Triangle Business Daily

Globalisation?

Hello, I search for pro arguments in refer to globalisation. It's a difficult topic, because there are many negative aspects. So I need positive statstics about Bangalore, how much students left universities in India and positive aspects for agriculture like nichefarming. I had a look tp the government site but i didn't find relevant or good information. Can you help me,pleace?

Public Comments

1. Please go to Kyoto Protocol site and you will find the details of globalisation draft resolution and it's current news from Bali
2. Check this link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalization
3. Here is an article:
4. Globalisation is a word we hear all the time, but means different things to different people. The most common understanding is the growing interdependence and interconnectedness of the modern world. We have seen this trend accelerate since the end of the Cold War. The increased ease of movement of goods, services, capital and information across borders has created a truly global economy. Technological advances have also driven this process forward, so too, the reductions in the cost of international transactions. Globalisation has radically improved the way we in the west now live. We sometimes take the benefits it brings for granted. Who here hasn't accessed the internet, used a mobile phone or listened to CDs featuring artists from all over the world? But the benefits of globalisation have not been equally shared. We live in a world in which one in five of the world's population live in abject poverty: living on less than a dollar a day without adequate food, clean water and education, where HIV/AIDS is threatening to destroy the future prospects in Africa in particular and elsewhere. Faced with challenges and inequalities of this scale, is it any wonder that millions of young people are contemplating their future with new foreboding? It is no surprise that many are frustrated with today's leaders, be they political or economic figures. Many see globalisation as the root cause of these problems. To its fiercest critics, globalisation is a force for oppression, exploitation and inequality, which, like terrorism, thrives on poverty. It overrides democracy, puts profits before people and encourages a race to the bottom in labour, environmental and health standards Economists have increasingly acknowledged the link between trade and growth. Look at the experience of Ghana and South Korea. Back in 1955 Ghana was 25% richer than South Korea. But by 2001 the average South Korean was seven times better off than the average Ghanaian. What was the secret of Korea's success? Investment and education and sound macroeconomic policies definitely played their part. But also the realisation that firms that were exposed to international competitive pressure were more likely to succeed in the long run. During the 1990s the number of people living in abject poverty in the world fell by 125 million - almost entirely due to improvements in India and China spurred by their economies' increased openness to trade. Of course progress has been uneven and some countries have not done so well in recent years. But there are no examples of closed economies with high rates of growth. And the problems of poverty within countries cannot be tackled without economic growth. This is why I am redoubling my efforts to ensure a successful outcome to the Doha Development Agenda - an outcome which benefits developed and developing countries alike. Studies have shown that a successful Round could boost developing country income by £150 billion per annum - three times what they get in aid. And in terms of poverty reduction it could lift 300 million out of poverty by 2015. We recognise that the current system is not working for many developing countries. We need to do more to help the poorest countries secure better access to rich country markets. For too long richer countries have dictated the terms of trade and this must change. We will push the WTO as hard as we can to get an agreement that works for developing countries. We will not accept or agree to any proposal we believe will damage the prospects of developing countries trading themselves out of poverty. We cannot preach free trade abroad, while practising protectionism at home. We must liberalise trade in agricultural products and reduce farming subsidies which distort trade. The decision last week to reform the Common Agricultural Policy is a good step towards ending a system which costs 45 billion Euros a year, the equivalent of paying $2 for every cow in Europe. Progress in the negotiations has been disappointing to date, especially on the issues that matter most to developing countries such as agriculture and access to affordable medicines. Unlike previous rounds, this trade round provides an opportunity to make real progress. We must make sure that it delivers for developing countries. Globalisation is also characterised by the growth of multinational companies. Today many are concerned about the role which these organisations play, arguing that that they can be more powerful than governments and consumers. But I believe that many multinationals bring great benefits to the communities in which they invest providing additional capital, helping to transfer new technologies, increasing local skills and generating employment. And all the evidence suggests that multinationals do pay their workers significantly better than local employers, and provide better employee protection and better pension rights. They can and must be part of the solution. We warmly the welcome the growing trend of companies to report on matters of corporate social responsibility. Today corporate social responsibility has evolved into an understanding that economic, social and environmental objectives can be pursued by companies and communities together. Through expanding access to ideas, technology, goods, services and capital, globalisation has the potential to create the conditions for faster economic growth. But by itself it is not enough. For the reality is that globalisation, like economic and social change, produces winners and losers. The industrial revolution involved hugely painful economic and social costs - but just about everyone agrees that these changes were worth the cost. The role of governments and international institutions is to help manage the process of change - to maximise prosperity and opportunity for all, to equip people, through education and training, to take advantage of opportunities and to provide support to those groups who may be adversely affected, especially in the short-term. At the beginning of my address I mentioned that we enjoy the benefits of globalisation. But there are far too many in the developing world who are cut off, disconnected from the benefits of globalisation. Today, Africa's share of world trade is about 1%. The global economy has passed much of Africa by and this must change. As the Prime Minister has said, if globalisation only works for the benefit of the few, then it will fail and will deserve to fail. The challenge for governments, business, the international institutions and civil society now is to work together to ensure that globalisation works in the interests of all the world's citizens. That is something which this government is firmly committed to achieving. 4.The Benefits of Globalization Stemming from Competition It has already been noted that globalization has both positive and negative effects. This section will focus on its positive effects of globalization, stemming from competition, while the next will focus on its negative effects, which could lead to potential conflicts. Finally, the last section will consider the potential for international cooperation to diminish or to offset the negative effects of globalization. Globalization has led to growing competition on a global basis. While some fear competition, there are many beneficial effects of competition that can increase production or efficiency. Competition and the widening of markets can lead to specialization and the division of labor, as discussed by Adam Smith and other early economists writing on the benefits of a market system. Specialization and the division of labor, with their implications for increases in production, now exist not just in a nation but on a worldwide basis. Other beneficial effects include the economies of scale and scope that can potentially lead to reductions in costs and prices and are conducive to continuing economic growth. Other benefits from globalization include the gains from trade in which both parties gain in a mutually beneficial exchange, where the "parties" can be individuals, firms and other organizations, nations, trading blocs, continents, or other entities. Globalization can also result in increased productivity as a result of the rationalization of production on a global scale and the spread of technology and competitive pressures for continual innovation on a worldwide basis. Overall, these beneficial effects of competition stemming from globalization show its potential value in improving the position of all parties, with the potential for increased output and higher real wage levels and living standards. The result is a potential for greater human well being throughout the world. Of course, there is the distributional or equity issue of who does, in fact, gain from these potential benefits of globalization. 5.The Costs of Globalization and Potential Conflicts Globalization involves not only benefits, but also has costs or potential problems that some critics see as great perils. These costs could lead to conflicts of various types, whether at the regional, national, or international level. One such cost or problem is that of who gains from its potential benefits. There can be substantial equity problems in the distribution of the gains from globalization among individuals, organizations, nations, and regions. Indeed, many of the gains have been going to the rich nations or individuals, creating greater inequalities and leading to potential conflicts nationally and internationally. Some have suggested the possibility of convergence of incomes globally based on the observation that the poor nations are growing at a faster rate than the rich nations. The reality, however, is that a small group of nations, the "tiger economies" of East Asia, have been growing at rapid rates, while the least developed nations of Africa, Asia, and South and Central America have been growing at a slower rate than the rich nations. These poor nations are thus becoming increasingly marginalized. The result has been not a convergence but rather a divergence or polarization of incomes worldwide, with the rapid-growth economies joining the rich nations, but with the poor nations slipping even further behind. This growing disparity leads to disaffection and possibly even international conflicts as nations seek to join the club of rich nations and have-not nations struggle with the have nations for their share of world output. This issue of distribution is a major challenge in the process of the globalization of the world economy. A second cost or problem stemming from globalization is that of major potential regional or global instabilities stemming from the interdependencies of economies on a worldwide basis. There is the possibility that local economic fluctuations or crises in one nation could have regional or even global impacts. This is not just a theoretical possibility as seen in the exchange rate and financial crisis in Asia, starting in Thailand in 1998 and then spreading to other Southeast Asian economies and even to South Korea. These linkages and potential instabilities imply great potential mutual vulnerability of interconnected economies. A worldwide recession or depression could lead to calls to break the interdependencies that have been realized through the globalization process, as happened in the Great Depression of the 1930's, with competitive devaluations, beggar-my-neighbor policies, escalating tariffs, other forms of protectionism, etc. The result could be economic conflict, gravitating to economic warfare and possibly to military conflict, repeating the history of the interwar period leading to the largest war in human history. A third type of problem stemming from globalization is that the control of national economies is seen by some as possibly shifting from sovereign governments to other entities, including the most powerful nation states, multinational or global firms, and international organizations. The result is that some perceive national sovereignty as being undermined by the forces of globalization. Thus globalization could lead to a belief among national leaders that they are helplessly in the grip of global forces and an attitude of disaffection among the electorate. The result could be extreme nationalism and xenophobia, along with calls for protectionism and the growth of extremist political movements, ultimately leading to potential conflicts. It is sometimes alleged that a cost of globalization is unemployment in the high wage industrialized economies. The low unemployment rates in many high wage nations and their high rates in many low wage nations disprove this allegation. National policy and technological trends are much more important determinants of employment than global factors. A related myth is that globalization is threatening the social welfare provisions of some states, but other factors are much more important, including domestic fiscal policy and demographic trends. In both cases, globalization is a convenient scapegoat for failures of national policy. It is important also to appreciate that the economic aspects of globalization are but one component of its effects. There are potential noneconomic impacts of globalization involving great risks and potential costs, even the possibility for catastrophe. One is that of security, where the negative effects of globalization could lead to conflicts, as suggested above, or the very process of globalization leading to integration of markets could make conflicts escalate beyond a particular region or raise the stakes of conflict, for example, from conventional weapons to weapons of mass destruction. A second noneconomic area in which globalization could lead to catastrophic outcomes is that of political crises, that could escalate from local to large-scale challenges and, if unresolved, to a catastrophic outcome. A third such area is that of the environment and health, where the greater interconnectedness stemming from globalization could lead again to catastrophic outcomes, such as those stemming from global environmental impacts, such as global warming, and pandemics.