You are on page 1of 3

1. Globalization is good in actual fact but only its implementation that evokes concern.

Discuss the type of contribution required from developed nations to integrate low-income nations into the global economy. Suggest some measures that can reduce poverty in developing countries.

It has become more crucial that the government provide the right education and vocational training to ensure that workers have the opportunity to acquire the right skills in this fastchanging economies and well-targeted social safety nets to aid people who become displaced.
Good education definitely plays a key role in leveling the field. Developed nations should help low-income nations to achieve; (1) political and economic stability to create the right conditions for investment, (2) outward-oriented policies to promote efficiency through increased trade and investment, (3) structural reform to encourage domestic competition, (4) strong institutions and an effective government to foster good governance , (5) strong education and training to promote productivity, (6) and external debt management to ensure adequate resources for sustainable development. low income nations also experience the problem of brain drain. There is the need to stop medical professionals, doctors, nurses, engineers, and scientists from leaving their country to seek employment in developed countries. Further by allowing new technologies to enter developing countries, these countries already have an advantage as they do not have to produce those costy technologies. It should be noted that longterm economic progress comes mainly from the invention and spread of improved technologies. The scientific revolution was made possible by the printing press, the industrial revolution by the steam engine, and Indias escape from famine by increased farm yieldsthe so-called Green Revolution. The debate on globalisation bears a remarkable resemblance to the concerns that confronted Etzioni. Apart from definitional problems, I also see that the conflicts inherent to the content of the various debates on globalisation will further, destructively, polarise various interest groups. The debate therefore needs to urgently draw from, and build upon, the intellectual tradition of socioeconomics. An academic attempt at creating clarity in this debate will help all the stakeholders. As of now neither side has been able to present a balanced view and there is no doubt that the jury is as yet out on the direction of the consequences of globalisation.

2. Do you think Globalization increases poverty and inequality? Justify your answer.
The term "globalization" has acquired considerable controversial force. Some view it as a process that is beneficiala key to future world economic developmentand also inevitable and irreversible. Others regard it with hostility, even fear, believing that it increases inequality within and between nations, threatens the employment and living standards and thwarts (hinders) social progress. One mans food is another mans poison this is a saying most of us are familiar with. It appears that globalisation falls into this category in terms of its benefits and ills. Ever since it became the buzzword of policy makers during the early 80s, the debate about its consequences has swung between the extremes of pure social concerns and pure economic concerns. In fact, it is difficult to find many people who are indifferent to globalisation. Although there is no universally accepted definition for the term, there are strong opinions on its effects.

Critics, such as Stephen Roach, the Chief Economist and Director of Global Economic Analysis at Morgan Stanley state that that globalization is far more about disparities between nations than the assimilation of a flat world. They argue that globalization has created inequalities, loss of jobs, and environmental degradation. It is pointed out that in the latter half of the 20th century, the GDP of rich countries increased 6 times as against 3 times for poor countries. This is nearly twice the growth rate of poor countries. It is true that developing countries now have access to the Internet, technology and data that developed countries have, but this does not necessarily mean that it is balancedthat the technology of developing countries is as abundant or as advanced as those of developed countries, and that whether these developing countries are able to wholly utilize these technologies.

There are two faces of globalization. Anxiety about globalization not only exists in developing countries, which are having a hard time connecting to the flat world, but also in advanced economies.

These economies like the US are threatened that competition from "low-wage economies", such as China and India, displaces workers from high-wage jobs and decreases the demand for less skilled workers in the US because jobs for these workers are now being outsourced to low cost countriesthe developing countrieswith better-skilled workers. According to the World Economic Outlook, an IMF publication, in the 20th century, among 40 countries representing 90 per cent of the worlds population, though per capita income has increased considerably, the distribution of income among those countries was more unequal than at the beginning of the century.

The economy, as a whole, will thrive better under policies that embrace globalization by promoting an open economy and ensuring that everyone will get to partake of the benefits. But sadly, the yields from globalization are usually distributed unevenly among groups within countries, and some groups may lose out. For instance, workers in declining industries may not be able to make an easy transition to new and booming industries.

In the Statement of the 21st Annual Conference of the Philippine International Forum (PIF) on 27 March 2005, the group identified ways in which globalization negatively impacts small farmers, workers, women, and small businesses around the world. To them, globalization has resulted in the bankruptcy of small farms, the conversion of agricultural land into tourist areas and for industrial use, and has ushered in the dominance of big agri-businesses through monocropping and the imposition of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). During the 20th century, global average per capita rose strongly, but with considerable variation among countries. It is clear that the rift between the income of rich and poor countries has been widening for many decades. The World Economic Outlook studies 42 countries (representing about 90% of world population) and has reached the conclusion that the output per capita has risen appreciably but the distribution of income among countries has become more unequal than at the beginning of the century! (IMF, January 2002 report) The world may be flat as Friedman suggests, but like a flat board balancing on a log, it can easily and quickly become unbalanced as William Raynor proposes. The number of people living in poverty continues to grow. But most of these poor live in rural areas and in countries that are only weakly connected to the rest of the world. Thus, the poor are getting poorer and the rich, richer. We can see an erosion of national sovereignty and national borders through international agreements of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). It is also becoming more and more apparent that large multinational corporations increasingly control the world economy. The bottom-line is globalization appears to give more to those who have more. Countries with a strong growth record, pursuing the right policies, can expect to see a sustained reduction in poverty, since recent evidence suggests that there exists at least a one-to-one correspondence between growth and poverty reduction.

You might also like