The Evils of Globalization

Written: February 4th, 2015.
Prompt: Is Globalization helping to develop the poorer parts of the world or is it creating a larger gap between rich nations and poor nations?

Today, rich nations are getting richer and poor nations poorer. The problem with answering the question of whether globalization is helping the situation is two-fold. First, helping is an ambiguous term. If a country develops economically as a result of globalization, but loses its cultural identity, would globalization still be said to have helped that nation? In other words, are we talking about strict economic help, or broader conceptions of aid and support? Second, the question presents a sharp dichotomy between good and bad; either globalization is good for developing nations, or it is not. But clearly this leaves out the position that globalization helps some developing nations, but not others. It very well may be the case that some "middle path" between these two extremes is the more plausible position.

With that in mind, it seems to me that globalization is sometimes an aid to the poor parts of the world, but other times it creates a larger gap between rich nations and poor nations. For example, eastern Asian economies have apparently prospered from the effects of globalization. Their net economic production per capita (i.e., GDP) increased eight-fold and millions of people were brought above the poverty line. However, in Latin American countries, openness towards international trade has increased the number of people living on less than one US dollar a day. What accounts for these differences seem to be historical accidents, the luck of the draw.

Turning aside from experience to theoretical arguments, proponents of globalization offer many and varied arguments. For instance, increased globalization is said to lead to better living standards for developing nations. The idea is that these nations would have access to foreign lending, and they could use that money to improve the average citizen's living conditions (e.g., better roads, buildings, etc.). But doubts quickly arise as to whether governments generally use their money so benevolently. Or again, globalization is argued to lead to increased trade between nations. Businesses and industries in developing nations would suddenly find themselves with a much wider consumer base as a result of being introduced to international trade. Anti-globalizationists respond by pointing out that an increase in inter-nation trade leads to the destruction of individual culture, leading to one Euro-American culture. Third, globalization leads to multinational corporations seeking workers in developing nations, and as a consequence the unemployment rate of those nations decreases.

On the other hand, serious objections have been raised to the validity of globalization. First, given the necessary capitalist nature of globalization, multinational mega-companies rise to the top and the food chain. The primary concern of these mega-companies is not the welfare of their workers; it's to make money. This leads to situations in which millions of workers in developing nations work long hours in unsafe conditions and with very low wages. In those nations were to pass laws protecting their workers, mega-companies simply move on to other developing nations, and the original nation loses its source of employment and capital. Moreover, globalization, far from decreasing unemployment, actually increases unemployment in developing nations. Even if mega-companies employ large numbers of workers at the outset, inevitable improvements in technology (principally in increases in automation) lead to less jobs for low skilled workers (i.e., the majority of the working sector in developing nations).

So it seems that serious objections lodge themselves against the validity of globalization, typified in its effect upon developing nations; the rich, by and large, get richer, and the poor, by and large, get poorer. But it seems to the author that no matter what arguments, evidence, and reasons are offered to curtail increased globalization, international companies are motivated only by money, and getting more money. They do not care what happens to the nations they exploit. One need only turn to Nike for proof. Given this, it really doesn't matter how we answer the above question, because mega-companies are going to do whatever they want regardless. Solutions must be sought elsewhere.