The world is becoming more globalized, there is no doubt about that. The sociologist, Anthony Giddens, defines globalisation as a decoupling of space and time, emphasising that with instantaneous communications, knowledge and culture can be shared around the world simultaneously.
While that sounds promising, the current form of globalization, neoliberalism, free trade and open markets are coming under much criticism. Thomas L. Friedman, the author of The World Is Flat, stated that the world is simply being flattened with 3 different eras of globalisation. The first lasted from 1492, when Columbus set sail, opening trade between the old world and the new world until 1800. The second great era of gobalisation lasted roughly from 1800 to 2000, interrupted by the Great Depression and World Wars one and two. The key agent of change, the dynamic force driving global integration, was multinational companies. When it comes to 2000, we have entered the 3rd era of globalisation, it gives the newfound power for individuals to collaborate and compete globally when the internet and telecommunication became popular and common in our daily lives.
Neoliberalism, in theory, is essentially about making trade between nations easier, it requires the removal of various controls deemed as barriers to free trade such as tariffs, regulations, certain standards, laws, legislation, regulatory measures and restrictions on capital flows and investment. Today then, neoliberal policies are seeing positives and negatives. Under free enterprise, there have been innovative products. Growth and development for some have been immense. Unfortunately, for most people in the world there has been an increase in poverty and the innovation and growth has not been designed to meet immediate needs for many of the world's people. Global inequalities on various indicators are sharp. For example, some 3 billion people, or half of humanity, live on under 2 dollars a day. 86 percent of the world's resources are consumed by the world's wealthiest 20 percent. Joseph Stiglitz, former World Bank Chief Economist, Nobel Laureate in Economics, notes that economic globalization in its current form risks exacerbating poverty and increasing violence if not checked, because it is impossible to separate economic issues from social and political issues. In most testbooks and classrooms, not only are these 3 fields( Economics, political science, history) of study separated, but they are futher compartmentalized into separate subfields, obscuring the close interconnections between them.
As referring to the perils of globalisatoin. The interest of powerful nations and corporations are shaping the terms of world trade. In democratic countries, they are shaping and affecting the ability of elected leaders to make decisions in the interests of their people. Elsewhere they are promoting narrow political discouse and even supporting dictatorship and the "stability" that it brings for their interest. This is to the detriment of most people in the world, while increasingly fewer people in proportion are prospering, most Malaysians are not outcasted. In fact, despite economy liberalism has leavened the pace of our country development, as behoofs are permeating into respectable aspects like education, health care, standards of living,etc. It is blemishing and worsening the gap between rich and poor, moreover, Americanisation is flawing our local unique culture and influencing our teenagers. It seems unsustainable to allow our teenagers to carry out Americanism on the land of our home country. This is actually very contradictive, because in order for "free market" to be "free", the exchange of labour, land, currency, and consumer goods must not be encumbered by elements of psychosocial integration such as clan loyalties, village responsibilities, guild or union rights, charity, family obligations, social roles or religious values. Cultural traditions "distort" the free play of the laws of supply and demand, and thus must be suppressed in order to achieve "free markets". In free market economies, for example, people are expected to move to where jobs can be found, and to adjust their work lives and cultural tastes to the demand of a global market.
The emergence of environmental issue has become a major concern of people all over the world. The question appeared after environment is bady bruised and contaminated, who's responsible for the damages? Not the owners of the company, the shareholders. Not the managers or employees, not the community, not the government. This was an unintended consequence of the corporate structure brought by globalisation, the very aspects of the company's design that made it so robust, so able to survive changes in leadership, in the economy, in technology, were the aspects that led to this result pollution that no one wanted, and everyone would pay for.
One of the arguments made for gobalization is that the world should move futher towards becoming interdependent on one another. It probably bears some merits, this way, no one will want to war with others, because they depend on each other to keep their economies alive. This sounds like a wonderful solutions to prevent future horrors such as the previous world wars.
To conclude, globalisation is happening, it is irreversible and unavoidable. The pros and cons are very controvertible. In fact, large and small protests have occured for years to cast down some WTO meetings, also at IMF, World Bank, G8 and other such summits. Protests are seen today have typically been against the current forms of globalization and the marginalization it is causing, as well as the increasing disparities between the rich and the poor that it has predictably led to already.
.jpg)