The Globalization Debate

Can globalization be a geo strategy? That is what appears to be when we read reports from experts in US about the ‘behind the scene’ parleys in the presidential teams of the past. After Henry Kissinger’s Tri-Polar World Geostrategy and Bush’s anti EURO geo strategies, subsequent presidents of US has harped on the strategy on globalization.

While some regions of the world have benefitted from such geo strategic initiatives, others have not benefitted and perhaps the humanity as a whole might have suffered damage. Anti – Globalization volunteers talk about the widening gap between the rich and poor countries of the world partly due to the Globalization. They also talk about the deteriorating labor policies like those in China, where global companies have compromised on the human values in their production units, while ensuring their global profits. They argue that global production is motivated by cheap labor, favorable labor policies of the host governments, and more importantly lax environmental laws. The middle classes of the investing countries have also suffered in terms of lost jobs and dwindling pay packages at home.

So who has benefitted from globalization? It is argued that 6.3 % of world population living in US controls 50% of the world wealth. Globalization strategy ensures this control of world wealth is maintained if not improved. US have certainly got richer by globalization, although the wealth is among the richest of the country and may not with the common people. The planet is becoming less habitable by the day contributed by the forces of globalization.

India and China as many other emerging economies also have certainly benefitted from globalization. However this benefit is still to trickle down to the neediest of the population there. Similar benefits have not been seen with most of other poor countries especially in the African continents. Chinese economic incursions in African countries have already been compared with modern form of imperialism, which has not benefited the poor people of Africa. Chinese deals with the dictators of mineral rich African nations, have only benefitted few individuals there.

So how would be the global economy of the deep 21st century? It can not be inferred that global economy would continue to harp on the globalization while criticism to these forces mounts. Russia has in recent times, demonstrated a pull back from these forces of globalization. Others may follow suit. So the global economy of 21st century is likely to be mixed bag of regionalization and certain degree of globalization. Most countries are likely to focus on trade with certain strategic partners with the motivation for secure transactions, convenience, location advantages, favorable political ideologies etc.

2 thoughts on “The Globalization Debate

  1. This is true that Globalization has some of the side effects, such as it may widen the ditch between haves and have-nots. As the author points out that India and China have been benefitted from Globalization but the poor African countries. The lot of African countries is still bleak, in spite of penetration of so-called Globalization. Basically, we need to dig deep to find out the causes behind it. As in the Sea small fish falls prey to the bigger one and as a fiish grows up, it starts making other small fish its prey. Same analogy applies to the phenomenon of Globalization also…..
    I opine that Globalization has atleast converted the world into a Global village and has facilitated to create uniformity and consistency in various facets including the dissimination of common/global technology. This concept of Commanality has caused the human civilization to grow by leaps and bounds. As in past, with lack of proper dissimination channels, the knowledge/skill/technology used to confined to a small span (or become extinct in certain cases).

    The Globalization of 21st century is different from the one of 20th century, which was primarily imperialism driven……….. Now the things are not as worse as were at that time.

    The article was a good need and I suggest in continuum, author needs to view the concept of Globalization in synergy, including its pros as well as cons.

    Thank you.


    Chandra Mani Sharma

  2. The critique is well founded and author does not contest the idea of globalization. The debate is still on, especially in the context of certain nations using their own dubious political models to benefit from the current type of globalization. The point in debate is Chinese model of growth and governance. It is radically different from those of democratic countries where major long term growth decisions take either very long time or are not taken at all. On the other hand Chinese authorities have no such hurdles to take effective long term decisions. Whether such Chinese capitalism is sustainable or not, is debatable, it is a doubt if we have the level playing field in the current globalized world, where starting from currency, to trade, to cost of production, to labor laws are in full control in certain large nations like China while other nations grapple with human rights issues & long democratic consensus within, and fail to benefit from the fruits of globalization. Ironically the same complaint is echoed by even US now, who is at the receiving end in today’s geo-political environment both politically as well as economically.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s