1. What is globalization ?
Globalization broadly refers to the expansion of global linkages, the organization of social life on a global scale, and the growth of a global consciousness, hence to the consolidation of world society. Such an ecumenical definition captures much of what the term commonly means, but its meaning is disputed. It encompasses several large processes; definitions differ in what they emphasize. Globalization is historically complex; definitions vary in the particular driving force they identify. The meaning of the term is itself a topic in global discussion; it may refer to "real" processes, to ideas that justify them, or to a way of thinking about them. The term is not neutral; definitions express different assessments of global change. Among critics of capitalism and global inequality, globalization now has an especially pejorative ring.
The following definitions represent currently influential views:
"[T]he inexorable integration of markets, nation-states, and technologies to a degree never witnessed before-in a way that is enabling individuals, corporations and nation-states to reach around the world farther, faster, deeper and cheaper than ever before . . . . the spread of free-market capitalism to virtually every country in the world " (T.L. Friedman, The Lexus and the Olive Tree, 1999, p. 7-
.
The compression of the world and the intensification of consciousness of the world as a whole . . . . concrete global interdependence and consciousness of the global whole in the twentieth century" (R. Robertson, Globalization, 1992, p..
"A social process in which the constraints of geography on social and cultural arrangements recede and in which people become increasingly aware that they are receding" (M. Waters, Globalization, 1995, p. 3).
"The historical transformation constituted by the sum of particular forms and instances of . . . . [m]aking or being made global (i) by the active dissemination of practices, values, technology and other human products throughout the globe (ii) when global practices and so on exercise an increasing influence over people's lives (iii) when the globe serves as a focus for, or a premise in shaping, human activities" (M. Albrow, The Global Age, 1996, p. 88).
Integration on the basis of a project pursuing "market rule on a global scale" (P. McMichael, Development and Social Change, 2000, p. xxiii, 149).
"As experienced from below, the dominant form of globalization means a historical transformation: in the economy, of livelihoods and modes of existence; in politics, a loss in the degree of control exercised locally . . . . and in culture, a devaluation of a collectivity's achievements . . . . Globalization is emerging as a political response to the expansion of market power . . .
Does globalization cause poverty?
Many people who are concerned about the fate of the world's poor now attribute their plight to globalization. They argue that globalization has weakened the position of poor countries and exposed poor people to harmful competition. Their concern is understandable, especially since the gap between rich and poor has indeed become more glaring in recent decades. However, proving a direct link between economic globalization and poverty is a complex task for several reasons:
Globalization as a single cause. Specifying how globalization affects the economic status of countries or individuals is not easy. The effects of "globalization" may be due to competition among workers, or foreign investment, or trade, or government borrowing. There is no single measure of integration into the world economy. Each aspect of integration can have variable effects.
Poverty as a multidimensional phenomenon. Poverty can be measured in different ways-for example, relative to a country's average, by consumption capacity, or in terms of overall well-being. Many people in many places historically have been poor for many reasons. Attributing (increases in) poverty to globalization therefore requires proving that globalization has become a dominant factor in producing a new kind of poverty.
Globalization and overall global poverty. By common consent, globalization has proceeded rapidly since the 1980s. Yet according to the recent Global Poverty Report, the proportion of the world population living in poverty has declined from 29% in 1988 to 26% in 1998. Moreover, social indicators for many poor countries also show improvement over several decades.
2.Can gloalisation cause poverty?
Globalization and poverty in specific countries. If globalization causes poverty, then countries that become more economically integrated via trade and investment should do worse. But some that have become more integrated into the world economy, such as China, have made progress. Others, for example in sub-Saharan Africa, that have remained relatively isolated have experienced declines. Such overall differences do not settle the issue, since many other factors may be at work, but they do cast some doubt on the overall argument.
Poverty vs. inequality. There is ample evidence that the gap between the richest and poorest countries, and between the richest and poorest groups of individuals in the world, has increased. But inequality may increase without an increase in poverty rates, for example if globalization increases opportunities for the wealthy more rapidly than for the poor. Since increasing wealth may be due to many causes, showing that the rich get richer because the poor get poorer is trickier than recording and lamenting the fact of inequality as such.
Globalization as catchall. One characteristic of arguments linking globalization and poverty is the generalization from specific instances of impoverishment to grand global developments. When governments assume debt in private capital markets and declining world demand for their commodities depresses prices and they seek funds from the IMF to repay loans and they agree to conditions for internal reform and these conditions impose hardship on their people, it is tempting to conclude that therefore "globalization" causes poverty.
Globalization broadly refers to the expansion of global linkages, the organization of social life on a global scale, and the growth of a global consciousness, hence to the consolidation of world society. Such an ecumenical definition captures much of what the term commonly means, but its meaning is disputed. It encompasses several large processes; definitions differ in what they emphasize. Globalization is historically complex; definitions vary in the particular driving force they identify. The meaning of the term is itself a topic in global discussion; it may refer to "real" processes, to ideas that justify them, or to a way of thinking about them. The term is not neutral; definitions express different assessments of global change. Among critics of capitalism and global inequality, globalization now has an especially pejorative ring.
The following definitions represent currently influential views:
"[T]he inexorable integration of markets, nation-states, and technologies to a degree never witnessed before-in a way that is enabling individuals, corporations and nation-states to reach around the world farther, faster, deeper and cheaper than ever before . . . . the spread of free-market capitalism to virtually every country in the world " (T.L. Friedman, The Lexus and the Olive Tree, 1999, p. 7-
.The compression of the world and the intensification of consciousness of the world as a whole . . . . concrete global interdependence and consciousness of the global whole in the twentieth century" (R. Robertson, Globalization, 1992, p.
."A social process in which the constraints of geography on social and cultural arrangements recede and in which people become increasingly aware that they are receding" (M. Waters, Globalization, 1995, p. 3).
"The historical transformation constituted by the sum of particular forms and instances of . . . . [m]aking or being made global (i) by the active dissemination of practices, values, technology and other human products throughout the globe (ii) when global practices and so on exercise an increasing influence over people's lives (iii) when the globe serves as a focus for, or a premise in shaping, human activities" (M. Albrow, The Global Age, 1996, p. 88).
Integration on the basis of a project pursuing "market rule on a global scale" (P. McMichael, Development and Social Change, 2000, p. xxiii, 149).
"As experienced from below, the dominant form of globalization means a historical transformation: in the economy, of livelihoods and modes of existence; in politics, a loss in the degree of control exercised locally . . . . and in culture, a devaluation of a collectivity's achievements . . . . Globalization is emerging as a political response to the expansion of market power . . .
Does globalization cause poverty?
Many people who are concerned about the fate of the world's poor now attribute their plight to globalization. They argue that globalization has weakened the position of poor countries and exposed poor people to harmful competition. Their concern is understandable, especially since the gap between rich and poor has indeed become more glaring in recent decades. However, proving a direct link between economic globalization and poverty is a complex task for several reasons:
Globalization as a single cause. Specifying how globalization affects the economic status of countries or individuals is not easy. The effects of "globalization" may be due to competition among workers, or foreign investment, or trade, or government borrowing. There is no single measure of integration into the world economy. Each aspect of integration can have variable effects.
Poverty as a multidimensional phenomenon. Poverty can be measured in different ways-for example, relative to a country's average, by consumption capacity, or in terms of overall well-being. Many people in many places historically have been poor for many reasons. Attributing (increases in) poverty to globalization therefore requires proving that globalization has become a dominant factor in producing a new kind of poverty.
Globalization and overall global poverty. By common consent, globalization has proceeded rapidly since the 1980s. Yet according to the recent Global Poverty Report, the proportion of the world population living in poverty has declined from 29% in 1988 to 26% in 1998. Moreover, social indicators for many poor countries also show improvement over several decades.
2.Can gloalisation cause poverty?
Globalization and poverty in specific countries. If globalization causes poverty, then countries that become more economically integrated via trade and investment should do worse. But some that have become more integrated into the world economy, such as China, have made progress. Others, for example in sub-Saharan Africa, that have remained relatively isolated have experienced declines. Such overall differences do not settle the issue, since many other factors may be at work, but they do cast some doubt on the overall argument.
Poverty vs. inequality. There is ample evidence that the gap between the richest and poorest countries, and between the richest and poorest groups of individuals in the world, has increased. But inequality may increase without an increase in poverty rates, for example if globalization increases opportunities for the wealthy more rapidly than for the poor. Since increasing wealth may be due to many causes, showing that the rich get richer because the poor get poorer is trickier than recording and lamenting the fact of inequality as such.
Globalization as catchall. One characteristic of arguments linking globalization and poverty is the generalization from specific instances of impoverishment to grand global developments. When governments assume debt in private capital markets and declining world demand for their commodities depresses prices and they seek funds from the IMF to repay loans and they agree to conditions for internal reform and these conditions impose hardship on their people, it is tempting to conclude that therefore "globalization" causes poverty.