Social impacts of Globalisation are deemed to be always negative

Introduction
Globalisation can be defined as the increasing integration between the markets
for goods, services and capital and at the same time the breakdown of borders.
From this we can gather that the process of globalisation not only opens up a
world of easier trade, development of already advanced technologies, financial
markets and internationalisation, but also allows for the increased mobility of
humans, capital data and ideas with which come a rise in the mixing of cultures
along with many other social impacts.
Despite this, there are a multitude of negative impacts that stem from the
process of globalisation. The social implications of the process have as of yet,
been seen as an afterthought or as an unfortunate consequence of the vast
progress made. Due to the fact that, as with most such processes, the fact that
we as people are all personally involved and effected in some way has been lost
and forgotten about and so the ability to continue to think and feel and dream
seems somehow threatened; there is a sense that the new global paradigm can
somehow make us somewhat less Human. This submission to what are
perceived to be inexorable and inhuman forces, is contrary to the true promise of
globalization. The imperative exists, then, continuously to rethink and reinvent it.
On a less personal level there are also many other social impacts that have
emerged as a result, namely subcontracting, which leads to the protection of a
companys workers being sacrificed in order to meet the mass demand for
product by creating a chain of events that result in factories losing awareness of
its employees safety. This occurs due to the fact that subcontracting causes
factories to end up having workers spread out far and wide as the places they
work slowly run out of room for them and their fellow employees.
Among other impacts are a loss of jobs in MEDCs as a result of outsourcing to
other less developed countries where labour is cheaper, and Tied-Aid, a process
that results solely out of a countrys selfish needs namely whether the area it has
been asked to aid has things it can benefit from such as access to oil etc.
Positive points
To say that the social impacts of Globalisation are always negative would infer
that no good could come of the process. This is simply false seeming as
globalisation can bring a world of positive change to any area it effects. The
social aspect of globalisation is often referred to as Cultural Globalisation
Initially this was the impact of western culture, art, media, sport, and leisure
pursuits on the rest of the world. This is now a multidirectional process, as
cultural aspects move all over the globe through the Internet and migration.
However it also refers to the social impacts that have occurred as a result of
continued economic and political globalisation. One such impact that has been
claimed to result from globalisation is and improvement in developing countries
legal, financial and political systems. The argument goes that the process of
globalisation is a major factor underpinning the trend toward democratization as
the pressures released by free market economies can only be contained by
democratic and open societies, as international organisations which help
regulate the market also help to prevent corruption. An example of this is the
OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development), an
organisation that could not have existed without the development that comes
with globalisation. In 1997 they criminalised bribery by passing an anti-bribery
convention. This stopped the common trend of countries using bribery to help
obtain or boost business, a trend that could lead to huge problems for the
workers of those businesses if things went badly.
Globalisation not only encourages democracy it is also argued that is helps to
promote human rights and better working conditions for workers of developed
and developing countries. When people in MEDCs believe that the people who
are making the products are being treated fairly, they are more likely to buy the
MNCs (Multinational Corporations) products, and so to attract more capital and
avoid boycotts and protests of their products in MEDCs, MNCs improve the
working conditions of their factories. For example, in Vietnam and other LEDCs
Nike factories provide better working conditions and pay than local companies,
because they are more able to as a MNC.
This then ties into an improvement in the standard living conditions of those
workers and their families. This is evident in newly industrialised economies such
as Singapore, Hong Kong, South Korea and Taiwan, all of which have reaped the
benefits of globalisation by being more open to trading with other nations. Over
the past four decades these areas have been entirely free of poverty according
to the dollar-a-day poverty line. In fact in Malaysia the opening of the economy
resulted in the per-capita income rising from $350 to $5000 in just 2 decades.

To add to this, in a globalised world, workers in all countries, not only more
developed ones can benefit from being able to move more easily from one
country to another in search of a new life, or to market their skills to employers
elsewhere and contribute to that countries economy.