I believe that all of you would watch the remaining 12 minutes of the video documentary by Jonah Norburg on 'Globalization is good'.
To me it is an eye-opener from a lot of perspectives:
1. It shows us an interesting case of the positive impact of 'global capitalism'
2. It provides a cross-country comparison wherein the experiment related globalization was done and not done.
3. It provides a three-sided view of a country globalized, country globalizing and country which wants to stay away from it.
However, there remain more than a few questions to be answered:
1. Is it really the case as Jonah argues?
2. Is this really a balanced argument?
3. Isn't the latest recession a phenomenon which was brought on to us by the 'global capitalism' which Jonah describes as globalization?
What is your perspective on this? Debate it out.
Thursday, 15 October 2009
Is globalization really good?
Bookmark this post with:
Posted by Dr. Paurav Shukla at 13:15
Labels: channel 4, documentary, global capitalism, Globalization, international marketing, jonah norburg, marketing
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
13 comments:
According to the documentary, globalisation has a positive impact on some under-development economies. In any situation there are some positive and negative aspects.
The film is so well-designed, that in the end everyone come across with the agreement that globalisation has a positive effect. It doesn't give the opportunity to the viewers to derive their own perspectives and opinions. It seems to be dangerous for the author not giving an objective evaluation.
About the latest recession, it is a labyrinth finding the true facts of this phenomenon. I' ll leave this session for disgussion.
Looking for comments! :)
Very interesting answer indeed however you have dodged the main question Thanos: Is globalization really good?
Dear Thanos, I share your opinion about the disequilibrium of the argumentation of the film.
From my point of view, the positive sides of globalisation where mentioned clearly, but there was a lacking of the negative sides. Even though globalisation has a positive impact on developing countries it does also heavily affect the domestic economy of other countries. In this way one country becomes richer while another one gets competet with consequences on the domestic labour market.
Nevertheless, globalisation for me is a really good thing, considering it in an long term perspective.
For me, globalisation stands for worldwide competition. Taking the theory of Darwin, "survival of the fittest" as a basis, increased competition follows in increased profitability and efficiency of industries and therefore in an overall decrease of poverty. So even there a negative effects of globalisation in a short term perspective, it will be a benefit for all countries in the future.
However, is 'survival of the fittest' the correct maxim for business?
From my point of view, globalization creates a positive impact on the regional economies of Europe, Asia-Pacific and North America.
The trade and transactions have been increased rapidly since the last years. As a consequence, the competition between the multinationals, gave the opportunity to the public to consume high-quality products and services. However, not many countries have followed with the same 'passion' this economic growth.
It is extremely hard, as impossible every country in the world to be wealthy and have on a quit same level the wages, quality of product and services. As history provides as with a lot of similar situations, there will be a continual controversy between the nations, about the control of natural resources, trade and cultural impact.
I agree with Katharina, that 'survival of the fittest' exists in many situations, but collaboration will be the key for global business success. Mutual relations, alliances and unions between the countries and companies can help, but as usual some players of this game will have more benefits than the others.
Dear Thanos, Mr Shukla and Katharina;
What I thought while I was watching the documentary was it was not really well balanced from both sides. Their main purpose was obvious and they always tried to show us that globalisation is a really good thing. From some points I agree with them, Globalisation has positive effect to Vietnam like the example Nike company helped thousands of people,but they didn't show who really got benefit from this situation. Nike company provides services to its employee all around the world, so it is not a big deal to built a sport centre in their factory in Vietnam. What we should show interest is to have a look to this link :
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/global500/2009/full_list/
We can see that there isn't any Vietnam company. So we have to ask ourselves, in long terms, who really get benefit from globalisation? Is it the companies who go abroad or is it the society?
Secondly, we have seen an african country who had same conditions several years ago that vietnamese had and they showed the big difference among the societies today. Again I would like to ask, is it better to let a foreigner to come and do all the job for you and get the real benefit from that job or is it better to try to do it by yourself and in long term you and your society got benefited.
Regards
Canalp
According to me, the document is not equally discussed the globalization issue from both good and bad sides. Although this document argues that globalization is good, director can argue some bad effects of globalization in order to set audience thinking about it.
About the "survival of the fittest", i think globalization gives change to the weak ones to become fit. Like in the document with Vietnam example: Vietnam only has man power with low wages and nike runs a plant in there. By that plant Vietnamese learn how to produce shoes more efficiently in their own businesses.
I think there is more that to discuss whether the globalization good or bad, because it already happened and will cover the whole world soon. The most important discussion should be how we can benefit from it to survive in the global and local markets. And to me, at that point governments should take the control at first and try to make best regulations to protect their citizens and their businesses.
A very interesting point is that NIKE was presented as a positive example of globalization. During my bachelor studies, the companys' case has always been used to highlight negative sides of globalization. It was the prime example for exploitation and an inhuman work environment in plants which are abroad.
I think that "the survival of the fittest" seems to be reality but is therewith a really alarming fact. Of course regions will cooperate and create strong and save trading areas to defend themselves against the giants of the global economy and to be part of the fittest. Concerned with that I read an theory which states that within the next decades most regions will become part of an political and/or economical block and that competition will take place between all these superpowers. That seems to me very dangerous and that is why I hope that the law of the strongest will emerge in a very restricted way.
Firstly, I sincerely hope BBC made nice profits e.g. in terms of endorsements from MNE's, especially Nike, for making people realise what a "wonderful thing" globalisation actually is, and how all of us should blindly embrace it and support all the MNE's to go overseas and take all the jobs there too. (note the hint of sarcasm)
So,
is globalization good, and for who?
Easy to claim that it is good for:
* rich countries.
* poor countries.
* companies.
* the people in poor countries.
* for the people in rich countries.
* other "stakeholders" too
(I love making lists)
As everyone can see, it is difficult to argue against the obvius value added - to several parties - in terms of globalisation
HOWEVER,
* is it good for the environment to make an order from US, produce the goods in Asia, and then ship them back to US?
* does it destroy domestic markets, livelihood, entrepreneurial incentive, among other essential national factors?
* does it direct (government and private) spending to overseas, with the expense of national economy?
* developed countries and multinationals have a great extent of impact and bargaining power on poor countries. How many of you believe they actually have interest of acting ethically (i.e. more than what the company's PR department demands)
* increased levels of inequality (both home and abroad) - low level of (trade) union power
* world economy is clearly going towards more monopolistic (hence often unfair) global market, where there is no room for smaller players, hence the cash inflow/revenue/profits go to singles, MNEs that naturally are interested in profits and dividends, not in global well-being.
my questions above do not by any means give a full or comprehensive list of issues, just a glance at my personal questionmarks/worries about globalization.
In terms of globalization, I think we can all at least agree on one note:
Rich get richer.
Globalization is no philantrophy.
For the sake of stabilized future, I indeed hope the long term effects of globalization on poor, developing countries is a positive one.
And, for last note, it is interesting to take into consideration what impact globalization has on world politics.
What effect will it have towards the future, in simplified terms, where will globalization take us towards:
increased peace, or war?
Before this blog will be eliminated I just wanted to post 2 findings about some theories Mr Shukla introduced to us.
Primemark: Dr. Paurav Shukla promised us to pay everything we find in Primark that has not been produced in Asia. I found an 8 Pound shirt produced in Ireland ;)
Mc Donalds Theory: It states that no country with a McDonald's outlet has ever gone to war with another. The Russia-Georgia conflict has finally blown this theory. The conflict between Israel - Libanon within the last years also negative Friedman's theory as both countries have several Mc Donald's restaurants but I could not find any evidence online. It was just an idea that came to my mind.
Nevertheless I really like these illustrating examples and look forward to hear some more withn the next weeks.
Johanna
Post a Comment