Globalization - Good, Bad, or a little bit of both

[pampango]

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

Globalisation (or globalization) describes the process by which regional economies, societies, and cultures have become integrated through a global network of political ideas through communication, transportation, and trade. The term is most closely associated with the term economic globalization: the integration of national economies into the international economy through trade, foreign direct investment, capital flows, migration, the spread of technology, and military presence. However, globalization is usually recognized as being driven by a combination of economic, technological, sociocultural, political, and biological factors. The term can also refer to the transnational circulation of ideas, languages, or popular culture through acculturation.

Politicization of the debate in the United States

The study by Peer Fiss and Paul Hirsch suggests that the politicization of this discourse has emerged largely in response to greater US involvement with the international economy. ... Initially, college educated workers were the most likely to support globalization. Less educated workers, who were more likely to compete with immigrants and workers in developing countries, tended to oppose globalization. The situation changed radically when white collar workers started to blame immigration and globalization for their own increased economic insecurity. According to a poll conducted for the Wall Street Journal and NBC News, in 1997, 58% of college graduates said globalization had been good for the U.S. while 30% said it had been bad. When the poll asked a similar question in 2008 (after the financial crisis of 2007), 47% of graduates thought globalization was bad and only 33% thought it was good. Respondents with high school education, who were always opposed to globalization, became more opposed.

The debate in other industrialized countries

Philip Gordon, in a recent article in Yale Global, states that “(as of 2004) a clear majority of Europeans believe that globalization can enrich their lives, while believing the European Union can help them take advantage of globalization’s benefits while shielding them from its negative effects.” ... Part of the reason for the difference in response to globalization in US and EU lies in the fact that workers in the US have been more strongly impacted by factors like automation and outsourcing than their European counterparts. Income Inequality in the US, for example, is now much higher than in the EU. Gordon points out that workers in the EU feel less threatened by globalization. First, the job market in the EU is more stable than that of the US, and workers in the EU are less likely to accept wage cuts or loss of benefits. Second, social spending by governments in the EU is much higher than in the US. The situation is very different in the US, where there is a strong sense of individualism.

The debate in the developing world

A number of international polls have shown that residents of developing countries tend to view globalization more favorably than residents of the US or the EU. However, a recent poll undertaken by the BBC indicates that there is a growing feeling in the Third World that globalization is proceeding too rapidly. There are only a few countries, including Mexico, the countries of Central America, Indonesia, Brazil and Kenya, where a majority felt that globalization is growing too slowly.

Alternative ways of interpreting discourse on globalization

1) Hyperglobalists hold that autonomy and sovereignty of nation-states have been eclipsed by contemporary processes of economic globalization.
2) Sceptics hold that intensity of contemporary global interdependence is considerably exaggerated and that the hyperglobalists ignore the continued primacy of national power and sovereignty.
3) Transformationalists emphasize the way in which globalization has brought about the spatial re-organization and re-articulation of economic, political, military and cultural power.