“Globalization and its Contents”

The impact of globalization on both the developed and developing world has undoubtedly been tremendous, as illustrated by the article “Globalization and its Contents” by Peter Marber. The term has been percieved by a wide spectrum of angles, ranging from activists who believe that it is a form of conspiracy by major corporations to environmentalists who think it will cause the earth to be ravaged. However, as is the case with any and every global issue, there isn’t one clear and simple answer. The amount of factors involved in issues such as globalization make it a complex problem to understand and solve. Marber’s take on the issue is the positive side; the straight facts that globalization has brought the world to many measurable advantages. His goal with this article was to present the issue in a positive light and promote globalization, which he has done quite well. However, there are several potholes on the way to a fully globalized village that are hard to ignore.

First and foremost, it is crucial to mentions the hardcore facts. Since about 50 years ago, life expectancy has nearly doubled, especially in the developing world. This is due to the lowering infant mortality rates, better nutrition, and medical advances. Also happening in the poor areas of the world, is the rising literacy rates. A more educated population benefits developing countries by increasing their productivity and allowing them to enter a competing global market. In the already developed country, it allows more educated workers to contribute to the economy.

In the developed part of the world, some will argue that globalization and free trade causes workers to lose their jobs. Marber believes that this is only a short-term disadvantage to developed countries, as it is simply temporary. He says that eventually jobs will begin to open up in other sectors that are more inclined to work around things such as importing and exporting, which benefits free trade. Marber’s point is that, a temporary increase in unemployement is the lesser of two evils, when compared to a nation with no free trade at all, as eventually the long-term gains will benefit the developed country. I personally think that this isn’t a very good counter argument. Of course jobs will open up depending on where the nation is headed (in this case, more free trade). In the near future, it is predictable therefore the population can plan their careers accordingly. But what about the people who are out of jobs right now? Why put a family at an economic disadvantage right now in order to “create long-term gains in national income” later?

In Marber’s article, it says that what determines wealth is the ability to work less and consume more (lazy). Basically in our lifetime, the costs of goods and services has decreased all over the world, and has become much more affordable for an average income. Because globalization has increased the per capita income of so many countries, it put them at much higher purchasing power and now, it is not only the “rich” who are able to afford these once high-end products.

Another advantage of globalization outlined in Marber’s article is greater political freedom for developed and developing countries. These are things like an increase in voting rights and universal suffrage, which more than two-thirds of the world now has. Additionally, globalization has resulted in an increased income for the middle class. A strong middle class is apparently an important part of economic, political and social stability, as it is supposedly associated with income growth, health and infrastructure improvements, gender equality, and greater concern for the environment, just to name a few. Although all of these things make sense, I don’t believe that they happen just by having a richer middle class. There are many more factors that could and probably do influence these things, which Marber has failed to recognize. It seems to me, just another way to promote globalization to non-critical thinkers. Besides, the world isn’t just for the middle class...

Globalization is a process, and on the way there a four major potholes, which are protectionism, armed conflict, environmental stress and demographic imbalances. Many non-supporters of globalization will often argue that it is a loss of culture and tradition to many countries. Protectionism has been a response to this issue. It is an attempt to preserve these cultures and shut out foreign ideas. Although it may seem like this is doing good for those countries’ traditions, I think it is harming them more than anything. By doing this, they are simply losing potential advances in their economy. By refusing to let in new and foreign ideas, or being difficult about it in terms of tariffs, labour and immigration laws, controls and taxes, that country is holding itself back from economic progress and gain, all in the name of “preserving culture”. I personally think that isn’t the smartest thing to do.

Moving on, the second pothole mentioned is armed conflict, which keeps countries from competing economically, building their human capital, and developing financial markets. Furthermore, countries in which armed conflict is present devote more of their economic resources to their military budget. Because of this, the development of their human capital and economic competitiveness slows down tremendously. A lot of armed conflict happens in the developing world, and at the same time, those countries are the ones who are more in need to basic life necessities such as shelter and food. So isn’t it obvious that spending more of their money on their defense budget is a waste?

Thirdly, a huge result of globalization is a environmental strain. Due to the increased consumption (see work less, consume more – “lazy”), there is a strain on the environment as it is constantly being degraded and damaged. Within the next 50 years, Marber’s article says that 2 to 3 more billion people will begin to consume like middle class Americans...meaning scarce resources. On top of that, because of the potential environmental dangers, there may be new regulations put in place in order to preserve the environment. Increased environmental awareness may result in things like raised costs to businesses and consumers, which is an impediment on economic progression.

Lastly, the fourth pothole is that of demographic imbalances around the world. The population trends are in contrast between developing nations and developed ones. Because of the high birth rate in developing nations, the population is much younger than in developed nations which are experiencing ageing populations. Although a youth bulge potentially promises future economic opportunity, it is important to consider that in more than 50 developing nations, sometimes half the population is under the age of 20, and living in poor and politically unstable areas. This clearly makes them susceptible to violence and instability. On the other hand, developed countries may also be at risk of a derailing global progress as well. Due to their older population the demand for consumer goods will shrink (deflation), and as will asset values such as real estate. It also puts stress on public pension plans and causes for potential weakining currencies.

All in all, I do believe that globalization will eventually benefit to the developing world. It is obvious the developed nations have already began benefitting from this, however, it isn’t possible for poorer areas to prosper at the same rate. Therefore, it will take much more time for them to acquire the same advantages as countries like the States and Canada.