Term 2 Week 8 task 4

Is globalization a panacea for world economic development? - source from www.Worldpress.org

According to dictionary.com, globalization refers to increasing global connectivity, integration and interdependence in the economic, social, technological, cultural, ecological and political spheres. Many countries accredit the benefits from globalization and the word ‘globalization’ has become the buzzword mentioned in many countries. So, is globalization more of a blessing to the world as a whole?

Firstly, globalization helps to promote cultural exchanges between different countries. With the skyrocket rate of globalization, goods from various countries that are once out of reach are now emerging into the markets globally. Customs and cultures of the countries are unveiled; people from the world are able to learn more about a country’s cultures. This aids in promoting cultural exchanges globally and contributing to international communications. People who are interested in the goods or the country may even visit places that have never crossed their minds. It thus results in a global movement of people and the visitors, contributing to cultural exchanges, will expose local cultures.

With the improvement in cultural exchanges, it also brings about free trade between nations. Goods can be sold freely between nations; trade and capital flow across borders with unprecedented energy. As a result, more jobs will be created and countries will harbour the fruit of economy prosperity. This generates revenue for the country, boosts its development and improves the standard of living. This brings the steeping down from poverty for the poor nations.

However, globalization does not guarantee a promising betterment for one country. It has become painful, or rather, controversial to the developing world. For instance, it could result in widening the gap between the developed and developing countries and between the rich and the poor in countries. With the global shift, developed countries get to enjoy the cheapest labour forces from the developing countries. Agriculture products – which account for 30 to 60 percent of poor countries’ gross domestic product-, will be imported to rich countries, leaving inadequate food for its own people. This does not help the population to climb out of undevelopement. Adversely, deepens poverty and inequality — prosperity for a few countries and people, marginalization and exclusion for many — and implications for social and political stability, among as well as within nations. It thus not benefiting the world, but in fact, may be a disaster to some poorer countries.

Take for example, While China and India are now rejoicing the success of advance development, millions of their citizens are still living in poverty. They do not climb out of destitution. Ironically, globalization provides a rare platform for the rich to prosper. In fact, forty of the poorest nations, many in Africa, have had zero growth during the past twenty years. Ergo, what can we actually conclude from the beneficial of globalization?

Next, human labour forces would be depleted by the richer world. Rich companies from wealthier countries will take advantages of the cheap labours there. They will make use of the large pool of already available human forces. In developing countries, the literacy rate is low; people receive low education. As a result, they may not be a pool of skillful labour, and alternately end up in low wages. Poor countries will thus face a shrink in the work force and debilitates its own development. People may even migrant to other countries, deteriorating the already worsened condition of the nation. All these could cripple the economy, not flourishing otherwise.

Concisely, globalization is an advantage to the rich developed countries. It causes disastrous consequences in poor nations: widening the gap between the rich and the poor. This brings only social and political instability. Economic growth for the global will be distorted. To enjoy economic growth, globalization is not the must-route. Thus, I strongly think that it is not a panacea for economic development.