Globalization
O’ Neil defines globalization as: “the interconnection between countries that is changing in its scope, depth, and speed. Linkages between states, societies, and economies are intensifying, and at an increasingly rapid pace, challenging long-standing institutions, assumptions, and norms” (O’Neil 250). While this is an adequate and all-encompassing definition of the term, it is necessary to further expound on globalism. There are two different types of globalism and a distinction must be made between them. First, there is the globalism that involves international cooperation, social justice, and progressive ideas that benefit citizens. Then there is the globalization that restricts sovereignty, hinders economic practices, and contains numerous political implications. An analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of globalism-including both sides of the term-results in the conclusion that as global citizens we must be cautiously optimistic about globalism and which definition[s] we employ.
Very few people contest the first definition. Being a part of an interconnected society contains many advantages. With the advent of technology, it becomes easier and easier to expand relations on both a business and personal level. No one can deny that our world is increasingly interdependent. Globalism certainly has the power to be a positive tool. There are ideas and concepts that globalism makes possible that could not happen without a spirit of cooperation and common identity.
What are some examples of the benefits of globalization? Standards of living can rise, with the increase of new jobs and technological innovations. Then there is the economical advantage of competition coupled with cheap imports. Next, there is open economy that allows for the incorporation of new ideas. Export jobs often pay more than other jobs. And finally, “unfettered capital flows give the U.S. access to foreign investments and keep interest rates low” (Globalization 1). All of these seem very beneficial on the surface.
Domestically, these factors sound appealing. However, we should be skeptical of these improvements, as it forces us to examine the negative connotations of globalization on a deeper level. Many Americans have lost their jobs due to exported labor. As a result they are either unemployed or settling for jobs that are far below their capabilities. With the constant fear of losing jobs, it causes employees to work below optimal levels, and also face the threat of wage cuts and lack of job security. Service jobs face the highest risk of being off shored. “U.S. employees can lose their comparative advantage when companies build advanced factories in low-wage countries, making them as productive as those at home” (Globalization 1). These examples focus primarily on the economic side of globalization, which is only one of many factors in the equation.
One of the best examples to illustrate the pros and cons of globalization is the European Union [EU]. There are three examples O’Neil states about the ever evolving EU. First is the monetary union. Many states within the EU adopted a single currency, the euro. As a result the value has been decreased dramatically. Surveys demonstrate that the majority of Europeans do not feel this has enhanced their sense of commonality. Secondly there is the ever-growing expansion of the EU. Some of the newer members are not compatible, financially and economically, with others. This creates a gap between membership states and presents an entirely new set of problems, which brings us to the last example involving constitutional reform. “There has never been a single document that codified the functions and roles of the EU” (O’Neil 176). Several drafts regarding a governing document have been rejected.
How do Europeans feel regarding globalization? “Many Europeans worry about globalization’s effect on jobs, economic quality, European culture, or political independence vis- -vis the United States” (Gordon 1). Yet as Philip Gordon asserts in his article, very few Europeans actually oppose globalization. In fact, 64% of Europeans strongly agree that globalization is indeed favorable (Gordon 1). The overall conclusion of his article is that globalization presents some challenges — but Europeans are extremely confident in the EU’s ability to help them get past these and turn globalization into something positive.
Two major issues with globalization that will continue to affect its role in future international relations are the reconciliation of freedom and equality and the gap between the rich and poor. As states become increasingly globalized, the concepts of freedom and equality change. Does the freedom of one state come at the expense of another? Can there ever be true balance in the international sphere? It is also worth noting that “as globalization has increased over the past quarter century, the percentage of the world’s population that lives in poverty has declined and people’s life expectancy has risen, particularly in the parts of the world that are more globalized” (O’Neil 263). These findings contrast the prevailing belief that the discrepancy between the wealthy and the poor is growing rapidly.
Globalization by far is one of the most interesting concepts in international relations and comparative politics. There are, however, two types of globalism. One of them brings great benefits whereas the other has economic consequences-and some consider it an encroachment of sovereignty. Certainly globalization is inevitable, and it shows no signs of ceasing. The questions raised by this increasing interdependence force present unique obstacles, challenges, and benefits. To see how different states-and their citizens-handle globalization is one of the most fascinating aspects of contemporary political life.
WORKS CITED:
Gordon, Philip H. “Globalization: Europe’s Wary Embrace.” Yale Global. 1 November 2004.
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=4790
O’ Neil, Patrick H. Essentials of Comparative Politics. W. W. Norton & Company, Inc: New
York, 2003.
“The Pros and Cons of Globalization.” Business Week. 24 April 2000.
http://www.businessweek.com/2000/00_17/b3678003.htm