Globalization Re-visited

February 19th, 2010

This post originated as a response to the “60 Minutes” segment - “Out of India.” I remember seeing this when it first aired in 2004.  India is the first developing country to achieve modern growth using a knowledge economy.  Again, India’s growth is not only a product of its talent, but also its work ethic- its hustle- if you will.  The more I reflect on this video, the more I see it as a preamble to a broad discussion on globalization.

Globalization has a negative connotation in circles on both the left and the right.  The argument against globalization’s virtues is grounded in either the loss of US jobs, or the exploitation of developing countries.  At the University of Montana, I ran with a crowd who abhorred the players in the WTO/World Economic Forum and turned to movements like the World Social Forum (WSF).  The WSF has been held several times in Brazil, once in Kenya, Pakistan, Mali, Venezuela, and in 2004 – Mumbai, India.  Well over 75,000 people attended the Mumbai WSF.  Though not quite as compelling as Noam Chomsky speaking in Porto Alegre Brazil 2003, Joseph Stiglitz was a highlight speaker in Mumbai.

The movement originated as a response to the Washington Consensus and policies of the IMF and World Bank, which were seen as gouging the developing world.  The premise of the organization is described as follows on the World Social Forum India website: “The World Social Forum is not an organization, not a united front platform, but ‘…an open meeting place for reflective thinking, democratic debate of ideas, formulation of proposals, free exchange of experiences and inter-linking for effective action, by groups and movements of civil society that are opposed to neo-liberalism and to domination of the world by capital and any form of imperialism, and are committed to building a society centered on the human person.’”

However, globalization viewed closer to the center, has many benefits as well as negatives.  It’s difficult to determine the net impact.  According to the 60 Minutes segment, “Out of India”, it is clear that globalization is improving the quality of life for millions- if not billions- of people in emerging nations like India and China.  It is also allowing multinational corporations to enforce trade agreements that may override local governance and law.  The verdict is still out concerning the benevolence of globalization, but its reality is undeniable.  Polarization on the issue, like many issues, will not be beneficial in moving forward.  However, concessions on both sides of the argument are necessary to ensure the undeniable reality of globalization progresses, for the benefit of multiple stakeholders.

-Kirk Story

Entry Filed under: 2010 Student Blogs, India, Misc.

1 Comment Add your own

  • 1. Tim Lynds  |  March 1st, 2010 at 4:14 pm

    From what I have seen, the polarization of views on this issue is the result of personal experiences and ignorance on both sides of the issue. Before coming to Cal Poly most of what I heard about globalization was negative and I was constantly exposed to the “they’re stealing our jobs” mentality. This was mostly from people who were not directly affected by globalization (aka they still had their jobs) but who were in fear of losing their jobs. They had no interest in the benefits of globalization because no matter how many benefits there were, it did not change the fact that they might lose their job. They hated globalization because it posed a threatened to take their jobs without giving anything back.

    At Cal Poly globalization has been presented in a much better light. There has been a huge amount of discussion on globalization, much of which has been related to our up-coming India trip. Most of this discussion has been focused on the benefits of globalization and why companies need to globalize. While I am happy to have a much more holistic understanding of globalization, I must remind myself that some of what I am hearing here is as polarized as what I heard before. Most of the discussion here at Cal Poly is from the viewpoint of company management or workers in other countries, not from the viewpoint of individual workers in the US. I am not saying this is a bad thing, but that it may be more one-sided than it initially appears to be.

    Globalization is both good and bad and I am happy that I have a better understanding of both sides. Kirk’s post just reminded me that in all issues, the source and motivation behind all information should be taken into consideration.

Leave a Comment

Required

Required, hidden

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


Calendar

September 2010
M T W T F S S
« Aug    
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930  

Most Recent Posts

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.