Globalization reduces poverty chiefly by providing jobs for citizens of impoverished countries – and, in many cases, export companies pay higher wages than other jobs. Higher competition for workers further increases wages. Globalization also promotes better nutrition, education, and health care, thereby improving the quality of living of those living and working in a host country. Overall, the number of people living in extreme poverty has declined since 1981, and the Four Asian Tigers are a perfect example of this phenomenon. In the 60s, Singapore, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and South Korea were ranked as “least developed countries, or LDCs (a current example of an LDC is Haiti). Through export industries, tariffs, and investments, these countries have flourished into some of the most developed countries worldwide, experiencing remarkable economic growth. Their GDP growth, for example, rose 7-10 percent. They also began earning high scores on the Human Development Index, and today all rank in the category of “very high development,” earning estimates between 0.886 and 0.898 in 2011.
Globalization and outsourcing also promote economic growth in host countries. They train workers in new technologies and business methods, causing a direct increase in human capital. The Bangladeshi clothing factory workers who went on to become successful clothiers themselves are a classic example of this. Globalization introduces capital, skills, and technologies which would otherwise be absent from these economies. Oftentimes, GDP growth in LDCs is more than two times that of more developed countries. A recent example of high GDP growth is Qatar, which experienced tremendous growth in the 2000’s. Qatar made more significant progress than, say, the United States during this period, so it makes sense that their GDP growth should be more pronounced.
Image showing GDP growth for selected countries in 2009, 2010, and 2011 http://www.contrarian-investor.com/frontier-markets.html
Globalization has in many instances encouraged global cooperation by forging connections between needy and influential individuals, nations, and causes. For example, globalization paved the way for global leaders to meet in 1987 to discuss the thinning of the ozone layer. Globalization created a connection between them that may not otherwise have been present, and the convention was a success. In another case, whales brought to the brink of extinction by commercial whaling techniques. A commission was established, and, after coming under fire for allowing these practices to continue, it established an international band on the commercial hunting of whales. This example of cooperation is particularly touching because it involves a global movement to protect a defenseless species, and that movement’s ultimate success.
Participants in the International Whaling Commission http://iwc.int/members.htm
Globalization, through its promotion of economic growth, emphasis on global cooperation, and tendency to reduce poverty and enrich lifestyles, clearly has a positive impact on economies worldwide. Some argue that globalization erodes cultures, encourages materialism, and has negative environmental impacts. However, the benefits to our “global culture” far outweigh these paltry concerns.
Lil I really alike a the great vocab you used lol. But most importantly I like how you were able to back up your point while being concise and straight to the point. Your info gave a new prospective on how our global economy can benefit from international trade.
ReplyDeleteLil, all I can say is I wish you weren’t such a good writer because you make it so hard for me to argue my point (lol). I am very impressed on how well you argued that globalization is good for America and good for the world. I was fascinated that one change in economic policy can spark a enormous change in the global and fiscal importance of a nation. Export led economies are certainly productive and I got to admit that it has caused the standard of living in those countries and the health of their citizens have risen. I most certainly am in favor of countries having better healthcare, public transportation, industry, and efficacy of government but at what social and economic cost? Think of lesser developing countries like China, Brazil, and countries in eastern Africa. There are large groups of people in these countries who’s life revolves around farming, hunting, and gathering. However, these people’s ways of life are being threatened by human development. For example, there have been several instances where in countries like these farmers are forced to relocate because the government wants to flood their valley to make a dam or power plant. Another prevalent threat to these peoples way of life is damage to the environment. Because of global warming caused by carbon emissions, the dry and wet season become even more severe and these farmers struggle to grow enough provisions to make a living and to support their families in time when it impossible to grow crops. I can defiantly see the benefits of your argument but I respectfully disagree. I am a tried and true traditionalist and I think the less things change the better things are.
ReplyDelete