Globalization: Two Sides of The Arguments Both for and Against

During recent decades, globalization, which is defined as “the process by which markets integrate worldwide” by Spence, Michael (2011), has emerged as one of the most widely debated phenomenon around the world. This is mostly due to the effects it has on areas such as the Economy, Politics and so on. However, as globalization brings several benefits to the world, it also carries with it many drawbacks as well. In this essay, I will examine two sides of the arguments both for and against this concept.

On the one hand, globalization can be seen as positive for business, political and social reasons. From a market-centered perspective, since it is an undeniable truth that the convergence of countries around the world has lead to a significant development of technology; communication, transport and travel have been proletarianized (Aliber and Click, 1993). This enables people around the globe to gain access to a large number of standardized products on a large scale, which means that everyone can purchase the same products anywhere around the world with little to no difference in price. Therefore, as companies now have to deal with demand not only from local customers, but international ones as well, they get “a new reality benefit from enormous economies of scale in production, distribution, marketing and management” (Aliber and Click, 1993). This reduces the cost of operating and thus, helps companies gain more profit. With regards to the effects globalization has on politics, it might be argued that international peace and enhanced security can be induced by it.

According to Karl W. Deutsch and his associates, “trade and other forms of intercultural exchange would help foster the development of a ‘sense of community’, which makes the resort to violent forms of conflict resolution increasingly unlikely” (Deutsch et al., 1957, Barbieri and Scheneider, 1999). Furthermore, it can also be maintained that countries are more interdependent on one another now, creating a higher chance that they will avoid conflict, as well as step up to provide security for each other in case of armed conflict towards one country. For example, Russia has offered to provide support in the fight against ISIS for Syria and this occurred thanks to the strong bond that was developed through a history of doing business together between these two countries, particularly with Russia being one of Syria’s biggest arms suppliers (Yan, 2013).

On an individual level, the first advantage that people reap from the help of globalization is the improved standards of living. As this phenomenon enables companies to become multinational, more jobs are created as such companies bring jobs global to find talents, thus leading to a rise in employment rates in host countries. This is especially beneficial to the standards of living of those in developing countries as well as their economies as a whole as they can gradually shift away from poverty. Moreover, the development of technology from globalization also serves to connect different people around the world. An example of this can be illustrated by the growing popularity of social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and so on. In the past, it would take days, or even months for a person from one country to reach another through the use of written letters. However, people can easily use the help of social media sites as mentioned via the Internet to talk to and make friends with those from other countries within only one click nowadays, as well as gain access to more information around the world, opening the doors to many international opportunities.

On the other hand, the business, political and personal arguments given above can be considered from the opposite angle. Firstly, globalized markets can lead to an increase in competition between corporations around the world. This can cause a number of different problems, with the most prominent being the issue of putting small local firms on a more disadvantaged side as they struggle to stay in the industry among larger multinational companies. This is even more the case as local labor, land and capital markets are increasingly taken, psychology and geographically, on the basis of what suits transnational organizations rather than what helps the locality (Scott, 1997). A probable negative consequence of this action is that global firms can gain a major influence over the local markets and even drive local companies out of business, which might bring economic benefits to host countries, but could eventually harm the growth of national firms. Secondly, some fear that globalization will take away a country’s national sovereignty and its ability to take independent action. As nations become more united, each major decision all needs to reach a consensus before being implemented. To elaborate, institutions such as the WTO and European Union have a potential to constrain the autonomy of national states because “states operating under the rule of law are caught in a web of obligations they cannot disregard easily”, placing several difficulties on the independence of nations (Sassen, 1996).

Finally, from a cultural perspective, alongside the integration of different backgrounds that brings people closer together and promotes diversity, globalization also poses as a threat to cultural heritage. The first possible explanation for this can be that global culture is overwhelming national cultures in the way that globalization is making national cultures become more irrelevant (Bird and Stevens, 2003). This observation suggests that since people are more exposed to a multicultural environment, they will forget about the traditions and values of their own cultures and become more biased towards others’, perhaps due to their lifestyles, cultural tastes or patterns. For instance, a large number of young Vietnamese individuals who are fans of Western music and films tend to carry a belief that the cultures of Western countries are better than Vietnamese’s due to a certain ‘image’ that is often projected in their media. Cases like this can bring a probable detrimental consequence of a one-world culture with implications of a loss of national and regional cultural diversity, as feared by critics such as Paz (1985) (Bird and Stevens, 2003).

In conclusion, although globalization can be advantageous with respect to business, politics and individuals, it can also have some detrimental effects on these areas.