between countries would lead to increased cooperation, not just in the field of economics, but also in other areas such as political alliances. Increased dependence on other countries helps to build a more peaceful world.
However, the Dell Theory is an over-generalized and over-simplified depiction of the world; it does not apply to every single country. Certain countries (albeit very few) have limited interaction with the rest of the world despite globalization, such as North Korea, and for these countries, they have little to gain from other countries and remain a potential source of global violence and conflict. Some third world countries still remain enclosed and share little interaction with the rest of the world due to inherent constraints like social disorder and technological limitations, and globalization would fail to address the problems of these countries and the world would remain conflict-laden.
Although globalization has created several problems for the world and further propagated them, it is ironic (but thankful) that globalization has also allowed us to more efficiently keep track of such problems and clamp down on them with no national or geographical limitations. Therefore, we must acknowledge that globalization remains a double-edged sword with both good and bad implications, but more importantly, it is up to the global community, rather than the trend of globalization itself, to create a more peaceful world.
Can we be part of the global economy and still retain our own unique culture and traditions? Or would we end up being mini-Americas?
Undeniably, there may be some erosion of our culture and traditions as other cultures increasingly influence our practices and way of living. It is apparent that Singapore is changing at a rapid rate, becoming more westernized. This is part of integrating into the global economy, which is largely dominated by America. However, although that may be the case, I think that it is still possible to preserve our unique culture and traditions as globalization is taking place. This would have to depend on the efforts of the state and the people of the country. For instance, the state can help to preserve the heritage of the country by promoting traditional festivals. In Singapore, the government puts in great efforts to retain and enhance places with a sense of history and identity. These conserved buildings can be seen in Chinatown, Kampong Glam, Little India and Boat Quay, which were the early ethnic settlements.
However, as the saying goes, it takes two hands to clap. Efforts of the government have to go hand in hand with that of the people in order to successfully retain our culture and tradition. People of the new generation especially, do not see the importance of retaining our own cultures and traditions. This can be seen during Chinese New Year which has become just another opportunity to travel for many. If our own people do not see the significance of it, then it would be difficult to achieve both aims.
Chin Yik Sin
Goh Ying Ying
Zhang Zhefei
09S07A
At heart, imperialism refers to the policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations. Globalization on the other hand, is the process of transformation of local or regional phenomena into global ones, by which the people of the world are unified into a single society and function together.
The statement is true to the extent that Western Leaders, particularly the USA, have been the forerunner and leader in the global economic order, extending their power and influence all over the world. With globalization, we witness an integration of national economies into the international economy through mediums such as trade, foreign investment, capital flows and technology. For instance, through the creation of the Bretton Woods system (backed by USA) in 1944, consisting of the IMF, World Bank and GATT, 2nd, 3rd world economies are now exposed to western capitalist style of governance, one widely advocated and used by these Western Leaders. This is an illustration of how imperialism, under the hood of globalization, has allowed for the USA to establish economic control and influence over these benefitting nations.
Nonetheless, it is an overgeneralization to commit to the statement, as national sovereignty is still very much relevant in today’s context. Countries affected by globalization still have control over state affairs and policies, unlike that of Western Imperialism in the past. For instance, in the 1980s, socialist Burma and Vietnam had closed their doors to international trade through adoption of a ‘closed economy’. Furthermore, it is obvious that the global economy and international relations today are upheld by interdependency between nations, in order to benefit mutually. Thus, it is safe to conclude that globalization is not imperialism repackaged, but a showcase of Western influence over global issues.
Will globalization create a more peaceful or conflict-laden world?
According to the Dell Theory, it is believed that no two countries in a major global supply chain will ever fight a war against each other. In other words, one of the reasons why countries will refrain from attacking each other is because they stand to gain economic benefits through cooperation. With globalization, increased interaction between countries would lead to increased cooperation, not just in the field of economics, but also in other areas such as political alliances. Increased dependence on other countries helps to build a more peaceful world.
However, the Dell Theory is an over-generalized and over-simplified depiction of the world; it does not apply to every single country. Certain countries (albeit very few) have limited interaction with the rest of the world despite globalization, such as North Korea, and for these countries, they have little to gain from other countries and remain a potential source of global violence and conflict. Some third world countries still remain enclosed and share little interaction with the rest of the world due to inherent constraints like social disorder and technological limitations, and globalization would fail to address the problems of these countries and the world would remain conflict-laden.
Although globalization has created several problems for the world and further propagated them, it is ironic (but thankful) that globalization has also allowed us to more efficiently keep track of such problems and clamp down on them with no national or geographical limitations. Therefore, we must acknowledge that globalization remains a double-edged sword with both good and bad implications, but more importantly, it is up to the global community, rather than the trend of globalization itself, to create a more peaceful world.
Can we be part of the global economy and still retain our own unique culture and traditions? Or would we end up being mini-Americas?
Undeniably, there may be some erosion of our culture and traditions as other cultures increasingly influence our practices and way of living. It is apparent that Singapore is changing at a rapid rate, becoming more westernized. This is part of integrating into the global economy, which is largely dominated by America. However, although that may be the case, I think that it is still possible to preserve our unique culture and traditions as globalization is taking place. This would have to depend on the efforts of the state and the people of the country. For instance, the state can help to preserve the heritage of the country by promoting traditional festivals. In Singapore, the government puts in great efforts to retain and enhance places with a sense of history and identity. These conserved buildings can be seen in Chinatown, Kampong Glam, Little India and Boat Quay, which were the early ethnic settlements.
However, as the saying goes, it takes two hands to clap. Efforts of the government have to go hand in hand with that of the people in order to successfully retain our culture and tradition. People of the new generation especially, do not see the importance of retaining our own cultures and traditions. This can be seen during Chinese New Year which has become just another opportunity to travel for many. If our own people do not see the significance of it, then it would be difficult to achieve both aims.
Chin Yik Sin
Goh Ying Ying
Zhang Zhefei
09S07A
Blog response on globalization
Is globalization imperialism repackaged?
There is now greater dominant direct control by western nations (where most of the MNCs are based in) over other less economically developed countries (eg. China, India) by utilizing their manpower there. This makes these economies increasingly dependent and beholden to these economies, since most of their employment is dependent on these MEDCs.
Beyond that, media advertising and a growing culture of "brand conciousness" can be seen as a way for established Western brands to gain a foothold in other markets. Soft power, in terms of music and entertainment can also be a way in which new imperialism is being spread, with Hollywood dominating box offices everywhere.
However, the emergence and globalization of the local brand of Bollywood and its growing popularity and success worldwide can be a direct counter to Hollywood and thus, it can be seen that there is a limit to actually the west becoming more imperialistic through globalization, since there are still channels for such local industries to emerge and have a foothold on the world market. Brand consciousness can work both ways, since decidedly Asian ones etc are also making their way to the West.
Thus, it's not so much imperialism, more a cultural mishmash, with the cosmopolitan equilibrium is shifting closer to other countries now that they have access to the same tools as Western countries. There is a global shift from "western-led" globalization, to one which is truly globalized, and a reducing trend of "western imperialism" and proliferation of the world market with china leading the pack.
Will globalization create a more peaceful or conflict-laden world?
The Dell theory suggests that, “No two countries that are both part of a major global supply chain, like Dell’s, will ever fight a war against each other as long as they are both part of the same global supply chain.”
However, the thing is: “Not everyone is an employee of Dell”, so there are people who fall through the cracks.
Globalization makes it easier for them to form covert operations with each other, as can be seen from drug trafficking being on the rise, like how Nigerian drug traffickers can easily come to Singapore to hire drug mules. These drugs in turn fuel violence in other parts of the world, like Columbia.
Increasingly global terrorist networks due to globalisation also make it difficult for government to contain their activities. They are now more connected, and it has become easier to communicate and hold potentially dangerous global terrorist threats, like through spreading terrorist notions on the web, like the Mujahedeen's poison's handbook.
Although at the same time, globalization makes police efforts more concerted and they are able to track these terror suspects together. As they are now more reliant on global communications, it also makes them easier to track. Like how there are international efforts to police the Gulf of Aden, given the pirate crisis.
Overall, we feel that if we compare against previous events, globalisation has created a more peaceful world, with less major large-scale wars. There is now increasing goodwill between governments these days, with closer ties and summits to solve global problems. While random spates of violence stemming from certain margins in society may seem to be on the rise, we are also now more aware and sympathetic to the needs and problems with the marginalized today due to easier access to world news these days, and there are signs of measures to rectify and address these grievances, which will improve conditions and help prevent such acts from happening in the future. World leaders can like pressure leaders of these countries to actually address these issues.
Can we be part of the global economy and still retain our own unique culture and traditions? Or would we end up being mini-Americas?
We can be unique, as can be seen from Singapore’s efforts to preserve heritage, like Chinatown, and promote the arts scene, as they recognize the need to be unique to stand out in this globalized world. It can also help in strengthening our psychological defence, to give citizens a sense of belonging to the country. This is especially important in our globalized world, where many local talents often look to go abroad.
When we say “mini America”, we're already talking about a cross cultural thing. But since America really doesn't have much other than the cultures of its own immigrants, more a “melting pot” of cultures.
However, beyond that, we feel that what is most important is what the citizens of that country choose to embrace, like how there's this village in Italy that kicked out their Macdonalds. Thus, we can't turn into a mini America unless we let ourselves to.
Governments can help prevent the impressionable youths of today from becoming "mini-americans" by promoting our own culture, while not being xenophobic about it.
Response by: Abigail Kang, Xue Qian, Shi Hua, Nicholas, Edith of 09S07A
There is now greater dominant direct control by western nations (where most of the MNCs are based in) over other less economically developed countries (eg. China, India) by utilizing their manpower there. This makes these economies increasingly dependent and beholden to these economies, since most of their employment is dependent on these MEDCs.
Beyond that, media advertising and a growing culture of "brand conciousness" can be seen as a way for established Western brands to gain a foothold in other markets. Soft power, in terms of music and entertainment can also be a way in which new imperialism is being spread, with Hollywood dominating box offices everywhere.
However, the emergence and globalization of the local brand of Bollywood and its growing popularity and success worldwide can be a direct counter to Hollywood and thus, it can be seen that there is a limit to actually the west becoming more imperialistic through globalization, since there are still channels for such local industries to emerge and have a foothold on the world market. Brand consciousness can work both ways, since decidedly Asian ones etc are also making their way to the West.
Thus, it's not so much imperialism, more a cultural mishmash, with the cosmopolitan equilibrium is shifting closer to other countries now that they have access to the same tools as Western countries. There is a global shift from "western-led" globalization, to one which is truly globalized, and a reducing trend of "western imperialism" and proliferation of the world market with china leading the pack.
Will globalization create a more peaceful or conflict-laden world?
The Dell theory suggests that, “No two countries that are both part of a major global supply chain, like Dell’s, will ever fight a war against each other as long as they are both part of the same global supply chain.”
However, the thing is: “Not everyone is an employee of Dell”, so there are people who fall through the cracks.
Globalization makes it easier for them to form covert operations with each other, as can be seen from drug trafficking being on the rise, like how Nigerian drug traffickers can easily come to Singapore to hire drug mules. These drugs in turn fuel violence in other parts of the world, like Columbia.
Increasingly global terrorist networks due to globalisation also make it difficult for government to contain their activities. They are now more connected, and it has become easier to communicate and hold potentially dangerous global terrorist threats, like through spreading terrorist notions on the web, like the Mujahedeen's poison's handbook.
Although at the same time, globalization makes police efforts more concerted and they are able to track these terror suspects together. As they are now more reliant on global communications, it also makes them easier to track. Like how there are international efforts to police the Gulf of Aden, given the pirate crisis.
Overall, we feel that if we compare against previous events, globalisation has created a more peaceful world, with less major large-scale wars. There is now increasing goodwill between governments these days, with closer ties and summits to solve global problems. While random spates of violence stemming from certain margins in society may seem to be on the rise, we are also now more aware and sympathetic to the needs and problems with the marginalized today due to easier access to world news these days, and there are signs of measures to rectify and address these grievances, which will improve conditions and help prevent such acts from happening in the future. World leaders can like pressure leaders of these countries to actually address these issues.
Can we be part of the global economy and still retain our own unique culture and traditions? Or would we end up being mini-Americas?
We can be unique, as can be seen from Singapore’s efforts to preserve heritage, like Chinatown, and promote the arts scene, as they recognize the need to be unique to stand out in this globalized world. It can also help in strengthening our psychological defence, to give citizens a sense of belonging to the country. This is especially important in our globalized world, where many local talents often look to go abroad.
When we say “mini America”, we're already talking about a cross cultural thing. But since America really doesn't have much other than the cultures of its own immigrants, more a “melting pot” of cultures.
However, beyond that, we feel that what is most important is what the citizens of that country choose to embrace, like how there's this village in Italy that kicked out their Macdonalds. Thus, we can't turn into a mini America unless we let ourselves to.
Governments can help prevent the impressionable youths of today from becoming "mini-americans" by promoting our own culture, while not being xenophobic about it.
Response by: Abigail Kang, Xue Qian, Shi Hua, Nicholas, Edith of 09S07A
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Will globalisation benefit or disadvantage the poor in the world?
During the past decades, we have heard steady proclamations from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank stating that their main aim to push for globalization is to help the poor and alleviate their suffering. However, in recent years, critics of globalization have claimed that globalization does not benefit the poor but on the contrary, disadvantage them. Now, whose claims are correct? And more importantly, does globalization help the poor and if so, to what extent?
Before I begin with my response to the above question, I would like to define the word - globalization. Globalisation can be defined in many different ways but I would like to define globalization as the process of transformation of local or regional phenomena into global ones, a process by which people of the world are unified into a single society and function together. Hence, according to this definition, globalization is not limited to the economic aspect but can refer to any aspect like the social aspect whereby cultures are exchanged. In my response, I would talk about the benefits of globalization to the poor and then, the disadvantages followed by a conclusion which weighs the benefits and disadvantages on the whole.
The benefits of globalization for the poor are many.
Firstly, globalization enables developing countries to engage with the rest of the world and in so doing, increase their economic growth, solving the poverty problem in their country. In the past, developing countries were not able to tap on the world economy due to trade barriers etc. and as such, they were left out on the shelves, not sharing the same economic growth that the developed countries had. However, with globalization, the IMF and the World Bank encouraged developing countries to undergo market reforms and structural changes through large loans. Most developing countries started to take steps to open up their markets by eliminating tariffs and deregulating their economies etc. and eventually, multi-national corporations (MNCs) from developed countries were able to invest in these developing nations, creating jobs for the poor. For example, rapid growth in
Secondly, through increased economic growth, living standards and life expectancy for the poor are inevitably improved. With more wealth, developing nations are able to provide better health care services and sanitation for its people. The poor will not be plagued with diseases which arise from dirty water and improper health care and as such, people fall ill less often, increasing life expectancy. In fact, with more money, the government of developing countries can also provide education for the poor. Illiteracy rates will thus decrease. This is seen in
However, apart from the benefits of globalization, we must also note the many disadvantages that globalization has created for the poor.
Firstly, globalization increases the inequality between the rich and the poor. As mentioned in my first point, globalization enables developing countries to increase their economic growth. This may seem like a rosy picture for world poverty but in actual fact, this is not the case. Many developing nations do benefit from globalization but then again, many of such nations do lag behind. In the past two decades,
Another reason for the inequality between the rich and the poor is the fact that there’s always something at stake whenever developed countries help the developing nations. Hence, there’s some kind of condition put in place which benefits the developed country and to some extent, enables them to exploit the poorer nations. For example, after giving financial aid to
Secondly, globalization facilitates the spread of new diseases in developing nations. As mentioned in my second point, globalization increases living standards and hence, decreases the development of diseases. However, from another perspective, globalization does enable the spread of diseases from developed nations to developing ones. Due to increased trade and travel, diseases like HIV/AIDS, SARS and bird flu etc. are facilitated across borders. One good example will be that of
Thirdly, the indigenous and national cultures and languages of developing nations are usually eroded by modernized globalised cultures. With globalization, the locals of developing nations have more contact with the people of developed countries and hence, they get influenced, changing their once simplistic mindset and start seeing things in a different light. In fact, they start to acquire new languages like English etc. and modernized cultures like fast food too. With knowledge of greener pastures out there, locals also start to migrate to developed nations to enjoy a better quality of life. Hence, when such locals return to their homeland, they speak with a different accent, behave differently and become a totally different person, losing their traditional cultures and lifestyle. In fact, they too relate their experiences to the younger generation and encourage them to go abroad. As such, this becomes a vicious cycle and the traditional way of life is lost in the process. In the social aspect, globalization thus becomes a disadvantage for the poorer nations.
In conclusion, globalization brings many benefits and disadvantages to the poor in the world. However, the disadvantages tend to outweigh the benefits on the whole and hence, globalization is definitely not the solution to solve world poverty. Governments of developed nations should actually collaborate to formulate a new policy or strategy which would enable the progress of more developing nations, leaving fewer of such nations behind. However, we must also note that every strategy has its benefits and costs and hence, there are bound to be countries at the losing end.
Brian Sim, Jamie Chow, Yong Sheng, Toan, Bao Rong
Blog Response
Can we be part of the global economy & still retain our own unique tradition and cultures, or will we end up being mini-Americans?
The process of reshaping an economy and trying to fit it into the global market may lead to injecting new elements into the existing social culture,to include more cosmopolitic elements in the culture, especially in the entertainment industry -pop culture- in an economy. The entertainment industry is important because it represents one prominent aspect of human experience of the modern people today.
One of the most important multinational companies that influences culture to a large extent in our society is the MTV. MTV is introducing the American pop music into the local entertainment via many different channels like Youtube on the internet and Facebook advertising. Products authorised or directly produced by MTV are being sold in famous CD shops such as HMV and CD-Rama. Clips of MTV music videos are sometimes seen in public gathering places like McDonald's and inside shopping malls like Junction 8. The MTV not only introduces music, but also the American culture and values that are inherently displayed in most of its music products, and these culture elements- such as pursuit for the American Dream, liberal display of sexuality and individuality of teenagers - are no longer American but also becoming part of our local culture. More and more teenagers are seen wearing shirts featuring American pop singers like Eminem , and many are seen wearing the shirts with the lyric excerpts printed on it. This fashion signalled to us that the content of these musical products are being more and more accepted by local youth, and this to some exent made them mini-Americans because their culture is basically copied from the American pop culture, which is sold them by MNCs like MTV- thanks to globalisation.
Some may argue that local youth is becoming more and more media literate and is able to view these contents critically rather than just to accept all the culture contents blindly. Now, having said that teens are media literate, it is also noteworthy that the underlying assumption for this media literacy to function well in the youth is to provide them with a benchmark to allow them to distinguish the right from the wrong. The fact that local music industry is not as developed as the one in the States, and that not much local musical products that are on display advocates for our uniquely Singaporean culture (except for those special editions on sale during National Day Celebrations) raises the concern that our local youth may be losing their own identity, precisely because there is not enough counterparts in our local industry to offset the overwhelming influence of the American pop culture.
In conclusion, we think that our Singaporean youths are losing their own identity and they are
becoming mini-Americans in this more globalised world.
Chelsia Goh.Tan Kia Ern Michelle. Liu Ruisi. Teng Kersheng.
The process of reshaping an economy and trying to fit it into the global market may lead to injecting new elements into the existing social culture,to include more cosmopolitic elements in the culture, especially in the entertainment industry -pop culture- in an economy. The entertainment industry is important because it represents one prominent aspect of human experience of the modern people today.
One of the most important multinational companies that influences culture to a large extent in our society is the MTV. MTV is introducing the American pop music into the local entertainment via many different channels like Youtube on the internet and Facebook advertising. Products authorised or directly produced by MTV are being sold in famous CD shops such as HMV and CD-Rama. Clips of MTV music videos are sometimes seen in public gathering places like McDonald's and inside shopping malls like Junction 8. The MTV not only introduces music, but also the American culture and values that are inherently displayed in most of its music products, and these culture elements- such as pursuit for the American Dream, liberal display of sexuality and individuality of teenagers - are no longer American but also becoming part of our local culture. More and more teenagers are seen wearing shirts featuring American pop singers like Eminem , and many are seen wearing the shirts with the lyric excerpts printed on it. This fashion signalled to us that the content of these musical products are being more and more accepted by local youth, and this to some exent made them mini-Americans because their culture is basically copied from the American pop culture, which is sold them by MNCs like MTV- thanks to globalisation.
Some may argue that local youth is becoming more and more media literate and is able to view these contents critically rather than just to accept all the culture contents blindly. Now, having said that teens are media literate, it is also noteworthy that the underlying assumption for this media literacy to function well in the youth is to provide them with a benchmark to allow them to distinguish the right from the wrong. The fact that local music industry is not as developed as the one in the States, and that not much local musical products that are on display advocates for our uniquely Singaporean culture (except for those special editions on sale during National Day Celebrations) raises the concern that our local youth may be losing their own identity, precisely because there is not enough counterparts in our local industry to offset the overwhelming influence of the American pop culture.
In conclusion, we think that our Singaporean youths are losing their own identity and they are
becoming mini-Americans in this more globalised world.
Chelsia Goh.Tan Kia Ern Michelle. Liu Ruisi. Teng Kersheng.
Will globalization benefit or disadvantage the poor in the world?
Globalization has opened up the international market so that the developed countries could experience faster economic growth. Companies in developed countries begin to outsource in the less developed countries, as there are abundance of cheap labour. Although this maybe seen as exploitation by some, but to the poor, working at factories is at least better than plowing the land and facing the many uncertainties associated. Hence, globalization has benefited the poor by providing them with better working conditions and a more stable source of income in this aspect.
However, another aspect of globalization, foreign aid, has not been so successful. One particular problem came from the functioning of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and its policies. IMF is founded with the purpose of ensuring global economic stability. However, the policies IMF had designed for many developing countries were not suitable to their context. Also, the IMF is often oblivious to external views other than its own. Developing countries seeking assistance need to fulfill certain ‘conditions’ and would have their funding cut if they did not follow protocol. This often leaves the developing countries with little choice. For example, the financial market liberalization pushed by the IMF had caused mass bank failures in Kenya between 1993-1994 and soaring interest rates ensued. The forced cutbacks in health expenditure in Thailand by the IMF had allowed AIDs to increase.
In conclusion, globalization has its benefits but too often these benefits are not distributed to those most in need of them.
By Yande, Yadi, Arnold, Melissa and Chenxuan
However, another aspect of globalization, foreign aid, has not been so successful. One particular problem came from the functioning of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and its policies. IMF is founded with the purpose of ensuring global economic stability. However, the policies IMF had designed for many developing countries were not suitable to their context. Also, the IMF is often oblivious to external views other than its own. Developing countries seeking assistance need to fulfill certain ‘conditions’ and would have their funding cut if they did not follow protocol. This often leaves the developing countries with little choice. For example, the financial market liberalization pushed by the IMF had caused mass bank failures in Kenya between 1993-1994 and soaring interest rates ensued. The forced cutbacks in health expenditure in Thailand by the IMF had allowed AIDs to increase.
In conclusion, globalization has its benefits but too often these benefits are not distributed to those most in need of them.
By Yande, Yadi, Arnold, Melissa and Chenxuan
Response to the 3 quetions on GLOBALIZATION
Will globalization benefit or disadvantage the poor?
BENEFIT:
- The World Bank gives out loans to the poorer countries to support their national development. Therefore, the poor countries gain the monetary incentive to build their nations - Branches set up by MNCs in poorer countries provide source of employment for the people there. - allows developing nations to grow economically through trade (china, india able to exploit lower costs (comparitive advantage))
DISADVANTAGE:
- Inequality occurs as most of the benefits (in terms of profits) of globalization goes to the MNCs
(in the infopack, there is an example pointing out that from one shirt which costs $40, the workers only earn 15 cents off it)
- Exploitation of their resources due to globalisation
e.g. MNCs wanted to go to Bolivia to extract lithium, but the extraction would lead to environmental problems like pollution for the locals living there.
Can we be part of the global economy and still retain our traditions and cultures? or will we end up being mini Americans?
- Worryingly, there is indeed dilution of indigenous culture in some countries while they try to develop. Americanization is taking place in many Asian countries (fast food culture etc). Some liberal ideas from the west contradict with the traditional conservative beliefs, causing a dilemma in those who are caught up between the two.
- Although globalization leads us to adopting the American culture, but we can still do something about it and preserve our unique culture
One such problem: erosion of language: increasingly, students in Singapore are losing their ability to speak Chinese because they live in an environment where English is the official and most common language. Some of them only study Chinese for the sake of passing the compulsory exams. However, this problem can be solved by policies and campaigns implemented.
Moreover, globalization can be beneficial if we retain our own culture and learn to appreciate/understand foreign ones.
Globalization leads to peaceful or conflict-filled world?
CONFLICT:
- Globalization makes the world interconnected, and leads to more busybodies.
e.g. America tries to stop Iraq from its nuclear plan.
- Globalization widens the gap between the rich and poor when the unbalanced distribution of wealth is worsened by, Social tension is created.
- If there is a lack of understanding and communication, people from different culture may find it difficult to tolerate each other.
PEACE:
- Increased interdependence of countries means that gains out of wars/conflicts are minimized since national assets are at stake and countries affect one another’s economic survival.
We are: Wei Liang, QiaoEr, Claire, and Xiao2 ((:
BENEFIT:
- The World Bank gives out loans to the poorer countries to support their national development. Therefore, the poor countries gain the monetary incentive to build their nations - Branches set up by MNCs in poorer countries provide source of employment for the people there. - allows developing nations to grow economically through trade (china, india able to exploit lower costs (comparitive advantage))
DISADVANTAGE:
- Inequality occurs as most of the benefits (in terms of profits) of globalization goes to the MNCs
(in the infopack, there is an example pointing out that from one shirt which costs $40, the workers only earn 15 cents off it)
- Exploitation of their resources due to globalisation
e.g. MNCs wanted to go to Bolivia to extract lithium, but the extraction would lead to environmental problems like pollution for the locals living there.
Can we be part of the global economy and still retain our traditions and cultures? or will we end up being mini Americans?
- Worryingly, there is indeed dilution of indigenous culture in some countries while they try to develop. Americanization is taking place in many Asian countries (fast food culture etc). Some liberal ideas from the west contradict with the traditional conservative beliefs, causing a dilemma in those who are caught up between the two.
- Although globalization leads us to adopting the American culture, but we can still do something about it and preserve our unique culture
One such problem: erosion of language: increasingly, students in Singapore are losing their ability to speak Chinese because they live in an environment where English is the official and most common language. Some of them only study Chinese for the sake of passing the compulsory exams. However, this problem can be solved by policies and campaigns implemented.
Moreover, globalization can be beneficial if we retain our own culture and learn to appreciate/understand foreign ones.
Globalization leads to peaceful or conflict-filled world?
CONFLICT:
- Globalization makes the world interconnected, and leads to more busybodies.
e.g. America tries to stop Iraq from its nuclear plan.
- Globalization widens the gap between the rich and poor when the unbalanced distribution of wealth is worsened by, Social tension is created.
- If there is a lack of understanding and communication, people from different culture may find it difficult to tolerate each other.
PEACE:
- Increased interdependence of countries means that gains out of wars/conflicts are minimized since national assets are at stake and countries affect one another’s economic survival.
We are: Wei Liang, QiaoEr, Claire, and Xiao2 ((:
Is globalization imperialism repackaged?
By definition, imperialism is a policy of extending a country's power and influence through diplomacy or military force. With globalization, we see local and regional trends spreading out to the rest of the world through a mix of economic, sociocultural, technological and political influences. This can be attributed to international economic activities such as trade and investments as well as the wide usage of technology. To say that globalization is imperialism repackaged is true to a certain extent in that many developing countries are adopting methods of developing their economies that have been tried and tested by the Western economic powerhouses. In this way, we see that Western countries have in a way, extended their power and influence. This can be attributed to the setting up of MNCs in the developing countries and the consultative role the 1st World takes up. Coupled with the intervention by the 3 pillars of the global economy today, namely the World Bank, IMF and WTO, we see that Western countries have imposed their capitalist ways on the 3rd World. Hence, it can be said that globalization is imperialism repackaged.
However, it is important to note that the 3rd World still possesses some form of sovereignty in that they still have their own powers and rights and are not under extensive control by the Western nations. These nations still are able to make their own economic decisions, such as monetary policy and what industries to focus on. As such, while they may be influenced by the 1st World, they are in no way, under their legislation. Furthermore, there is increased interdependency nowadays. Outsourcing to the 3rd World in order to benefit from the lower costs of production has seen the 1st World's dependency on the 3rd World. The 3rd World has also acted as a larger market base for the established Western firms, while the 3rd World has been dependent on the 1st World for technology, expertise and even money. In conclusion, globalization is not imperialism per se, but rather an international exchange of influences and interdependency. Although it has been a case of strong Western influence over recent years that seemingly made globalization seem like Western imperialism.
Will globalization create a more peaceful or conflict-laden world?
More peaceful:
o Globalization results in countries becoming more dependent on one another economically. As supported by the Dell Theory, countries that are dependent on one another will refrain from going to war as a war may jeopardize their economy. An example would be Taiwan and China. Despite their territorial disputes, they have not gone to war with each other as they are actually highly interdependent on each other.
o Globalization has helped improve the financial situations in countries all over the world, particularly third world countries. As such, people are able to afford more education such that with education, they can seek good jobs and their standard of living increases. This can help create a more peaceful world as can be seen from the statements of the sole surviving bomber of the Mumbai train attacks. He testified that he joined the Lashka-e-Taiba (the terrorist group responsible for the attacks) as he had hoped to improve his family’s living conditions etc. As he was poor and uneducated, the only way he could earn money was to join the terrorist group. Hence, it can be seen that as globalization can help increase educational opportunities to people in the lower-income group, violent acts/terrorism can be reduced when the people are able to seek good, well-paying jobs.
More conflict-laden:
o While globalization can bring about wealth when there is reduction of trade barriers etc, globalization does not bring about wealth to everybody. This is because the increase in wealth is usually concentrated in the hands of the rich. Hence, the rich gets richer such that there is a widening of income gap. When this happens, the people in the low-income group tend to get dissatisfied such that they will try to retaliate through means such as violence/terrorism to make the world sit up and listen to them.
o Globalization has brought up the establishment of many Free-Trade Agreements (FTA). However, this has not totally improved the ease of trading in the economy due to protectionism still practiced by various governments. Forms of protectionism include export subsidies and tariffs. An example of protectionism would be direct subsidies whereby governments help their firms to adapt to the global market such that there is actually protectionism taking place.
Can we be part of the global economy and still retain our own unique culture and traditions? Or would we end up being mini-Americas?
We can be part of the global economy and still retain our own unique culture and traditions, however, this is only possible if action taken by the country to preserve its tradition through conservation and promotion of the cultural scene in the country.
By being part of the global economy, where market forces of demand and supply takes place, we see countries producing the goods and services that have higher demand, mostly from developed countries like America. With this increased output of such goods and services, and increased economic trade established between the countries established as a result, there is an increased level of integration and interdependence of the various countries' economies. With this increased interdependence between countries comes increased mingling of various cultures due to the effect of globalisation, enabled by improvements in infrastructure and IT. The worry here is that countries would subsequently lose their culture and forget their traditions as we all head towards a more Westernised way of living, which is seen in many developing countries as an ideal form of lifestyle with a higher standard of living, which they then pursue.
This can be seen in many newly industralised countries (NIEs) such as India, where the new generation is perceived to have a very different mindset from the older generations, having less respect for their festivals and rituals, which have been said to be the "very basis and foundation" of their culture. Instead, we see a new generation of Indians who have more lofty ambitions and aims in life, and wish to achieve them, which makes them busier and therefore having less time for these rituals. In another way, they are also less interested in these rituals as they pursue more practical ambitions of being able to stand up for themselves economically and aim to not be reliant on the nuclear unit of the family, which used to serve as an important "safety net" for the younger generation in the economic sense. By drifting away from the family, this important influence of the older generations slowly dissipates and this leaves the younger generation totally exposed to the commercialism that is the very reason why they are turning into mini-Americas, forgetting their own unique cultures and traditions.
Yet, we must not forget that the direction that a country takes with respect to the movement of culture within a country is largely dependent on the stance that the government takes. This stance refers to how much cultural exchange the government would allow for its country among other countries, which can be controlled and regulated. The reason why America for example is a giant melting pot of different cultures is because of the liberal stance which its government has taken, which has led to the large immigrant influx from Europe, Africa and South America. This eventually resulted in the prospering of their respective cultures within the country, becoming what we know of America, which is essentially very much like what the world would be like if everyone took the same stance as their government did.
We must, however, take into account that many countries put in a lot of effort to preserve their respective cultures and rich traditions, be it through investing in the local cultural scene or promoting nation-wide festivals and commemorating them. One prime example would be seen in China, where their government takes steps to maintain their traditions, be it the Chinese New Year rituals, which are maintained by most if not all Chinese yearly without fail, even if they do not happen to be in China, or investing in traditional Chinese medicine even if Western medical science is becoming more readily accepted by the rest of the world due to the greater scientific acknowledgement. While people would feel that the old-fashioned traditions would slow down their pace of innovation and development because they are outdated and no longer applicable to the new age of information and technology, many people still retain strong emotional bonds for their unique traditions which they had become accustomed to, passed down from countless generations before. This effort to retain their culture goes a long way in preventing them from turning into the mini-Americas mentioned earlier.
Countries also have further incentive to retain their respective cultures and traditions because of the role of tourism, which is becoming a more important source of income for many countries, creating jobs and increasing economic growth at the same time. One important form of tourism is heritage/cultural tourism, where one experiences the culture of the country primarily through its arts scene. By maintaining their unique culture through the investment into museums and supporting the tradition of indigenous cultural communities such as its festivals and rituals, the country would be able to attract more tourists to its country, which would be beneficial to its economy. An example can be seen in Italy, where opera remains an important source of entertainment in the country, and it is the site of the history of Roman culture, seen through the preservation of famous historical sites such as The Colosseum etc. With an increased focus on the preservation of the country's culture through the government's efforts once again, it is unlikely that the country would become a mini-America, even if it becomes a part of the global economy.
In addition, with the phenomenon of "glocalisation" existent in the world today, which is by definition people being willing and able to "think globally and act locally," countries are able to tap into their own strengths and areas of speciality for use on the global scale. An example would be yoga, which originated in India, and is now a very popular form of physical exercise and mental discipline around the world. At the same time, this helps to not only retain its own unique culture and lifestyle, but even seeks to showcase it to the world and change the lifestyle of others, preventing the country and others from turning into mini-Americas.
In conclusion, we can be part of the global economy and still retain our own unique cultures and traditions to a large extent, but only if the government chooses to mitigate the changes brought about by globalisation and take control over the state of the culture and lifestyle of the people.
By definition, imperialism is a policy of extending a country's power and influence through diplomacy or military force. With globalization, we see local and regional trends spreading out to the rest of the world through a mix of economic, sociocultural, technological and political influences. This can be attributed to international economic activities such as trade and investments as well as the wide usage of technology. To say that globalization is imperialism repackaged is true to a certain extent in that many developing countries are adopting methods of developing their economies that have been tried and tested by the Western economic powerhouses. In this way, we see that Western countries have in a way, extended their power and influence. This can be attributed to the setting up of MNCs in the developing countries and the consultative role the 1st World takes up. Coupled with the intervention by the 3 pillars of the global economy today, namely the World Bank, IMF and WTO, we see that Western countries have imposed their capitalist ways on the 3rd World. Hence, it can be said that globalization is imperialism repackaged.
However, it is important to note that the 3rd World still possesses some form of sovereignty in that they still have their own powers and rights and are not under extensive control by the Western nations. These nations still are able to make their own economic decisions, such as monetary policy and what industries to focus on. As such, while they may be influenced by the 1st World, they are in no way, under their legislation. Furthermore, there is increased interdependency nowadays. Outsourcing to the 3rd World in order to benefit from the lower costs of production has seen the 1st World's dependency on the 3rd World. The 3rd World has also acted as a larger market base for the established Western firms, while the 3rd World has been dependent on the 1st World for technology, expertise and even money. In conclusion, globalization is not imperialism per se, but rather an international exchange of influences and interdependency. Although it has been a case of strong Western influence over recent years that seemingly made globalization seem like Western imperialism.
Will globalization create a more peaceful or conflict-laden world?
More peaceful:
o Globalization results in countries becoming more dependent on one another economically. As supported by the Dell Theory, countries that are dependent on one another will refrain from going to war as a war may jeopardize their economy. An example would be Taiwan and China. Despite their territorial disputes, they have not gone to war with each other as they are actually highly interdependent on each other.
o Globalization has helped improve the financial situations in countries all over the world, particularly third world countries. As such, people are able to afford more education such that with education, they can seek good jobs and their standard of living increases. This can help create a more peaceful world as can be seen from the statements of the sole surviving bomber of the Mumbai train attacks. He testified that he joined the Lashka-e-Taiba (the terrorist group responsible for the attacks) as he had hoped to improve his family’s living conditions etc. As he was poor and uneducated, the only way he could earn money was to join the terrorist group. Hence, it can be seen that as globalization can help increase educational opportunities to people in the lower-income group, violent acts/terrorism can be reduced when the people are able to seek good, well-paying jobs.
More conflict-laden:
o While globalization can bring about wealth when there is reduction of trade barriers etc, globalization does not bring about wealth to everybody. This is because the increase in wealth is usually concentrated in the hands of the rich. Hence, the rich gets richer such that there is a widening of income gap. When this happens, the people in the low-income group tend to get dissatisfied such that they will try to retaliate through means such as violence/terrorism to make the world sit up and listen to them.
o Globalization has brought up the establishment of many Free-Trade Agreements (FTA). However, this has not totally improved the ease of trading in the economy due to protectionism still practiced by various governments. Forms of protectionism include export subsidies and tariffs. An example of protectionism would be direct subsidies whereby governments help their firms to adapt to the global market such that there is actually protectionism taking place.
Can we be part of the global economy and still retain our own unique culture and traditions? Or would we end up being mini-Americas?
We can be part of the global economy and still retain our own unique culture and traditions, however, this is only possible if action taken by the country to preserve its tradition through conservation and promotion of the cultural scene in the country.
By being part of the global economy, where market forces of demand and supply takes place, we see countries producing the goods and services that have higher demand, mostly from developed countries like America. With this increased output of such goods and services, and increased economic trade established between the countries established as a result, there is an increased level of integration and interdependence of the various countries' economies. With this increased interdependence between countries comes increased mingling of various cultures due to the effect of globalisation, enabled by improvements in infrastructure and IT. The worry here is that countries would subsequently lose their culture and forget their traditions as we all head towards a more Westernised way of living, which is seen in many developing countries as an ideal form of lifestyle with a higher standard of living, which they then pursue.
This can be seen in many newly industralised countries (NIEs) such as India, where the new generation is perceived to have a very different mindset from the older generations, having less respect for their festivals and rituals, which have been said to be the "very basis and foundation" of their culture. Instead, we see a new generation of Indians who have more lofty ambitions and aims in life, and wish to achieve them, which makes them busier and therefore having less time for these rituals. In another way, they are also less interested in these rituals as they pursue more practical ambitions of being able to stand up for themselves economically and aim to not be reliant on the nuclear unit of the family, which used to serve as an important "safety net" for the younger generation in the economic sense. By drifting away from the family, this important influence of the older generations slowly dissipates and this leaves the younger generation totally exposed to the commercialism that is the very reason why they are turning into mini-Americas, forgetting their own unique cultures and traditions.
Yet, we must not forget that the direction that a country takes with respect to the movement of culture within a country is largely dependent on the stance that the government takes. This stance refers to how much cultural exchange the government would allow for its country among other countries, which can be controlled and regulated. The reason why America for example is a giant melting pot of different cultures is because of the liberal stance which its government has taken, which has led to the large immigrant influx from Europe, Africa and South America. This eventually resulted in the prospering of their respective cultures within the country, becoming what we know of America, which is essentially very much like what the world would be like if everyone took the same stance as their government did.
We must, however, take into account that many countries put in a lot of effort to preserve their respective cultures and rich traditions, be it through investing in the local cultural scene or promoting nation-wide festivals and commemorating them. One prime example would be seen in China, where their government takes steps to maintain their traditions, be it the Chinese New Year rituals, which are maintained by most if not all Chinese yearly without fail, even if they do not happen to be in China, or investing in traditional Chinese medicine even if Western medical science is becoming more readily accepted by the rest of the world due to the greater scientific acknowledgement. While people would feel that the old-fashioned traditions would slow down their pace of innovation and development because they are outdated and no longer applicable to the new age of information and technology, many people still retain strong emotional bonds for their unique traditions which they had become accustomed to, passed down from countless generations before. This effort to retain their culture goes a long way in preventing them from turning into the mini-Americas mentioned earlier.
Countries also have further incentive to retain their respective cultures and traditions because of the role of tourism, which is becoming a more important source of income for many countries, creating jobs and increasing economic growth at the same time. One important form of tourism is heritage/cultural tourism, where one experiences the culture of the country primarily through its arts scene. By maintaining their unique culture through the investment into museums and supporting the tradition of indigenous cultural communities such as its festivals and rituals, the country would be able to attract more tourists to its country, which would be beneficial to its economy. An example can be seen in Italy, where opera remains an important source of entertainment in the country, and it is the site of the history of Roman culture, seen through the preservation of famous historical sites such as The Colosseum etc. With an increased focus on the preservation of the country's culture through the government's efforts once again, it is unlikely that the country would become a mini-America, even if it becomes a part of the global economy.
In addition, with the phenomenon of "glocalisation" existent in the world today, which is by definition people being willing and able to "think globally and act locally," countries are able to tap into their own strengths and areas of speciality for use on the global scale. An example would be yoga, which originated in India, and is now a very popular form of physical exercise and mental discipline around the world. At the same time, this helps to not only retain its own unique culture and lifestyle, but even seeks to showcase it to the world and change the lifestyle of others, preventing the country and others from turning into mini-Americas.
In conclusion, we can be part of the global economy and still retain our own unique cultures and traditions to a large extent, but only if the government chooses to mitigate the changes brought about by globalisation and take control over the state of the culture and lifestyle of the people.
By Yuwen, Timothy, Ivan, Ruiting of 7A
Friday, April 17, 2009
Globalisation
Will globalisation make the world a more peaceful or a more conflict filled place?
PEACEFUL
- Economic prosperity for many countries; prosperity promotes democracy and the people will not want to go to war because resources and a stable lifestyle will have to be sacrificed for it.
- Tariffs are reduced in most countries as they become more open to trade
- Countries try to find their comparative advantage (eg. China's labour) and challenge high cost producers in rich countries.
- If every country produces goods based on their comparative advantage, global output would increase and if there is free trade, this would enrich all countries.
- E.g. India's call centre industry may collapse if she went to war with Pakistan, the industry leaders pressured the authorities not to go to war.
- Interconnectivity/interdependence
- Each country's issue becomes part of the world's issue, so a weak link in a developing country may affect the 'supply chain' and the top of these chains (i.e. big, rich economies) would be more inclined to help in the benefit of self-interest.
- If a country wants to go to war with another, other nations can help by mediation (it would not be beneficial to them if they went to war because precious resources would be lost, plus there could be economic repercussions in the world which would directly affect them)
CONFLICT
- Some developing countries may feel that it is unfair that the bigger economies are getting the most out of globalisation. May harbour grudges.
- Some people groups may also be unhappy that only the rich in society are benefitting (no trickle-down effect) E.g. India has young women working and spending like American women, but a short drive out of the urban area can have slums where there is no proper sanitation and running water. The widening income inequality may also contribute to social unrest within a country itself.
- Free trade all over the world may result in say, Country A having a consistent balance of payments surplus (basically more money inflow than outflow) which is okay by itself, but since BoP is a zero-sum game, another Country B would have more outflow of money than inflow (something like losing money). B may not be happy about her citizens buying so many imports from A and this may strain relationships between A and B.
PEACEFUL
- Economic prosperity for many countries; prosperity promotes democracy and the people will not want to go to war because resources and a stable lifestyle will have to be sacrificed for it.
- Tariffs are reduced in most countries as they become more open to trade
- Countries try to find their comparative advantage (eg. China's labour) and challenge high cost producers in rich countries.
- If every country produces goods based on their comparative advantage, global output would increase and if there is free trade, this would enrich all countries.
- E.g. India's call centre industry may collapse if she went to war with Pakistan, the industry leaders pressured the authorities not to go to war.
- Interconnectivity/interdependence
- Each country's issue becomes part of the world's issue, so a weak link in a developing country may affect the 'supply chain' and the top of these chains (i.e. big, rich economies) would be more inclined to help in the benefit of self-interest.
- If a country wants to go to war with another, other nations can help by mediation (it would not be beneficial to them if they went to war because precious resources would be lost, plus there could be economic repercussions in the world which would directly affect them)
CONFLICT
- Some developing countries may feel that it is unfair that the bigger economies are getting the most out of globalisation. May harbour grudges.
- Some people groups may also be unhappy that only the rich in society are benefitting (no trickle-down effect) E.g. India has young women working and spending like American women, but a short drive out of the urban area can have slums where there is no proper sanitation and running water. The widening income inequality may also contribute to social unrest within a country itself.
- Free trade all over the world may result in say, Country A having a consistent balance of payments surplus (basically more money inflow than outflow) which is okay by itself, but since BoP is a zero-sum game, another Country B would have more outflow of money than inflow (something like losing money). B may not be happy about her citizens buying so many imports from A and this may strain relationships between A and B.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)