46 Comments Add your own

• 1. Brandi Eng-Rohrbach  |  November 10th, 2007 at 8:32 pm

  When I think of globalization I think of American stores worldwide selling Chinese made goods and having Indian customer service.

  Globalization is the move from isolated succinct national economies to a world economy. Globalization is what it is. It is good and bad. It is largely beneficial for every country involved yet at the same time it is very destructive. First and foremost, I don’t think globalization will be able to exist past about the middle of this century. It is dependent on a cheap way of moving goods. Unless a cheap substitute that can move ships, planes, and cars is found, I doubt we will see as much global trade when oil is $300 a barrel. The scale of our economy is reliant on a cheap, abundant, easily transportable high-energy fuel which is currently known in the form of fossil fuels. Globalization has separated parts of the supply chain to different parts of the globe. Manufacturing occurs in China, customer service is done in India, and profits and decisions are made everywhere.

  The Good
  -Enabled each part of the world to excel at what is good at and capture that part of the market.
  -Enabled cost savings by utilizing the cheap labor of developing nations.
  -Allowed the United States to improve our environment by moving all of our manufacturing overseas.
  -Has improved living standards for developing nations.
  -Creates opportunities for business innovation.
  -Creates wealth abroad and here.

  The Bad
  -Manufacturing has been moved to developing countries that don’t regulate pollution. This is only exacerbating the world’s pollution problems.
  -Will eliminate the majority of the middle class in the United States. The middle class historically has consisted of unionized manufacturing jobs which largely no longer exist. The future of the United States is just for the majority management jobs and technical fields that are high paying versus service/retail jobs which pay next to nothing.
  -Furthers the income inequality to worldwide.

  Where American Stands?
  America has been hurt and helped by Globalization. The future will tell the true story as our country becomes more cost-competitive compared to the rest of the industrialized world. Our relatively low taxes in comparison to Europe and the low value of our currency put us in a unique position.

  A Funny Picture of Globalization
  How funny must it be for the people in textile shops overseas to make “pre-destroyed” jeans.

  In conclusion, I’m not really for or against globalization. I hope the free market system can reach the best solution. I hope consumers demand what is best for them and those that produce their goods.

• 2. Alex Thornton  |  December 11th, 2009 at 1:08 pm

  I watched the video “Globalization is Good” and it is indeed an excellent look at how nations and people have prospered over the last 50 years from globalization.

  Some thoughts:

  The author, Johan Norberg, shows the process though which nations become wealthy in the modern era. Countries start with agricultural bases. They then make land reforms. With these new property rights, people are now encouraged economically to invest in their land, freeing up labor to work in other places than farms. Low-end manufacturing is started based on low wages. Then as labor becomes scarce, manufacturing moves to high-added value products like air conditioners, refrigerators, computers, and other high-end electronics.

  It is important that people remember that it is property rights that start this chain towards modernization. Norberg argues that it is this lack of property rights that prevents African nations like Kenya from escaping poverty, not laziness, lack of water, or famine.

  Norberg personally believes that globalization causes democracy. This seems like a bit of a stretch. Perhaps globalization makes democracies more prosperous and stable. But I’m not sure how the United States, for instance, was created by globalization.

  Finally, Norberg interviews the individuals in countries like Taiwan and Vietnam who have actually benefited from globalization. One argument against globalization says that people in non-western are exploited. Norberg does a great job at showing how these workers in Taiwan and Vietnam are gaining rising income and working conditions.

• 3. William Ary  |  January 3rd, 2010 at 1:33 pm

  Globalization is simply the expansion of commerce which is a result of our own personal greed to include the whole world. Time and time again life has proven to me that the only greed will really help the world go around, but that greed comes back to a logical extension of greedy behavior according to Thomas Hobbes: If you want to act selfishly, you must not appear to be doing so in order to ensure that no one tries to sabotage you.

  China and India are finally trying to bring their greed based capitalism onto the world stage, and the US and other powers who are already dominant there are trying to find ways to sabotage them through sanction and incentives and other fear based reactive responses. It is foolish to devote all of this effort away from the behavior that was initially responsible for the success of Western culture: greed.

  So I say stop worrying about how to keep american jobs alive when China and India are out-competing you and try to sell them something instead!

  The good of globalization is that ultimately, more people will be able to do what they want to (buy and sell stuff), but that is only bad if the world economy is a zero sum game. These new countries are taking away our old businesses, so we just need to find new ways of making money from this new bigger global economy.

• 4. Lindsay Leaver  |  January 9th, 2010 at 4:43 pm

  The fact of the matter is that globalization is a reality. Whether it is good, bad, ugly or beautiful seems almost irrelevant. It is happening, everyday, all around us, and it is what we will do with it and whether we embrace it that matters. The area I hope America will embrace it is in education

  American has become complacent and used to being the smartest, wealthiest, most advanced country in the world - and that is simply not the case anymore. America ranks embarrassingly low in the educational rankings of high school students. I recently heard that 40 percent of high school graduates think the US fought Russia in WWII. Bad bad bad.

  The books we have read for this class so far all paint a grim picture of America in this time of globalization, but they also give a glimmer of hope. If we can just get our children educated again, all the resources we will ever need will be available to us.

  As I side note, I want to comment on Will’s use of the word greed. While I do agree that the over-consumption of the western world is glutinous, I don’t think that India and China wanting to feed their billions of citizens is greedy. Before 1978, when China opened it’s walls to the world, their citizens lived on an average of 4 cents per day. Would you even call that living? Culturally, success in business and globalization means something very different to people who are living in slums with no pluming and no food, than it does to us.

• 5. Tim Lynds  |  January 23rd, 2010 at 1:57 pm

  In recent years globalization has become a common place word that everyone seems to have an opinion on. People are constantly debating its exact meaning and the value of its impact on the people of the world. I have heard and read so much about it recently that it is almost overwhelming. As in any discussion about any subject, everyone involved is biased in some way and wants to place globalization in one light or another. I say that globalization is both good and bad and that it is not necessarily leaning one way or another.

  As mentioned above, there are so many things to consider when deciding if globalization is good or bad. For almost every pro I can think of, there is a con. For example, globalization has improved the financial status of millions of Chinese farm workers, but has choked the country in pollution which negatively impacts the health of these same people. Sure millions of people can afford better food, but they may not be able to afford health care when they get lung cancer from breathing polluted air. I can think of many other similar examples that almost seem to neutralize each other and keep globalization somewhere between good and bad.

  To comment on both Will’s use of the word ‘greed’ and Lindsay’s comment on it, I agree that globalization is rooted in greed. While I agree with Lindsay that wanting to be able to eat and have some kind of quality of life is not greedy in any sense, the fact is that these people’s needs and wants are not the driving force behind globalization. Globalization is occurring because people in developed nations want more stuff at lower prices, not because people in undeveloped nations are starving. I would like to hear what others have to say about this.

  The one thing that is certain is that globalization is occurring rapidly and will continue to expand and touch many more people around the globe in the future unless some drastic event (ex. WWIII) re-segregates the world as mentioned in, The World Is Flat, by Thomas Friedman. So matter what, we will all continue to ride the globalization wave.

• 6. Kirk Story  |  February 23rd, 2010 at 2:20 am

  Commenting directly to the “Is Walmart good for America” post, my response is “no.” Competition is the holly grail in our capitalist mindset. I ask, “to what end?” I believe the great mistake we have made is believing the human race is a tool for capitalism as apposed to capitalism being a tool for the human race.

  Corvallis OR was a great town to live while attending Oregon State. Its smart growth policies and anti-bigbox ordinance made it a community apart from the generic municipal replication found throughout the US. Unlike my hometown, Bozeman MT, Corvallis is not plagued by crackerjack suburbian sprawl. Similar to SLO, Corvallis has created smart growth ordinances that channel maintenance funds to a tightly boundried and aesthetically progressive municipal district. Unlike SLO, Corvallis has banned big box stores from the city limits. Local businesses thrive. The best cup of coffee in town is a mom and pop shop, not a Starbucks. The best place to buy cheap crap is the Goodwill store- which contributes to the majority of my personal casual attire. The best place to buy plumbing materials is a locally owned business, not Home Depot. But as an indication of a corporate world that exists at the expense of citizens, Home Depot sued the City of Corvallis for a period of 7 years regarding the big-box ordinance. The City, taxpayers, were unable to match corporate allocations for attorney services and were forced to concede to the construction of a Home Depot in town. The notion that family businesses are less important than a volume of profits funneled to the pockets of a few beneficiaries is obscene. Human dignity and class of our nation’s communities have descended to the frivolous/gluttonous freedom to make a buck at the expense of our neighbors.

• 7. Matthew Perez  |  March 18th, 2010 at 11:44 pm

  Although I can understand the great concern over globalization, there are far more long-term benefits from it then costs. For example, the purchasing of goods by companies from suppliers around the globe provides workers in other countries an income with which to purchase goods. These workers can then in turn purchase goods from other countries, including the United States. Currently, more money from the United States is spent on imports than gained on exports. This is often used as a way to demonize Wal-Mart since they import heavily and displace other businesses in the United States. Wal-Mart claims that the company is providing goods at a lower price than would be otherwise possible, which should boost the standard of living of Americans. However, the shutdown of smaller businesses due to the company’s actions has a greater impact on the standard of living than low prices. Despite this fact, Wal-Mart is not completely to blame for this occurrence. Globalization is simply more one-sided at this point in time. As the countries that are the current recipients of the benefits of globalization mature, more foreign goods will be imported to meet customer demand. This will lead to companies in the United States forming as essentially “reverse Wal-Marts,” where our labor advantages will be exploited to benefit another country. This will not happen for a while, though, since we are at only the beginning of globalization. As U.S. citizens, we should accept what is happening and wait for when these benefits to present themselves.

• 8. Yuxiang Gao  |  March 19th, 2010 at 6:42 pm

  globalization -the integration of national economies into the international economy through trade, foreign direct investment, capital flows, migration, and the spread of technology.
  First of all, I totally support globalization, but also i think the process of globalization is very ugly.
  After i read some comments above, I find that for this issue we are on different side.
  There is a question bother me all the time, why people, in the USA don’t like WAL-MART, I asked some friends, some of them said it is becasue people feel trashy when shopping WAL-MART, some of them said, WAL-MART make some people lose their jobs.
  Well, if it is because of the last reason, i will WAL-MART contribute a lot to the USA.
  Every product made in China may contribute some to chinese GDP, but most of the them has negative contribution to chinese green GDP. That’s why i say globalization is ugly too.
  Globalization bring millions job opportunities to the develpoing country but at the same time, it also wrap out the nature resource. From this point, without globalization, USA has to use their own resouce to manufacture, and also generate lots of opportunity cost.

• 9. Dan N  |  December 21st, 2010 at 7:33 pm

  After watching the “Is Wal-Mart Good for America,” I find it ironic that a manufacturer in Tennessee is complaining about his Chinese competitors driving him out of business through the use of underpaid labor. Judging from his accent, he’s a Tennessee native. Thus, there’s a pretty good chance that his great-grandfather fought in the War of the States to defend his right to use slave labor to maintain his competitive advantage over manufacturers from the northern states.

  It is widely believed that Lincoln’s protectionist practices leading up to the war enabled northern industry to grow to the point that it was able to support the Union Army and was ultimately responsible for the north winning the war. In other words, there is (or was) absolutely a time when it is appropriate to protect American industry.

  It seems as though the only thing that has changed over the past 300 years with regards to the free trade debate is who is sitting on which side of the table. Shamefully, it wasn’t long ago that our nation exploited slave labor to fuel our own economic rise. The American manufacturers who are now complaining about an unlevel playing field fail to see that the only thing that has changed over the past decade is which side of the unlevel field they find themselves. With the exception of Japan and Korea’s rise in the 80’s, American industries have operated as virtual monopolies ever since WWII. I don’t believe that protecting America’s privileged status is an acceptable reason to protect industry. If GM can’t build a better car then the Japanese when the playing field is tilted in our favor, then it is time for us to take our medicine and experience the pain of change.

  However, I also believe that the rationale behind the Emancipation Proclamation still rings true. We should be committed to protecting American jobs when they are threatened by those who are violating basic human rights in order to do so. In this world of globalization, it is not unreasonable to think of China as the new Confederacy.

  Seriously, we can’t just look the other way. China uses cutting edge technology and threatens its citizens with life imprisonment or worse for leaking information about China’s abuse of it’s laborers. Still, evidence of wrongdoing continues to pour out of the country. American companies like Victoria’s Secret and Wal-Mart use chinese suppliers who are known to participate - both directly and indirectly - in suppressing the basic rights of their workers. Is this really much different from the Confederate companies who used slave labor 150 years ago?

  I’m not saying that we should close the door on Chinese imports. What I am saying is that American retailers should be responsible for proving to their customers and their government that they aren’t indirectly benefiting from unfair trade. I don’t care if the cost of compliance gets passed to us consumers, I would gladly pay to know that I’m not saving $.19 on the toothbrush I just purchased because the 19 year old girl that made is working 13 hours a day, 7 days a week.

• 10. Robbin Forsyth  |  January 8th, 2011 at 9:58 am

  I am a “Globalist” and believe that overall globalization is a force for good. I use the qualifier “overall” because with the benefits come problems. In my opinion, environmental degradation is the largest problem. The industries required for a poor nation to pull itself out of poverty have major impacts on the environment. I will attempt to outline a couple of these.
  First, because labor is the main commodity available in a poor country, manufacturing is usually a bootstrap industry. Manufacturing of any kind has by products. In this day and age most consumer products are made from plastics, electronics or other chemical based components. A developing country is not likely to have strong environmental laws and will be dependent the foreign companies top manage these details. How by products are handled and disposed of have far reaching effects on the long term health of the people in the manufacturing countries. As more poor countries are engaged in the global supply chain, more of this pollution spreads around the globe.
  Second, the vast majority of goods produced in these countries are made from export. This requires transport to the targeted markets. The most common way of doing this is by diesel powered ships or kerosene powered jet planes. Once in country the goods are moved by train or truck, both usually diesel powered. In order to bring these goods to market CO2 producing machinery is used from start to finish. This impact can be multiplied by the fact that a large percentage of raw materials and components must shipped into the manufacturing country.
  In a perfect world the governments that benefit from globalization, rich and poor, would would rationally acknowledge these problems and work together to address them. In the long run all economic gains will be undone if we poison our environment beyond repair. Unfortunately, people are short sighted, worried about losing what they have and envious what others may gain. This is the biggest challenge we face in reaping all of the benefits of globalization. Only by getting the beneficiaries to truly think globally and work together to minimize the environmental impact of the process can globalization and it’s benefits reach everyone on the planet.

  Some thoughts about the blog videos / posts:
  1- Globalization is Good: I have spent a time in Taiwan and for movie not address the impacts of industrial pollution on the small island is unrealistic. Both the cities of Taipei and Taichung mentioned in the video have serious pollution problems. The reporter is a Globalization Apologist to say the least.
  2- The letter from a Friend: The great wall of China was built by Emperors of China, not the “average” business person as the writer suggests. The wall was meant to keep out invaders in much the same way the CPC government maintains byzantine requirements on foreign business ownership and intellectual property rights. The CPC also manipulates WTO commitments to maintain high import duties and surcharges on a variety of goods coming into China. Can this person explain why American companies should not seek protection from their elected officials in trade matters?
  3- I love Walmart.

• 11. David Hart  |  January 8th, 2011 at 1:31 pm

  The topic of Globalization brings much debate and feelings on both sides of the issue. I enjoyed this blog entry because it shows some of the pros and cons of the issue. Like with any issue, there are positives and negatives. After studying some of these links, I believe that there are many positive effects of globalization on both the US and the world. However, there are certainly many challenges and problems that also need to be addressed.

  Globalization is a broad term with many definitions. To simplify it a bit, perhaps one might say that globalization consists of the process of the integration of economies across various nations.

  The “Globalization is Good” video looks at the positive aspects of this integrated cross-cultural environment. If a government wants to help improve the economic conditions in its country, one of the first steps it should do is provide incentives for business. This creates jobs that allow people to leave poverty for a better future.

  The first step is allowing people to own property/land. Landowners then have incentives to use that land in a way that they find beneficial. It was fascinating to see how Sweden, Taiwan, and even Vietnam have used economic policies to help bring more and more people out of poverty. This is one of the arguments for Globalization–the abillity to help people in developing countries to shed the cloak of poverty.

  One of the most telling quotes from that video went something along the lines of if Nike left Vietnam because wages were too high compared to another country, then Nike will have done its part.

  In Nigeria, however, the government’s policies (ie. lack of property rights, etc.) have stifled its peoples fight against poverty. In addition, the red tape one must go through to start a business is cumbersome and expensive. If other countries would lift tarrifs against places like Nigeria, and the Nigerian government would change its policies, Nigeria (and places like it) would be in a much better postion to develop economically.

  The podcast about Cancun was also interesting. It showed that the government policies seemed to benefit the global businesses that operated there while leaving out the local citizens. While I agree that there are some problems, would these citizens even have jobs if it weren’t for these global companies?

  Certainly some of the negatives with globalization such as pollution (as shown is the NY Times slideshow), harsh working conditions, etc. result in problems that are real and challenging. We must not ignore these issues, as they are extremely important.

  However, I believe that if we can work together across national boundaries to come up with solutions to some of these problems, globalization can be a good thing that will be benefical to people all over the globe, including Americans. It will be fascinating to see what the future holds as globalization expands. The increased competition will spur innovation and hopefully make the world a better place for us all.

• 12. Cassie Bettencourt  |  January 10th, 2011 at 5:31 pm

  For me, the word globalization does not necessarily have any negative or positive connotations. I am completely OK with the definition stated in the post: Globalization - increasing integration of trade, economic relationships and financial networks across national borders. I feel that this is the most appropriate type of definition for globalization (neutral, simply stated, not politically charged) because I definitely believe this is a case of “where you stand depends on where you sit.” I can honestly see both sides of the argument, and my pragmatic side is telling me this is something you cannot judge rashly.

  I believe that the ability to change and adapt is crucial to a successful society. The darwinistic nature of globalization causing this adaptation all seems very natural to me. I do also think that constantly being on defense in regards to what is happening with China and globalization in general is not healthy for our society. Playing the victim for a competitive advantage and manipulating our resources to obtain this advantage instead of choosing to partner and adapt seems flat out weak to me. The video “Globalization is Good” helped to point out many of the positives of globalization that I think Americans can miss when they play the victim.

  However, the “Is Wal-Mart Good for America” video was eye-opening with its exposure of the bad and the ugly of globalization. The comment stating that the heavy consumer/consumption mentality may lead to religious fundamentalism and/or militaristic nationalism also rings true and should not be ignored.

  Finally, I found the idea of a “green GDP” really interesting. It brought the economist mindset in me out. Economics deal with inefficiencies and it is necessary to factor in the implicit and explicit costs for a thorough analysis. How can you not account for the fact that only 1% of the Chinese urban dwellers breath air clean enough for EU standards?

  So, as stated before, where you stand depends on where you sit. As we learned in our economics class, sometimes the best answer is “It depends.”

• 13. Katie Moeller  |  January 15th, 2011 at 12:10 pm

  I think of globalization as countries exchanging goods and services to improve their economies. At this point in my life and education, I have mixed reviews on globalization. I think globalization is good because it provides an opportunity for countries to develop and expand their economy. However, I hadn’t thought about the aspect of other countries having to learn, adopt, and change to keep up with the rest of the world. It hits home when I think about all of the manufacturing that has gone to China because it’s cheaper. In the United States, we can try and adopt new ways of manufacturing but I don’t think we’ll ever be able to compete with China. In this regard, I don’t like globalization.

  The “Why Globalization will fail” article made some great points. For example, globalization will leave the world behind. I take this to mean that if the countries cannot adopt these cheaper and faster methods, like China, then they will have no change to improve their economy. The article also discussed that globalization leads to trust issues – countries have national trust but not global trust. I think this might be in regards to trying to outdo one another and compete for an improved economy and global power. Countries are going to need to work on trust and building relationships so the entire economy can improve.

  The “China: The World’s Smokestack” video was disturbing. I know that China has environmental issues but seeing some of those pictures proved it. For example, one of the pictures said that 1% of the people breathe safe air. Also, the picture of brown smoke coming out of the building and it said that if the smoke is not white, it’s considered toxic. It makes me wonder how much globalization and manufacturing are worth it to the country. I hope that since the Olympics, there continues to be a focus on environmental improvements.

• 14. Brady Haug  |  February 5th, 2011 at 4:25 pm

  The Good
  “It’s interesting to see how the mainstream American businesses think of China and what their reactions are. I on the other hand always encourage people to think differently and form alliances with Chinese [firms] , rather than fear them and run to their government, trade association or the press for protection, so that they can be more competitive.” As your colleague mentioned, outsourcing has allowed businesses to become more competitive. The simple good in globalization is that it allows companies to reap the profits of cheap labor. Outsourcing to China has created innumerable jobs and has raised the standard of living for portions of China. As mentioned in the Cancun NPR segment, the American hotel business has allowed a poor Mexican restaurant worker to put their son through college. This all comes with a cost and the outsourcing trend has left Americans jobless. Globalization simply means profits for the parties involved.

  The Bad and the Ugly
  The New York Times slideshow simply showed that China is destroying the environment. Expansion of infrastructure related works and a general boom in globalized business, has run China full steam ahead with no regard toward environmental issues. Though this may be China’s issue right now, it has global ramifications. Just as the article “New Rail Link to Tibet Generates Talk, Tourism” mentions, the train is a stunning achievement for Chinese engineering, but it will ruin Tibet. Tibet is considered a sacred land and the train will cause a massive influx of tourists. People are worried that the beautiful vistas of Tibet are going to become littered. The Ugly part of outsourcing can certainly be heard in the Cambodia NPR segment. The woman speaking discusses how she sits at a machine sewing in elastic bands for 16 hours a day. Though she is probably making more money than how she previously did, this is a horrific way to go through life. You mention that Gunter Grass thinks that globalization will be “relegated to the dustbins of history,” but that economic incentives cloud the overwhelming negatives of it and there may be no end.

  My Final Remarks
  I would generally agree with your definition of globalization. “Increasing integration of trade, economic relationships and financial networks across national borders.” In order for it to more fully encompass my definition, I would add that globalization generally occurs to leverage cheap cost and expand profits. It is an impossible question to answer as to whether globalization is good or bad. It fully depends on which side of the equation you are on. For example, globalization to someone in California may simply mean that they can go buy cheap stuff at Wal-Mart. For the Cancun local, it means that his minimum wage job doesn’t pay enough for him to enjoy the local beach because he can’t pay the American price. Aside from the personal incentives of globalization, the environment has absolutely been negatively impacted. Companies must harshly inspect the ethical and environmental implications of their operations and look past The Good.

• 15. Kristine Spencer  |  February 7th, 2011 at 7:14 pm

  I think of globalization as in increased connectedness of countries throughout the world through trade, communication, travel, etc. It is impossible to not see both good and bad sides to globalization. I started by watching “Globalization is Good”, and it was kind of difficult for me to watch this idealistic and cheesy movie. The Scandanavian hunk with the ponytail literally called globalization a “savior.” This documentary made all the well known arguments, which I acknowledge to true benefits. There is a reason why globalization has become more than just a trend, but a reality of the world today. It lowers costs, raises profits, can raise standards of living for some, democracy is spread, etc. But as the famous saying goes, “a rising tide lifts all boats”…but the boats are not lifted equally.

  For the bad and the ugly of globalization, I began by watching the slideshow “China: The World’s Smokestack” and reading “Choking on Growth.” A more publicized drawback to globalization is the massive environmental damage. The most shocking statistic I saw was that only 1% of China’s 560 million urban dwellers breathe air that is safe by European standards. Imagine all of the health consequences of this! Add in water pollution and all of the toxic chemicals that the low wage workers are exposed to on a daily basis and you have a health crisis in the making. China is now emits more carbon dioxide than anyone else in the world. All of these environmental problems are an international issue that must be dealt with immediately. Here on the central coast, we have the pleasure of breathing some of the most clean air and drinking clean water. That is something that I wish everyone in the world could say, but unfortunately China is a smoggy and polluted example that not everyone can. I think China is going to run into serious problems with the environment, not for lack of ideas to solve the problem, but because of a lack of desire and motivation to actually do anything about it. Businessmen would rather not spend the extra money to operate cleanly, and the Chinese government is fixated on growing the GDP. The narrator on Choking on Growth wondered if environmental targets will actually make people change their behaviors, and I strongly doubt it. The concept of a green GDP, where GDP is reduced to account for environmental costs, was very interesting, and exposed a sentiment held by many Chinese, which is that “environmentalism” is just another way for the west to keep China small and humiliated.

  If the argument that “Globalization is Good” is really true, then wouldn’t the local people be better off in the long run? Cancun is just one of many examples that prove it does not help the local people as much as it does the big corporations. Most of the time, the local people can never enjoy the luxuries and benefits that they supply their cheap labor for, such as the many private resort beaches in Cancun that the locals are not allowed on. Does globalization really leave the locals better off? For some it does, and for others it does not. I doubt that the Tibetans will truly be happier now that a fancy new train comes to town and the Han people can vacation and spend some money there; the corresponding negative aspects will be great. I can’t help but feel as if a lot of people benefit from globalization, but the remainder just gets left behind and may never catch up. Globalization is more than a global trend by now, and to survive one has to stay on their toes and adapt to the changing world, but that doesn’t mean that it is necessarily the best choice for everyone. Global relationships are great, but I think a lot of globalization thus far has been irresponsible and a way for the few to get rich at the expense of the many. There needs to be a lot more effort and care put into globalization to preserve our earth, resources, and the wellbeing of people.

• 16. Jessica Shayler  |  February 8th, 2011 at 8:36 am

  Unlike the “Why Globalization will Fail” post, I do not see globalization as a wolf in sheep’s clothing - seemingly innocent and good, but really innately bad in nature. You know that saying “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people?” Well, I believe a similar saying could be made about globalization: “Globalization is not responsible for the world’s ills, the world is responsible for its own ills.” Globalization is not as beneficial to all as it could be for the same reason Communism does not work in practice and democracy does not work as well as it should: People are myopic and greedy. The Choking on Growth video clip said as much when it mentioned how China’s incentives for its officials are strictly related to GDP and not on their methods for achieving growth. This clip also talked about some officials in China being resistant to supporting the “Green GDP” project because they just wanted to go about their business as usual and make as much money as they can now. So they are really hindering growth in the long-term, but don’t care enough to change. Myopic.

  The NPR Cambodia report said the biggest threat to their textile market was not China (globalization), but their own government corruption (greedy people).

  In my view, it does not matter which system you support. Democracy. Free Market. Regulation. Communism. Globalization. As long as we greedy myopic people are in charge, any system will be used to advance the interests of a few at the cost of many. The world will always change, I am still uncertain if it will change for the better, or simply be different. People haven’t really changed in thousands of years…

• 17. Will Moeller  |  February 8th, 2011 at 1:40 pm

  The most interesting perspective of globalization in this article is John Gray’s opinion. As an economics major I’ve had to read a lot about globalization - how the Solow growth model explains it, the pros and cons, and why it works.

  It sounds like for the purpose of this blog, globalization specifically refers to the spread of economic growth via capitalism. Am I for it? Yes I am, but there need to be some restrictions.

  The primary restriction should be that the spread of globalization follows the stakeholder theory of wealth - that the owners sacrifice maximizing short-term profit for longer-term stable profits while keeping all those dependent on the business happy. I’ve mentioned this before, but I think its a better model for globalization. Essentially, what the stakeholder model requires is for the managers and owners of the business to truly think long-term - something that’s a foreign idea to most American businesses.

  Take the Cancun resorts for example. This is something that made sense to me since I’ve been there. Some of the resorts are owned by foreign companies who don’t have to have much regard for anyone other than its owners (who want a nice return) and its customers (who want an enjoyable experience). Other resorts are owned by wealthy locals who don’t necessarily need to monopolize and profit off the tourist scene anyway. This situation could be improved from a stakeholder perspective by doing more for the employees and local community. For example, a certain percentage of the resort’s cash flow must be given to the government for the specific purpose of healthcare or education. It could be called the, “you’re-using-our-most-valuable-resource” tax. What this requires however is a strong and unwavering government, something that emerging market countries may lack. However, it ensures that every citizen benefits from the sale of a valuable resource (in this case, beachfront property).

  Promoting globalization while keeping the locals happy seems to go hand-in-hand with what John Gray suggests. People want both economic and cultural security. The problem with the current trend of globalization is that it seems to promote the former with little regard for the latter. This glut for economic prosperity will eventually bring globalization as we know it to a halt.

  The other side to the Cancun example I mentioned is that denying foreign investors that chance to build resorts hurts everyone. Thus, it wouldn’t be good for the government to discourage investment with a high tax, because then resort owners would simply go elsewhere. Thus, there would be no economic benefit to the area at all.

  The facts, articles and links were all over the map in this article. It’s hard to boil them all down into one opinion. However, there was one other article that caught my eye. The new high-altitude train to Tibet seemed to arouse suspicion on both sides of the track. The Tibetans don’t seem to want it, and those is Beijing appeared somewhat indifferent. So why build it? John Gray comes into play here as well. This train will promote acculturation - moving “strangers” into new places. It could go over well. On the other hand, the need for just enough economic freedom while maintaining cultural freedom is more likely globe’s optimal scenario.

• 18. Amanda Podesta  |  February 14th, 2011 at 8:17 pm

  I am a globalist but strongly believe that it is the responsibility of every businessperson going into transactions that an international relationship should only be facilitated with the due consideration, approval, and enforcement of strong ethical and human right standards. It shouldn’t be a game of chasing the cheapest dollar but as in the NPR audio-report on Cambodia’s textile industry about providing opportunity through employment with respect and low environmental impact.
  This protects the supplier, home country, and even your own company from lawsuits/bad press now and in the future. I predict when job conditions and standards improve in the Developing World environments, that we [Westerners] will be the ones fingered with the blame for poor working conditions and environmental “rape” by both these [Chinese] governments and by public sentiment. We are tacitly writing our legacy of the “Ugly Americans” just as we were the ones spin-doctored against in the Boxer Rebellion. We cry foul against the Chinese but in their worldview it will be us painted as the profiteers and exploiters in this situation.

  “Why Globization Will Fail” was written with jingoistic zeal, but I believe the situation it paints would only happen if a tariff war escalates to the point that it simply becomes too expensive to export/import globally. In a natural environment, trade is insensible to political sentiment (e.g. Sudanese blood diamonds in America, Sony televisions in China).

  Also, FYI, you and Quentin Tartantino both share your favourite movie choice!

• 19. Anthony Kallioinen  |  February 14th, 2011 at 11:09 pm

  Globalization to me is the process of making the entire world smaller meaning it is more interconnected through communication, transportation and trade. This is a very overarching definition that essentially says the same thing as Professor Carr (globalization is the “…increasing integration of trade, economic relationships and financial networks across national borders.”) just with a negative spin (the word ‘making’). I feel that globalization is more forceful than the word ’increasing’ communicates, because I feel that globalization is something that all countries must eventually take part in or they are ‘left out in the cold.’ America for instance, would not have such low prices and China would not have so much economic development if we did not form this global relationship. In response, other countries must react to this relationship whether they wanted to or not. They are forced to react because the world was ‘made’ smaller meaning it is more interconnected through communication, transportation and trade.

  Good:
  Globalization is good if the people it affects are able to adapt to the changes that are required of them. This gives a lot of weight to the old saying: ‘What doesn’t kill us makes us stronger.’ The video argues that globalization is the answer to global prosperity. The narrator says that all countries were poor until they embraced globalization. Before any country can take part in the advantages of globalization, (through worldwide capitalism) that country must have capitalism at home. The narrator has defined the first step towards this to be land reform. People must own their land in order to have the correct incentives to take part in providing for their own future, and thus the aggregate future of the country. This is the same incentive guidelines that we learned about in our economics class. I understand that things turned out well for the individual Taiwanese people who were fortunate enough to have land or the ability to build a factory, but what about the other side to this story? Taiwan has only long hours and cheap labor to offer as their competitive advantage, so for every one person that owned land or even had a factory, there were probably many more who were working for low wages for many years. What we learn from Taiwan however, is that they stuck to their strengths. They produced what they could, and imported the rest. This is in contrast to African nations that try to be self sufficient. The video is right: although sweatshops are lame in the short-term, they lead to long-term benefits, Taiwan can attest to that.

  Bad:
  There are many bad aspects of globalization as well. As we learned with Wal-Mart, people lose their jobs when faced with a country of low cost manufacturing. This is bad for American jobs, but good for the developing world. The really bad part of this is that China is going through a massive industrial revolution in a much smaller time frame than any other nation before it. The country has growing pains from the incredible changes that it has made in the last couple decades. The side effects are disastrous however. Pollution on its own in China is high on the list of citizen-killers. In fact, most of the world’s most polluted cities are in China. This video offered and interested idea that is the Green GDP. By incorporating the environmental costs of economic growth, one is able to truly assess whether progress has been made. (There is something similar that is an all-encompassing measure called a GPI (Genuine Progress Indicator). The GPI for instance also takes into account issues such as the true costs. The legal and medical expenses of crime for instance are classified as costs instead of benefits as with the GDP. The GPI also looks at general happiness of its citizens in a variety of ways and attempts to take into account the costs of a country’s pollution and value of its resources.) There are several problems with this Green GDP idea however. First, there are no incentives or promotions for officials who seek to improve environmental regulations and no punishments for those who don’t. Second, there is a no clear solution to capturing, I monetary terms, true environmental costs, mostly due to externalities.

  Although there are many arguments for both sides, I feel that globalization is only as good as the way it is implemented. Although I do think that it is great that China is rising as a global player, soon to be the dominant economy in the world, I feel that the way they are going about it is not good. I don’t like the idea of the Chinese devaluing their currency so that they can undercut all comers. I think they did this because the population is aging and they need to hit certain growth targets to maintain an economic balance in the future. I also don’t like how American jobs will be lost even though I think it is overdue. I hope that working conditions for the people in that part of the world can increase as well. But most of all, I wish we could solve this pollution issue — my minor is in sustainable environments. I’m not sure how countries can dismiss the types of environmental impacts their business practices are having. We are largely the culprits for this as American, and we need to develop the thought leadership on this topic, maybe even in connection with the Chinese. The truth is we cannot keep up this level of pollution for long. In short, globalization is good, but we are going to pay for it in other ways if we do not do something now to make sure that they way it is done is not handled appropriately.

• 20. Jessie Wilkie  |  February 21st, 2011 at 12:36 pm

  I think that the American generation before mine might have experienced a positive version of globalization. The beginnings of globalization saw that corporate America was on top. This was great for our consumer society. We got lots of cheap things, our retirements were doing well, our bank accounts were doing well, and everything was just dandy. My generation, however, is going to have to experience the backlash of globalization. No longer good and glamorous.

  Wal-Mart might have been a great symbol for what Americans, like Sam Walton, could achieve, but it has grown into a symbol of oppression (in my opinion). It is eliminating long established brands by introducing its own generic brand (The Big Box Swindle). It is also eliminating other small to medium, and even large, businesses and suppliers who can not compete or keep up with the giant. Furthermore, its employee relations are terrible with its hire and fire cycles and discrimination against women. The irony is that many people who go to work there lost their jobs because of Wal-Mart. It’s disgusting. The effects are more and more pronounced for my generation and it isn’t good or pretty.

  I have seen the documentary The Corporation and I recommend that everyone in this program watch it. As business students, it’s important to understand the system we work in and the role we will play. Anyone who can say that globalization is good must be from the generation that reaped the benefits-how selfish. There is an old Iroquois concept from the “The Constitution of the Iroquois Nations: The Great Binding Law.”:

  “In every deliberation, we must consider the impact on the seventh generation… even if it requires having skin as thick as the bark of a pine.”

  Now, I ask you to take a moment and to think about the future. What is our children’s world going to look like? Their children’s world? And so on and so forth… I think “Choking on Growth” gives us a good idea of whats happening to the environment or Al Gore’s film. In order for this global system that we’ve created to survive it has to keep growing at unsustainable rates. The story of stuff (http://www.storyofstuff.com/) does a good job illustrating what this means.

  Not only will our children and grandchildren have to deal with a deteriorating environment, they will also have to deal with a more competitive global job market. They will also have to deal with the United States not being the dominant power anymore, as my generation is beginning to deal with now. Unlike my parents’ generation where the US was the top dog.

  To say that globalization is good is not to consider the future and the consequences…I hope that my generation does a better job of considering the future than the last generation did. I hope that my generation questions the world order more than the last generation did. We have so much now and so much access to information. Let’s educate ourselves. Let’s not be stupid. Let’s think seven generations out.

• 21. Tara Millard  |  February 22nd, 2011 at 9:39 am

  Globalization is the practice of expanding business practices beyond Country borders in order to make the most effective use of resources. Globalization increases competition, which makes for a healthy and thriving business environment.
  Globalization can be a scary thing, as it increases competition and requires many businesses to step out of their comfort zone. In my opinion, globalization necessitates change and change is necessary for advancement. A move towards a global economy increases opportunity for businesses and people worldwide.
  Many people take the stance that a move towards globalization hinders businesses in the United States as they are unable to compete with low wages and raw resources abroad. Perhaps the root of the problem lies in the cost of doing business on our own soil and everyone should be forced to change in order to allow competition in a global economy.
  Although fighting globalization feels safe and familiar, it eliminates the opportunity for businesses to reach their full potential. Change can be trying, but it is necessary for economic growth.

• 22. Sarah Weinzapfel  |  February 25th, 2011 at 11:39 pm

  I liked this post because it had little bit of both views. I watched the “Globalization is Good” video and can’t help but agree with it. The word globalization has no negative or positive connotations to me. The definition of globalization as increasing integration of trade, economic relationships and financial networks across national borders is a legitimate definition to me.

  Honestly I’m not quite sure where I stand…or sit. I am more on the supportive side of globalization. In a lot of the articles against globalization, say they cause too much harm to the environment and this and that, but what process doesn’t get worse before it gets better. The podcasts about Cancun and the like are hard to hear. Until the Wal-Mart video, I hadn’t thought about how companies in America will ever adapt and be able to compete internationally in those regards. I don’t think they will and I think this problem exists in other countries and places (Cancun) and in this aspect, I do not agree with globalization. But I feel the pros of globalization still out-weigh the cons.

  The comparison to countries that haven’t opened themselves up to globalization I think says it all.. They live unimaginable lifestyles. When America was industrializing, we had the same types of problems and of course China’s are on a larger scale because their population is on a larger scale and they are industrializing in a much shorter time period. We still have environmental problems, but we’re working toward fixing them. One of the articles argued that we are sending manufacturing to countries that don’t regulate energy use like China, but China has no choice but to regulate factors that affect their environment.

  Another article argued that by countries giving into globalization are just westernizing, but like a previous blog we learned that places like China will never America just because they are including western based cultural additions. Places like China are not becoming America and places like Kenya don’t need to turn into America to pull themselves out of poverty.

  Regarding the sweat shops we’re supposedly supporting in China with globalization, yes, some are unimaginable, but we’ve also learned that this isn’t necessarily the norm and these factory lives have given Chinese people a much better lifestyle compared to their alternative. I agree with the colleague’s email that globalization is good for us and learning to work with China will be a benefit to business.

• 23. Chris Bruns  |  February 26th, 2011 at 2:25 pm

  I believe that globalization is an idea that shouldn’t be blindly followed without examining the effects. I am in no way saying that countries should be cut off from outside trade, I just believe that having a huge trade deficit and incurring massive amounts of debt is an issue that is shrugged off. I believe there are good and bad points to globalization, and massive amounts of disinformation and pre-conceived notions on either side. It is my hope that we begin to work towards some sort of balance in the US, and we strive to limit losses and increase the standard of living for the lower ¾ of our country. Additionally, as world citizens we look to the environment repercussions of our imported goods.

  The audio slideshow China: The World’s Smokestack was disturbing to look at with all of the intense images. When shown the images of all the sprawling cities, dirty areas, ravaged land, and poisoned waterways that make the cheap goods I buy possible, it makes me consider all the externalities of my purchases. The extra units I purchase do have a negative effect on the environment, workers, and creatures of the world.

  Having completed my response to the blog “Is Wal-Mart Good for America,” I wanted to reiterate my belief that there are definitely issues that need to be addressed. I don’t believe that by providing low-priced goods there has been an “economic wash” in terms of jobs and standards of living now that US based companies and workers are being put out but are now more jobs due to trade with China.

  The Real Cost video offered so much information on the level of pollution in China and how many people are suffering. It is good that the negative externalities of the production in China are being factored in and that there is an adjusting of the reported growth rate. The Green GDP needs to be calculated and it is important to know how pollution is affecting growth. The environmental changes need to addressed by leaders when looking at economic and social growth.

• 24. Jason Jay Sharma  |  February 26th, 2011 at 9:55 pm

  “Globalization is the increasing economic interdependence of national economies across the world through a rapid increase in cross-border movement of goods, service, technology and capital. It is the process of increasing economic integration between countries, leading to the emergence of a global marketplace or a single world market.” — After some researching online, I found this Wikipedia definition of economic globalization to be one that I feel partial to.

  Before watching the video “Globalization is Good,” I was prepared to disagree with whatever was going to be presented by the Johan Norberg. However, I found it did an excellent job of explaining the use of globalization around the world and explaining why it has helped countries develop at a faster pace, if at all. The film sheds light on multiple reasons why we, as humankind, should be thankful for globalization and helping the world become successful. Horberg mentions that countries, such and Taiwan and Vietnam, can export and share with the world their greatest asset (or “value add”), and that is [cheap] labor. He also mentions that this sweatshop period is a necessary step in the development of such nations (which I think could be compared to some aspects of American’s Industrial Revolution such as child labor). In contrast, Kenya–a country fighting globalization is shown and underdevelopment and not reaching its potential. That didn’t affect me so much, as did the women who wanted to start her own company, but couldn’t due to the ownership and money requirements to earn a license. These people are ready to work and grow, but their own country, scared of globalizing is hindering their future. If a nation like Kenya embraced this position, they too could be 20 times larger in 50 years too, like Taiwan or Vietnam.

  While many positives are obvious, a number of negatives can be easily uncovered. To me, the most important of these are the environmental impacts of globalization. The New York Times videos were amazing! To see men and women affected by such pollution on a daily basis is hard to swallow (but not as shocking as you would expect knowing what we already know about Chinese air quality). The Green GDP idea was interesting, and it was no surprise that Chinese officials weren’t too keen on the use of it. I also found the NPR clip on the train in Tibet very interesting. It’s a hard situation to be in for Tibetans who need and use the train, but now worry about the rare animals, scenic views which they expect to be compromised and the abundance of trash the railroad. Sadly, the Tibetan woman interviewed was worried about poor and disabled individuals entering Tibet from China…

  Globalization is needed to help develop the world and hopefully, one day, bring most of the world to the same playing field. It’s unfortunate that many downsides do exist. Hopefully, as progression occurs, those downsides will be mitigated or alleviated.

• 25. Randy Camat  |  February 27th, 2011 at 8:24 pm

  I would agree on the definition of globalization to be the integration of trade, economies, and financial networks. After watching the PBS Frontline Feature: Is Wal-Mart Good for America? I was convinced that globalization had a negative effect. I didn’t like what Wal-Mart was doing to US businesses and especially adding to the trade deficit. I recently purchased online a carry-on luggage for our trip to China originally priced at $200 for around $70. I thought I found a really good deal, but little did I realize that it was globalization that made this happen when the package showed up on my doorstep with what else: “Made in China.” Globalization does have its fair share of the good, bad, and the ugly. My takeaways from watching the videos and reading the posts.

  The Good:
  -After watching Globalisation is Good, it was apparent that globalization is a major factor in boosting a nation’s economy and improving the standard of living.
  -It allows for good competition and sparks innovation for a changing market.
  -The creation of new jobs, bringing many people out of poverty
  -For consumers, it allows for cheaper prices.

  The Bad and Ugly:
  -Without proper monitoring or checks and balances, globalization can rape a country’s resources and therefore damaging the environment.
  -People work for really low wages for very long hours in “sweatshops.”
  -Struggling businesses are forced out of business due to the competition.

  So where do I stand on this topic? I think globalization is good, but it definitely needs to be delicately watched in order to prevent depleting our resources from rapid consumption and damaging the environment.

• 26. Tim Easton  |  March 4th, 2011 at 11:49 am

  Here is an example of globalization. http://www.emailforwards.net/definition-of-globalization-princess-dianas-death/

  Ok now for a real definition of globalization. According to Merriam-Webster the definition of globalization is the development of an increasingly integrated global economy marked especially by free trade, free flow of capital, and the tapping of cheaper foreign labor. I think this is a definition that I would agree with. I took a globalization, innovation, and sustainability course during my undergrad so it is something that I have studied before and am somewhat familiar with. Globalization is happening whether we want it to or not. There are definitely pros and cons to globalization, but I believe that the pros outweigh the cons. The increased trade between countries around the world is a huge benefit. Since globalization is taking place, people in developing countries are gaining the benefits of having jobs and increased standards of living. Globalization is bringing the world on a more equal playing field and increasing foreign relations with these countries through trade. Globalization helps the businesses that are willing to adapt in this ever changing global market. We, the individual, ultimately get the benefits of globalization by being able to purchase a product at a cheaper price than we previously could. These are just a few of the benefits of globalization.

  There are negative sides to globalization, but people need to have a better understanding before they say it is a terrible thing. There are too many examples of people who get completely upset when the benefits of globalization are talked about. They often times just think of the increased competition and the American business man being driven out of business because he can’t cut costs enough to compete any more. Is this a problem of globalization, or the extremely high costs of living and working in the United States? The other negative that people always refer to is the terrible working conditions in China and other countries. We have learned in another blog that all Chinese factories aren’t as bad as we make them out to be. Yes, there have to be some pretty bad working conditions in some of these factories or else we wouldn’t have this perception. However, not all Chinese factories are terrible and it seems that working conditions are improving as a whole. No matter where you stand on globalization, it is important to understand both sides of the issue.

• 27. j hurley  |  March 5th, 2011 at 8:14 pm

  Is globalization good or bad? I say that nobody really knows. There is no one reason for the cause of globalization and the effects of it are so vast and wide spread that it is truly impossible to evaluate and measure whether it is good or bad.
  There is no hiding it that the human race is an impressive consumer, especially Americans. Everyday we purchase, use and trash vasts amount of products. We do so because these products are so common and cheap that we can afford to disregard them and purchase new ones. Affordable consumer products are available to the world due to globalization. The availability of products is a direct result from globalization, and most people would say this is good.

  Not only has globalization increased the availability of consumer goods, it is also helping developing countries increase at a faster rate. Globalization is helping share success around the world and allows many countries to partake and take advantage of their own strengths, ranging from cheap labor to available resources.

  However, even though globalization is helping spread the wealth, it is not making the whole world rich. Globalization has cause increased competition especially here in the U.S> Many industries are being reduced or deleted due to work and production being shipped oversees. Globalization may be helping some businesses increase profits from reducing purchasing, but it has come at the cost of other failing businesses.

  Globalization has also had a great impact on the world as we know it. Production and manufacturing is now being done in places that have no to very few environmental regulations. These manufacturing processes have had a devastating impact on our environment and very few precautions are being taken to reduce their impact.
  Globalization can be a good thing; however, at this point in time it appears to me that it still remains a procedure where some people get what they want by taking advantage of others while not considering consequences. There’s still a lot of ugly.

• 28. Kyle R.  |  March 6th, 2011 at 2:11 pm

  I completely agree with the definition of globalization listed above. It would be nice if every country was self sufficient and could produce everything it needed. This is definitely not the case, and therefore I believe that globalization is necessary. The videos and postings listed above, seem to provide an accurate representation of the different sides of globalization in our current environment. I do believe that there can be many benefits from globalization. It can provide a struggling company with the means in which to stay competitive, while also helping out the local citizens in the country they are outsourcing to. An example of this can be the various companies in the United States that only exist because they outsourced to China. In turn, the Chinese locals have been able to find work and improve their quality of life.

  The PBS video on Wal-Mart and the NPR clip on Cancun were great examples of how globalization can have negative effects on the company’s country of origin and the country they are doing business in. It was really sad to see all the U.S. companies that are now nonexistent due to the effects of globalization. Wal-Mart made the decision to go global in hopes of improving their business and staying competitive, but there were obviously other issues that resulted from their decision. I found it disappointing that 80% of Wal-Mart’s suppliers are based in China. If they still have any suppliers in the United States, you can only imagine how low their profits must from dealing directly with Wal-Mart. From Wal-Mart’s perspective though, why should they choose a supplier who has higher costs than another. From where I sit, globalization is necessary, but should be properly regulated.

• 29. Ben Raymond  |  March 6th, 2011 at 8:26 pm

  Globalization is the economic spread from national to international and everything that falls under that umbrella. This includes the movement of goods, services, technology and capital. There are positive and negative aspects of globalization and this post did a good job encompassing them. Personally I favor globalization for the reasons that it helps build global relationships and creates opportunities that would not otherwise exist. However, I do recognize the possible cons that globalization presents.

  It makes sense that globalization often butts heads with nationalism. In America’s case, when people lose jobs they get upset. Globalization presents a labor force that is willing to work for less and often times willing to work harder and produce the same quality. It will be interesting to see how Americans respond to the increasing trend of outsourcing. I don’t see a problem with outsourcing unless the outsourced jobs are violating human rights or having negative environmental impacts.

  Another negative aspect many people mention is how exploitative globalization can be. The side with more power is after something it can’t get in its home country, often times today this seems to be cheap labor. But on the other side of the coin the laborers are often working for more than they would normally make in the fields, as is the case with China. We aren’t forcing them to work, its their choice. As more awareness is brought to the cheap labor force the conditions continue to improve. Hopefully as awareness of the environmental impacts increase those too can be improved. The policies are what shape the face of globalization and both sides involved need to take responsibility.

  Implemented in the right way, globalization presents greater opportunity to everyone involved and has the potential to be very beneficial to the entire human race.

• 30. Tyler Sereno  |  March 8th, 2011 at 4:27 pm

  Globalization is “the process of increasing the connectivity and interdependence of the world’s markets and businesses.” This blog post was interesting since it discussed both the good side and the bad side of globalization. China faces many side effects of globalization. It is going through its own industrial revolution now in a much more condensed time frame as mentioned in the NY Times video. The result of this is that China is very polluted, in fact 16 of the 25 most polluted cities in the world are in China. It was shocking to see that in NY Time slideshow, one of the pictures had a caption that said, “1% of the 560 million Chinese urban dwellers breathes air considered safe by European Union.” But globalization has helped China grow economically, and many Chinese now have jobs and higher standards of living despite the pollution.

  The clip on Cancun showed evidence of both good and bad effects on Cancun from globalization. The growth of globalization is both fair and unfair. It is good for business, but locals are restricted from going to some of their beaches due to tourism. The construction of the railroad to Tibet also had good and bad effects on the people of Tibet. It will help them develop as more travelers go there for tourism, but also many more Han Chinese will come and take over.

  The world has not become global. Instead, capital, wealth, classes and class values have gone global leaving the world behind. The U.S. and Chinese economies depend on each other as main partners, but they do not trust each other. People still think in terms of national interest, rather than global interest.

• 31. Ashley Ogden  |  March 11th, 2011 at 3:01 pm

  There is no doubt in my mind that with Globalization comes with benefits and detriments. The first video did a good job of explaining the benefits that Globalization brings while the Cancun podcast laid out a situation where some locals have suffered due to Globalization.

  The good things that Globalization brings mainly surround the fact that Globalization reduces poverty by increasing competition. Companies that strive are the ones that respond to competition with innovation. They can see what they are good at and specialize in that field. By concentrating on a specialty, these economies need to import all the rest of the things that they are not producing. This is a more efficient way of producing goods and also leads to lower prices for the end-user. When a country or economy has a competitive advantage in one field they are able to make more money which brings wealth and freedom to the people there. This economic development leads to the democracy, argues this video. This economic freedom and increased wealth can lead to higher living standards. Although these developing countries are still not at our standard of living, they are mostly better off than they were before. An important factor in a countries economic development is how much or little the government interferes. They can either help or hinder a country’s economic development. This video argues that the best thing a government can do is to give people the right to own their land. Too much regulation and restriction can lead to poverty, but in my opinion there needs to be some rules that benefit the local people.

  I can relate to some of the locals in Cancun as the Cancun situation is very similar to the situation in Hawaii. I was furious when a book came out called something like, “Hawaii’s Secret Beaches”. It contained directions to all the beaches that had previously been unknown to tourists; secret spots where only the locals knew how to get to and was sold to the tourists. Now-a-days my favorite beach is always crawling with tourists. It used to be that you needed 4WD to get there, now they have put in a parking lot so any tourist car can have access. It is easy to blame globalization as the reason why I never go to my favorite beach anymore. Although I still despise the people who published that book, I have to admit that they took full advantage of Globalization and turned their knowledge into an easy profit. The smart people will take advantage of the opportunities that globalization provides. Chances are you cannot stop it, so why not be the person to gain from it? Hawaii is not going to pass a law prohibiting tourists any time soon. There needs to be rules and regulations to protect the local people to some degree however. For example, in Hawaii there are Kama’aina (local) discounts at all the hotels and tourist attractions, where you can get significantly lower rates on rooms, shows, and rentals. This benefits both the locals and the businesses because the locals don’t protest the businesses that only cater to tourists. Businesses need the locals when the tourist season ends. Mexico’s government could implement some regulations similar to the Kama’aina discount and make things cheaper for the people who live there year-round.

  Globalization might not be a smooth ride, but it can bring long-term benefits.

• 32. Chris F.  |  March 13th, 2011 at 4:17 am

  I define globalization as integrating economies, logistics, trade and communications across different cultures, societies and geographical locations. I cannot say for certain whether globalization is good or bad since it has developed into an integral part of modern society. I can see how there are people who are for continued globalization and that it benefits society as a whole and those who have the perspective that globalization is detrimental to society.

  In favor of globalization, it has brought about change in how we do business in the world. For many companies, it has opened new, untapped market potential to sell their products. For other countries, it offers the opportunity to bring in new technology or employment so that their societies can build up and climb out of poverty. For capitalism, globalization is great since it allows products or services to be done at a more competitive pace and price. For those who are sitting towards the top of society, it can help them create more wealth while helping those on the bottom as well.

  Opponents to globalization would say that globalization destroys the way of life for them. In a developed country such as the United States, globalization means that many companies are sending major manufacturing businesses to countries where they can hire labor for cheaper. While it keeps the product price cheap, it takes away income from the United States and redistributes it to those citizens in foreign countries. Companies can enjoy huge profits but critics say that it only benefits the rich. This expands the gap between the haves and have-nots.

  I believe globalization will not be going away anytime soon and that people will have to adapt to a changing status quo. To maintain competitiveness in business, you will always have to be able to out produce your competitors and do it cheaper, faster, with better quality and higher production rates. While the consequences of this can be bad, especially in those who are losing out on the jobs, it also offers opportunity to those who recognize the potential that globalization offers and seizes it. Globalization fosters competition and in order to maintain competitiveness, companies and societies have to adapt. It’s survival of the fittest. Harsh reality but true.

• 33. Matt Streiter  |  March 13th, 2011 at 7:00 pm

  This post is very interesting. My definition of globalization would probably be the international expansion of business and technology throughout the world which is flattening society. I first off want to say that I love the documentary “The Corporation” and it does a good job of giving the viewer or reader a glimpse into the mentality of corporations and the impact they leave on society as a whole. The documentary talks about externalities which was raised as a concern in many of the articles such as the Tibet an Cancun article. This is in reference to the independent 3rd party bystanders who are negatively impacted by the decisions of other people or businesses.

  Tibet’s concern is that their new train system is going to destroy their environment and more of the hustle and bustle from eastern China is going to be leaked into their society destroying their current status. Cancun states that tourist industry had brought it a ton of money while at the same time it is reducing the freedoms of the natives. Beaches are becoming private, modernization is only at the sites of hotels, and the foreign company’s are destroying the small businesses that existed previously.

  Globalization definitely isn’t all smiles to everyone, there is a lot of give and take. Wealth has been brought to underdeveloped and poor countries in Mexico, created jobs that can support families in Cambodia, connected Tibet to eastern China, and brought cheap goods to industrialized countries like the U.S. On the flip side it is destroying small businesses, creating environmental damage, increasing government corruption, and is changing the way people live their lives for better or worse. Overall I think globalization is good and is creating opportunities that otherwise would not be possible.

  To make globalization a more opportunistic endeavor for all it will take more responsibility among participants. There is no question some people are getting the short end of the stick in specific situations. I was shocked to read the transcript of the Chapter 11 in NATO. If companies are guaranteed profits due to government interference it could turn disastrous. I can think of so many ways foreign companies could work that system off the top of my head right now. Using the Cambodia example also, if the government isn’t going to be conducive to economic growth they are going to reduce the attractiveness of foreign companies coming in which would further set them back.

• 34. J Vail  |  March 14th, 2011 at 12:47 pm

  I originally was studying to be a Spanish minor during my undergrad, and in the process we had a lot of readings and videos on globalization for the ‘current events’ portion of class, probably because that was the only aspect of Central American life students could relate to. Generally these readings focused on the negative aspects of globalization, because South/Central American economies get a much worse deal out of the process than Northern American / Asian markets.

  On the whole, even after going over the massive provided reserve of negative globalization information, I believe globalization is a necessary and unstoppable process as we move into the future. I think it is also understandable to see that certain industries and laws collapse in the wake of globalization, but every country can find its own niche to take advantages of the opportunities it provides. The one tenet I saw of the process that was alarming was the conversation on Chapter 11 – I can’t believe that they actually could pass a trade agreement that had such a stupid and manipulative stipulation contained in it.

  I support globalization, but hearing Americans complain about how other countries ‘take advantage’ of America with globalization is absurd and hypocritical considering that on the whole America has gotten the best deal out of the process. It forces countries to adapt, but they should try to adapt anyway to keep up with the rest of the globe – if anything, globalization is the only way they can achieve such goals. It provides certain means to manipulate countries and practices, but when used fairly is the best way for humanity to progress as a whole.

• 35. Omar Pradhan  |  March 18th, 2011 at 1:24 pm

  It is often said that a rising tide raises all boats… But if that tide is full of sewage and post industrial waste, which then catches fire, most would not hesitate to rethink the arrangement. What I’m trying to say here is that Globalization does not ALWAYS equal good and it does not always equal bad. Throughout history, neighbors in small communities were empowered to Form, Storm, Norm, & Perform on their shared vision of a better tomorrow. When things didn’t pan out, they simply came back together and restructured their previous arrangement to realign for mutual gain. Similarly, larger groups, as a collection of sub-groups and individuals, should be afforded opportunities to consensually arrange and re-arrange for mutual gain. My beef with Globalization is that the parties involved are not all equally equipped to succeed in the arrangement / re-arrangement. And when mutual gains are not recognized, the benefiting parties forget that the original purpose was not to exploit but to consensually partner so that mutual gains are maintained. In 2003 when “The Corporation” was released, I happened to be on vacation following my tour of duty in the Middle East. After watching the film, I decided right then and there that I needed to re-evaluate my understanding of how the world works. I set out to challenge my assumptions by reading as much as I could. I started to collect documentaries like “Is Wal-Mart Good for America?” and “Manufacturing Consent” and “Why We Fight” and “Food Inc.” and “IOUSA” and many others… Once my military commitment was up, I decided to unleash my potential to make sense of the problem AND be a part of solutions by earning a JD and now MBA. I believe that Globalization, as conceived and implemented in years past, is unsustainable and unjust. There NO easy answers and fixes. Moving forward, I believe that point of consumption technologies will begin to enable “smarter” globalized arrangements. Technologies like GoodGuide (https://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.csmonitor.com%2FWorld%2Fmaking-a-difference%2F2009%2F0830%2Fp25s05-lign.html&h=a805f) have the potential to pressure global market participants into making products that think beyond mere “economic” costs and begin to include social, environmental, and other hidden costs. Whatever the mechanism, when the marketplace is made more responsive to the “educated” needs of buyers, we can start to erode the undesirable effects of traditional Globalization and genuinely raise all boats justly and sustainably.

• 36. JP Salazar  |  March 18th, 2011 at 3:06 pm

  This is an interesting issue for us to be discussing. I like this blog post because it forces us to look at both sides of an issue that will continue to have a profound impact on our daily lives.
  I agree with your definition of globalization from an economic standpoint. However, I definitely feel that globalization has more far reaching effects than just financial ones. I believe the most effective definition of globalization is the increase in parity of culture, politics, and economics between nations.
  Overall, I would consider myself a globalist. I definitely think there are more positive benefits, especially in business, concerning globalization then there are negative costs. The increased opportunities created by open trade agreements and access to new market are a huge benefit. An increase in globalization also allows for the transfer of wealth from richer nations into poorer ones. We have been seeing this happen over the past 20 years with the US and Chinese manufacturing jobs. As a result, the standard of living for people in China is at a higher level than it has ever been before. While 250 million people here in the US might be feeling the pressure of an ailing economy, an entire nation of 1.4 billion people is being lifted out of poverty. While I can definitely see the good sides to globalization, I also recognize that it can have its pitfalls. Like I just stated, people are losing their jobs here in the US as companies move their operations overseas to the newly accessible foreign markets for cheap labor. Americans are going to have to come to terms with the reality that globalization is happening and there is going to be a new power balance as wealth is redistributed across the globe. But I really believe that how you feel about it really depends on what side of the blade you are on. It is on each and every person to decide for themselves where they stand on this issue.

• 37. Kevin K.  |  December 27th, 2011 at 5:00 pm

  What is globalization? To me it is the idea of a shrinking universe. The world in a blender. Everything is being mixed and combined at lightning-quick speeds. This can refer to economics, trade, cultural beliefs, or any other aspects of the world’s civilizations.

  The next question that comes through all of this is whether or not globalization is good or bad. Again, with all things this depends on where you stand. Did Native Americans, the Aztecs or Incans think globalization was a good thing? Granted this was centuries ago and an extreme example, but globalization effects people differently. It is a powerful trend, one that shapes and determines the future of governments and the entire world’s population.

  What I personally believe is that globalization is a great thing — a necessary aspect of the evolution of our planet. It is something that forces change and adaptation; and one that we as MBA students will soon see as we prepare to travel to China. This Western culture meets Eastern is globalization, one that I am excited to experience firsthand.

• 38. Vladimir  |  December 28th, 2011 at 8:28 pm

  When I think about globalization, I simply define it as a global economy. The definition in the post reflects my view in more detail. Whether globalization is good or bad depends on the person’s perspective and position. One person’s judgment of globalization may have little to do with their monetary self-interest while another person’s judgment will be based strictly on their self-interest.

  Is globalization good for the world? Probably. It is better for citizens of poor countries. Since it would take a relatively low wage (by US standards) to entice them to leave their even lower-paying jobs and work for a multi-national corporation, workers in poor countries will enjoy a higher standard of living. The Globalization is Good film argued that successfully. I also agree that while sweatshops are not the ideal place to work, they give poor workers an alternative they can freely choose to take. If, as a consequence, air and water quality is reduced, the costs may outweigh the benefits. I think this is unlikely to happen on a global scale in the long run. A country must pay attention to its environment at some point. China has started to do this they’ll have to get more serious about it. I also believe that globalization will eventually lead to better working conditions in developing countries.

  Will globalization be good for most people in the United States? I doubt it. The Globalization is Good documentary focused on the rising quality of life globalization would bring to poor countries, not the effect globalization will have (not “did have”) on Europe or the United States. None of the reports or videos challenged my belief, as I had hoped. Manufacturing jobs are not the only positions being offshored. Companies are closing down call centers and moving their customer service and tech support operations to India and other countries. Many professional jobs, such as software engineering and accounting are also moving overseas. Globalization is not good people in these fields. Globalization is good – or at least relatively harmless - for senior management. Globalization does not matter as much for those whose jobs can’t be outsourced, such as doctors, auto mechanics, and police officers. Globalization is best for those who are able to take advantage of it. The will to step out of one’s comfort zone and adapt to a global economy is important for a business person. This quality will serve people well in general. But I don’t see most Americans meeting this challenge successfully. I hope I’m wrong. I look forward to learning more about globalization, especially about how we can make globalization good for America.

• 39. Daniel Fleek  |  January 16th, 2012 at 7:41 pm

  Globalization has lead to using the best and cheapest things, wherever they may come from, to make the product which will be superior and cheaper than a competitor’s product. Once this pressure is applied to the competitor, the competitor has to then find the cheapest and most innovative product to stay in competition and the cycle continues. In terms of creating the best and cheapest products, I think globalization has been successful. Now, we can buy anything that is made anywhere and we have full information from price to product review which is accessible mostly on the internet. It has made the reward for finding the cheapest raw materials and labor a huge advantage to a company’s success. Also, the effect of globalization I feel produces the most superior products. With the knowledge and technology of the world, companies will be able to create the cheapest and most innovative products. Therefore, this is very beneficial for people investing in companies, which are mostly made up of the upper class people who can afford this.

  In terms of the lower and middle class however, I believe that the effect of globalization has been negative due to the increase in competition over materials and labor. Now that the whole world is competitive against even the smallest of businesses, it gives an unfair advantage to those companies which have more money to invest in large scale foreign manufacturing. It is near impossible for small businesses to compete with companies like these and this is causing many businesses to go out of business unless they have a special niche in some sort of high quality and price good. Even with these niches though, globalization will find a way to find a better price than what these companies in America can achieve since global standards on labor and materials are much lower in other countries like China. I believe that these companies need protection from the large scale foreign competition or else the only successful companies in America will be the large scaled ones. I love going into towns like Cayucos and exploring all the local product that the community has to offer and feel that these are the things that gives a community a distinct identity. I hope the effects of globalization will be minimized by future economic policies to protect these authentic roots which identify one community from another instead of assimilating the world into one, highly efficient machine.

• 40. Grant  |  February 3rd, 2012 at 8:11 am

  Fighting globalization is akin to the young gunfighter who wished to take out the Outlaw Josey Wales, to whom Josey replied, “Dyin’ ain’t much of a livin’”. (I know, its from a different Eastwood movie).

  To me, it is not good or bad, although maybe ugly. I think it is bad for one thing in particular: It is bad for the self-indulged American with an entitlement mentality. So I think it is good for America to be pushed off the couch and out of the break room and be forced to reconsider how they are going to cope with the new reality.
  I don’t really even care if the average American connects the dots, that their own selfish desire to purchase the lowest priced crap contributes directly to the loss of their own jobs. Even if they don’t see the irony, they will still be forced to resolve in their own life how they are going to deal with it. While I am not confident that it will happen, it is my hope that they figure out a way to bring some sort of value to the table, rather than continuing to drain the economy through social programs and “stimulus”.
  Meanwhile, on the other side of the ocean, the chinese, and others like them, have never been crippled with the entitlement mentality so they are forced to produce because they have no alternative. So as long as America provides Americans with an alternative to actually being productive, we will continue to slip as a society.

• 41. Jeffrey Brown  |  February 22nd, 2012 at 1:22 am

  What is globalization? Globalization is the intermingling of the economies of all the nations on the planet to provide means of specialization of labor and sharing of human knowledge. Ideally (from a capitalist perspective) this system would be regulated by an invisible hand that guides nations to produce goods in such a manner that is most efficient to all parties involved in global trade. This definition I have given is very much of the economist perspective and is what I think most relates to the discussion at hand.

  I believe globalization is a integral part in the success of global economies provided that there are no anomalies in the system. That being said, I believe that there are many anomalies to the environment in which globalization takes place today. Anomalies such as product dumping, trade restrictions, tariffs, and lack of regard for environmental impact is what groups against globalization cite most often. I agree with many of these arguments made and realize that globalization hurts nations because of these anomalies. I still believe that the overall benefits of globalization outweigh the side effects, but for it to be most effective and have least resistance we must get rid of these things that make the current system of global trade flawed in many regards.

• 42. Charles Dornbush  |  March 9th, 2012 at 6:52 pm

  Globalization has good, bad and ugly parts. The parts are also very complicated and involve not just economic issues, both social and environmental ones as well. However I believe that the good outweighs both the bad and the ugly at the end of the day.

  As an economist I could talk about international trade theory and how free trade raises everyone’s standard of living, but all of that has been said. The real problem with globalization is that although overall it raises the welfare of an economy, certain “victims” can be hurt pretty bad in the process.

  Globalization grows the size of the economic pie and forces people to change, adapt and innovate to create newer and better products and services. It also puts people out of work and destroys the environment. I think the proper way to deal with globalization is to find ways to limit the downside. Helping layed off workers switch careers, considering environmental costs, and making sure people don’t profit unfairly is all important.

• 43. Fred S.  |  March 10th, 2012 at 6:43 pm

  Globalization opens up the markets of the world. Essentially, it connects the countries of the world as a team, as each country takes part in what they excel at. Do you need a large quantity of parts that requires intense manufacturing? Send it to China. Do you need a very specialized or large part? Make it in America. Do you need an abundance of raw materials? They have likely got what you need in Brazil. However, like any team, unsportsmanlike conduct can take place or you may have to sit on the bench for a moment.

  Globalization has many benefits, but it also comes with its drawbacks. It is good in that it enables many developing countries to grow economically; It allows cost savings for companies outsourcing; And it improves living standards for developing nations. The negative effects occur when manufacturing is moved to countries where there is no cultural awareness of mitigating environmental impact; And when manufacturing jobs leave America it causes middle class America to lose their jobs. However, these negative impacts are not all bad. It provides a kick in the pants for change. People must innovate and improve themselves as the job market in America changes. In the current state of globalization, it may seem that developing countries are getting the best deal for the overall wealth of their country as many citizens are coming out of poverty with new jobs in the cities. The work in America is making a shift towards design and management functions as more manufacturing jobs are headed to other global markets like China.

• 44. Georgia  |  March 12th, 2012 at 11:07 am

  Humans are curious by nature, and when the novelty wears off other emotions arise. Fear and self-preservation turn people to exploit others. This is roughly how I view globalization. But somewhere along the road self-preservation must turn into mutual allegiance. Awareness and immersing yourself into another culture readily speeds this transition. When a CEO can put faces to those in their factories it is harder for them to be lax about working conditions (hopefully). But until then it is those workers who struggle. They have to see their country sides changed into polluted stripped areas, like in China: The World’s Smokestack.
  James Fallows breaks it down in Postcards. If a product is sold for $3o when it reaches the US, the factory only sees $2. The difference that paying one dollar more per item could make is astronomical. I think at the stage we are at in globalization is vastly unequal and unfair. I can’t wait for the day where everyone can profit without personal and environmental danger.

• 45. Ashley Tyra  |  March 12th, 2012 at 6:51 pm

  What is globalization? To me, globalization is the reduction of barriers, both good and bad. Globalization can be anything from the sharing of information and the mixing of cultures, to the expansion of business across nations. Globalization has a broad definition with many ramifications attached to it.

  The good. There are many good things that can arrise out of globalization. More free-flowing information. Exchanges of culture and beliefs. Poverty can become less severe in areas where globalization has occurred thanks to higher wages from foreign companies.

  The bad and the ugly. Although wealthier countries will be putting forth their pocket books, they will still be getting the better end of the deal when it comes to globalization. Americans are always saying NIMBY, “not in my back yard.” The more globalization occurs, the more “dirty” jobs we will be outsourcing to countries far away from home. The ugly part of globalization shows its true colors when we see what countries will become the most polluted and unhealthy.

  Overall globalization is inevitable, and can be a good thing if we don’t take advantage of less fortunate countries. As long as we remember that we aren’t the only kids on the playground, maybe we can all have a good time.

• 46. Keith Cody  |  March 14th, 2012 at 7:42 pm

  I define globalization as the creation of markets and supply changes that are global in scope, simply that.

  Globalization has some nice things going for it and some not nice things.

  Exotic, imported goods and spices have brought a premium and been coveted in the marketplace for centuries.

  Depending on how you look at it, one nice feature of a global supply change is that it allows you to return to an earlier time in your market’s life cycle. If you cut down all your trees, and now have to deal with the fact that you have no trees to manufacturer your goods with, through globalization, you don’t have to deal with it yet, you can just source trees from someplace else and continue on in your ways. This allows you to stay in business.

  Another nice feature is that you can move externalities from your market and put them in another. China burns a bunch of coal to generate the electricity to produce our goods, but most American’s don’t have to deal with the Chinese pollution yet. Approximate 1/3 of the lead pollution in California> comes from Asia, but not to many people are making the link between the way we do business and where are pollution comes from. If we still had local / regional / national markets, we would have to address these issues, but thanks to globalization, we don’t yet.

  If you think of the world in global terms, then you can not longer just pollute in someone else’s backyard. All problem as global in scope. Foxconn’s suicide problem is also Apple’s problem. Forward thinking people will begin to do Full Life Cycle Cost Analysis. For example, the most expensive part of a building, over it’s life, are the salaries of the people that work in it.

  Hippies should take heart. If you look at the Full Life Cycle Cost of Coal, including deaths from pollution and ecological damage, electricity from coal is a net loser. Society loses by burning coal. Both figuratively and economically.

  Some smart people, like the IEEE, and Apple. are beginning to think of China’s problems as our problems. JUCCCE is a start. If you believe in globalization, you have to view problems globally.

Leave a Comment

Name Required

Email Required, hidden

Url

Comment

Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed

The posts, comments and/or views expressed on this trip blog, whether by a Cal Poly student or faculty or an outside guest to the blog, do not necessarily reflect the policies or views of Cal Poly, the Orfalea College of Business (OCOB), any of the OCOB's graduate programs and/or other students who participate in the trip.