Universitatea de Vest Timisoara

Facultatea de Economie si Administrare a Afacerilor

Globalization
Globalization is a term that came into popular usage in the 1980's to describe the
increased movement of people, knowledge and ideas, and goods and money across
national borders that has led to increased interconnectedness among the world's
populations, economically, politically, socially and culturally. Although
globalization is often thought of in economic terms (i.e., "the global marketplace"),
this process has many social and political implications as well. Many in local
communities associate globalization with modernization (i.e., the transformation
of "traditional" societies into "Western" industrialized ones). At the global level,
globalization is thought of in terms of the challenges it poses to the role of
governments in international affairs and the global economy.

There are heated debates about globalization and its positive and negative effects.
While globalization is thought of by many as having the potential to make
societies richer through trade and to bring knowledge and information to people
around the world, there are many others who perceive globalization as
contributing to the exploitation of the poor by the rich, and as a threat to traditional
cultures as the process of modernization changes societies. There are some who
link the negative aspects of globalization to terrorism. To put a complicated
discussion in simple terms, they argue that exploitative or declining conditions
contribute to the lure of informal "extremist" networks that commit criminal or
terrorist acts internationally. And thanks to today's technology and integrated
societies, these networks span throughout the world. It is in this sense that
terrorism, too, is "globalized." The essays in this section address some of the
complex questions associated with globalization in light of September 11. Before
moving to these essays, consider the discussion below about some of the economic,
political, social and cultural manifestations of globalization.

Economic manifestations of globalization

Increasingly over the past two centuries, economic activity has become more
globally oriented and integrated. Some economists argue that it is no longer
meaningful to think in terms of national economies; international trade has
become central to most local and domestic economies around the world.
Among the major industrial economies, sometimes referred to as the Organization
of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries, 65 percent of the
total economic production, or GDP, is associated with international trade.

Economists project that, in the U.S., more than 50 percent of the new jobs created
in this decade will be directly linked to the global economy.
The recent focus on the international integration of economies is based on the
desirability of a free global market with as few trade barriers as possible, allowing
for true competition across borders.
International economic institutions, such as the World Trade Organization (WTO)
and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), facilitate this increasingly barrier-free
flow of goods, services, and money (capital) internationally. Regionally, too,
organizations like the North America Free Trade Association (NAFTA), the
European Union (EU), and the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN)
work towards economic integration within their respective geographical regions.

Many economists assess economic globalization as having a positive impact,

linking increased economic transactions across national borders to increased world
GDP, and opportunities for economic development. Still, the process is not
without its critics, who consider that many of the economies of the industrial
North (i.e., North America, Europe, East Asia) have benefited from globalization,
while in the past two decades many semi- and non-industrial countries of the geo-
political South (i.e., Africa, parts of Asia, and Central and South America) have
faced economic downturns rather than the growth promised by economic
integration. Critics assert that these conditions are to a significant extent the
consequence of global restructuring which has benefited Northern economies
while disadvantaging Southern economies. Others voice concern that globalization
adversely affects workers and the environment in many countries around the world.

Discontent with the perceived disastrous economic and social manifestations of

globalization has led to large and growing demonstrations at recent
intergovernmental meetings, including meetings of the World Trade Organization
(WTO), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, and the Group
of Eight (G8) leading industrial countries.

Political manifestations of globalization

Globalization has impacts in the political arena, but there is not a consensus
among social scientists about the nature and degree of its impact on national and
international politics. Some political scientists argue that globalization is
weakening nation-states and that global institutions gradually will take over the
functions and power of nation-states. Other social scientists believe that while
increased global inter-connectivity will result in dramatic changes in world politics,
particularly in international relations (i.e., the way states relate to each other), the
nation-state will remain at the center of international political activity.

Political theorists and historians often link the rise of the modern nation-state (in
Europe and North America in the nineteenth century and in Asia and Africa in the
twentieth century) with industrialization and the development of modern capitalist
and socialist economies. These scholars also assert that the administrative
structures and institutions of the modern nation-state were in part responsible for
the conditions that led to industrial expansion. Moreover, industrial development
brought with it social dislocations that necessitated state intervention in the form
of public education and social "safety nets" for health care, housing, and other
social services. Consequently, the development of the contemporary nation-state,
nationalism, inter-state alliances, colonization, and the great wars of the nineteenth
and twentieth centuries were in part political manifestations of changes in the
structure of economic production.

It follows from this argument that in the era of globalization, with its significant
changes in global economic relations, the nineteenth and twentieth century model
of the nation-state may become obsolete. The economic orientation of the modern
nation-state has been centered on national economic interests, which may often
conflict with the global trend towards the free and rapid movement of goods,
services, finance, and labor. These processes give rise to the question of whether
the modern nation-state can survive in its present form in the new global age. Is it
adaptable, or will it gradually be replaced by emerging multinational or regional
political entities?

Changes in political structure and practices resulting from economic globalization

are only a partial explanation of changes in world politics in the late twentieth and
early twenty-first centuries. International relations and world politics in the second
half of the twentieth century were strongly informed by another global factor - the
Cold War (i.e., the ideological struggle between the Western nations, the United
States and its allies, and the Eastern Bloc, the Soviet Union and China and their
allies). The early and most intense years of the Cold War in the 1950s and 1960s
coincided with the de-colonization of Asia and Africa and the creation of more
than 70 new nation-states. Many of the new nation-states of Africa and Asia had
based their struggle for independence on the principles of freedom, justice and
liberty - principles espoused by both the Eastern and Western blocks. The
economic, political, and ideological competition between East and West had fertile
ground in these newly independent nation-states. Although the "cold war" never
developed into a "hot war" of actual military conflict in Europe or North America,
civil wars within and wars between new nation-states in Africa and Asia were
fueled and supported by Cold War tensions. Major conflicts in Korea, Vietnam,
Congo, Angola, Mozambique, and Somalia are examples of regional conflicts that
were fueled by the Cold War.

To some experts, the demise of the Soviet Union and the Eastern bloc a decade
ago promised a new era of world peace and increased openness. The processes of
globalization accelerated as goods, ideas and people flowed more freely across
borders in the post-Cold War political environment. In place of policies of
containment, the international community fostered policies of openness to trade
and based on the principles of democracy and rights.
With such increased openness, multilateral organizations, and in particular the
United Nations (UN), have changed their focus from maintaining the balance of
power between the East and West to a more global approach to peacekeeping/
peace-building, development, environmental protection, protection of human
rights, and the maintenance of the rule of law internationally. The creation of legal
institutions like the international criminal tribunals that have sprung up in the past
decade, as well as the proliferation of major international conferences aiming to
address global problems through international cooperation, have been referred to
as proof of political globalization. Still, since all of these institutions rely on the
participation of nation-states and respect the fundamental principle of national
sovereignty, the extent to which these institutions exhibit true political
globalization continues to be debated.

Social and cultural manifestations of globalization

Though there are many social and cultural manifestations of globalization, here are
some of the major ones:

 Informational services: The past two decades have seen an

internationalization of information services involving the exponential
expansion of computer-based communication through the Internet and
electronic mail. On the one hand, the electronic revolution has promoted
the diversification and democratization of information as people in nearly
every country are able to communicate their opinions and perspectives on
issues, local and global, that impact their lives. Political groups from
Chiapas to Pakistan have effectively used information technology to
promote their perspectives and movements. On the other hand, this
expansion of information technology has been highly uneven, creating an
international "digital divide" (i.e., differences in access to and skills to use
Internet and other information technologies due predominantly to
geography and economic status). Often, access to information technology
and to telephone lines in many developing countries is controlled by the
state or is available only to a small minority who can afford them.

 News services: In recent years there has been a significant shift in the
transmission and reporting of world news with the rise of a small number of
global news services. This process has been referred to as the "CNN-ization
of news," reflecting the power of a few news agencies to construct and
disseminate news. Thanks to satellite technology, CNN and its few
competitors extend their reach to even the most geographically remote
areas of the world. This raises some important questions of globalization:
Who determines what news What is "newsworthy?" Who frames the news
and determines the perspectives articulated? Whose voice(s) are and are not
 represented? What are the potential political consequences of the silencing
of alternative voices and perspectives?

 Popular culture: The contemporary revolution in communication

technology has had a dramatic impact in the arena of popular culture.
Information technology enables a wide diversity of locally-based popular
culture to develop and reach a larger audience. For example, "world music"
has developed a major international audience. Old and new musical
traditions that a few years ago were limited to a small local audience are
now playing on the world stage.

On the other hand, globalization has increased transmission of popular culture

easily and inexpensively from the developed countries of the North throughout the
world. Consequently, despite efforts of nationally-based media to develop local
television, movie, and video programs, many media markets in countries of Africa,
Asia, and Latin America are saturated with productions from the U.S., Europe and
a few countries in Asia (especially Japan and India). Local critics of this trend
lament not only the resulting silencing of domestic cultural expression, but also
the hegemonic reach of Western, "alien" culture and the potential global
homogenization of values and cultural taste.

Globalization is a series of social, economical, technological, cultural, and

political changes that promote interdependence and growth. Globalization raises
the standard of living in developing countries, spreads technological knowledge,
and increases political liberation. The main cause of globalization is influence
from other, more developed, countries. Globalization is a historical process that
results from human innovation and technological progress.

"All that is solid melts into air." This quote by Karl Marx is important in
understanding the relationship of modernity, postmodernity, and globalization
because the one thing all three terms have in common is that they are ever-
changing. The ideas of modernity and postmodernity are always changing along
with time, as are the flows of globalization. I think the three terms are ever-
changing because they are affected by the world we live in, which is always
changing.

Since the world is always changing, what is considered "modern" will never stay
the same. Everyday new ideas are being thought, knowledge is being created, and
new relationships are formed. As long as time keeps changing, the three terms will
too. Going back to the quote before, nothing lasts forever.

No one really agrees as to what modernity, postmodernity, and globalization really

mean. There are various opinions on each term. The only thing people manage to
agree on is that postmodernity is a reaction to modernity and that globalization
connects everybody in the world in some way.

In the article, "Modernity: An Introduction to Modern Societies," it defines

modernity with four characteristics. In order for a time period to be considered
"modern", it must have a dominance of secular forms of political power and
authority, a monetarized exchange economy, a decline of the traditional social
order, and a decline of the religious world-view. Each characteristic has to do with
a change in what came before it. In order for a society to be considered "modern",
it must change completely from the prior society.

The ideas of Modernity can be traced back to the Enlightenment period. On page
25 in the article, "Modernity: An Introduction to Modern Societies," it describes
the Enlightenment as "the creation of a new framework of ideas about man,
society, and nature, which challenged existing conceptions rooted in a traditional
world-view, dominated by Christianity." Before that time period, the only thing
people were allowed to believe was what the Church told them. During the
Enlightenment, people began to think rationally and have their own beliefs. The
Enlightenment period began the times of progress we would enjoy to the present
time.

In the book, "Cosmopolis," on page 14 it says, "We were taught that this 17th
century insistence on the power of rationality, along with the rejection of tradition
and superstition reshaped European life and society generally." If people never
began to think rationally and still believed in the Church, there would be no such
thing as modernity. Imagine what the world would be like if change was never
possible. This is why I think we are lucky to live in these times of constant change.

In the book, "Cosmopolis," it discusses the principal elements of the Modern

Framework. The Modern Framework is divided into two groups, Nature and
Humanity. The Nature element of the Modern Framework deals with the natural
processes that involve matter and material. The Humanity element of the Modern
Framework deals with human actions and experiences that are the result of
reasoning.

The two principal elements are binary opposites of each other. On page 108 it says,
"Thus the contrast between reasons and causes turned into an outright divorce, and
other dichotomies- mental vs. material, actions vs. phenomena, performances vs.
happenings, thoughts vs. objects, voluntary vs. mechanical, active vs. passive,
creative vs. repetitive." The main difference is that the Humanity element is what
is inside us and we use it everyday in Nature, which is the setting for our actions.
On page 11 in the article, "Modernity: An Introduction to Modern Societies," it
says, "Modernity is really one thing, towards which every society is inevitably
moving, though at different rates of development." This basically means that every
society is changing, but some are progressing better than others are. This brings up
the topic of the West vs. the rest of the world. Many people think that the West is
so dominant over the rest of the world that the West controls how fast other
nations develop. I disagree with that statement.

I believe that we affect the other nations around the world just as much as they
affect us. In the book, "The Anthropology of Globalization," their definition of
globalization is the intensification of global interconnectedness, suggesting a
world full of movement and mixture, contact and linkages, and persistent cultural
interaction and exchange.

This means that we are all connected to each other in this world by many different
means, so we affect each other when something happens in our nations. Since we
are all able to affect each other, not one nation can be considered dominant over
the others.

The belief in cultural imperialism is that one day the whole world will be one
culture, that of the West. In order for this to happen, there must be a
de/territorialization of many different cultures around the world. I think that before
this is even possible to happen, the cultures of today would first modify to include
some of the Western culture. Even if that were to happen, the cultures of the world
would never be able to come together to form just one.

The quest for certainty is important in understanding how new ways of thinking,
or modernity come about. The quest for certainty is the search for something
stable or safe. In times of chaos, people will go on the quest for certainty. For
example, when King Henry IV was assassinated and the Thirty Year's War
occurred, the Enlightenment began. Most people believe that the Enlightenment
was the beginning of modernity.

At that point in time during the Enlightenment, there was so much chaos that
people were in a desperate need of change. People began to dwell away from the
church to find the answers to their problems in other ways. The answer they found
was rational thinking and reasoning. Instead of going to church and praying,
people would think to themselves and come up with the answers to their problems.

By nature, people live in a state of anxiety. People often mistake fear with anxiety,
but they are actually very different. The difference between fear and anxiety is that
with fear you know what you're afraid of, but with anxiety you don't. People go on
the quest for certainty so they don't have anxiety over anything. When you are in a
safe and stable place, you are very comfortable and you have no worries.

The use of technology is very important in understanding the meaning of

globalization. Because of technology we are able to communicate with people
from different countries without even being in one another's presence. We are able
to achieve this by talking on the phone, typing on the computer, or sending a fax.
Technology helps us to shrink the space between us and shorten the amount of
time we have to communicate. This is called the "time-space compression."

In the book, "The Anthropology of Globalization," they define "time-space

compression" as the manner in which the speeding up of economic and social
processes has experientially shrunk the globe, so that distance and time no longer
appear to be major constraints on the organization of human activity. For example,
if we talk to someone from Ghana on the computer, we save so much time because
we don't have to travel the distance to go there and communicate in person.
Basically there is no distance between us and anyone else in the world anymore
thanks to technology.

There are five different types of cultural flows in terms of globalization. The first
cultural flow is capital. For example, money is transferred throughout banks all
across the world by different transactions. Another cultural flow is people. This
can be seen by people traveling to anywhere in the world.

The third cultural flow in globalization is commodities, which can be seen by any
product that was made in China and then sold in the United States. Another
cultural flow is images, which can be seen by any type of movie or television
show that was made in the United States and then watched anywhere else in the
world. Finally, the last cultural flow is ideologies, which is any belief or value
shared between two different cultures. These five different cultural flows move in
many different directions and help connect the whole world together.

On page 6 in the book, "Cosmopolis," it says, "The end of Modernity is closer to

us than the beginning, and may be easier to spot." As time goes on, modernity is
closer and closer to the end, and postmodernity is closer and closer to it's
beginning. I think the post-modern era will begin when a new way of thinking is
formed and all the past ideas are destroyed and forgotten. Just like in the
Enlightenment whey they formed a new rational and scientific way of thinking,
there will be a new Renaissance and times will change even more.

In the book, "The Consequences of Modernity," it says on page 2, "The condition

of post-modernity is distinguished by an evaporating of the "grand narrative"- the
overarching "story line" by means of which we are placed in history as beings
having a definite past and a predictable future." The belief of the "grand narrative"
helped to characterize modernity. Now in the post-modern era, the "grand
narrative" no longer exists in today's thought.

According to Jean-Francois Lyotard, the "grand narrative" is the belief that

knowledge is something that can not be created. It was believed that there was no
such thing as knowledge and it was never gained throughout our lives. If this were
true, every society in the world would be equal. As it turns out, some societies are
more advanced than others are because their knowledge helped them to think of
ideas to make the society better.

A good way to understand the transition from modernity to postmodernity is to

look at "creative destruction." In the book, "The Condition of Postmodernity," it
says, "The image of "creative destruction" is very important to understanding
modernity precisely because it derived from the practical dilemmas that faced the
implementation of the modernist project." This basically says that in order to
create something, everything that came before it must be destroyed. In relation to
postmodernity, when the modern times pass and the post-modern era is set to
begin, all of the ideas and thoughts from the modern times will no longer exist.

The same thing holds true for a society. If a new society is going to thrive, it will
have to discard the things that came before it. The new society must create new
ideas, beliefs, and values in order to prosper. As time goes on, the society will
have to modify its ideas and values to keep up with the world's changes. One day
though, the post-modern era that was created will also be destroyed.

One thing that will never stay the same is our "horizons of expectations." As times
change, so do our goals and the limits to which we will reach for them. I think that
in this day and age our technology will only get better and better, so our goals will
be set higher and higher. I also think that there will come a time when we can't get
anymore higher and our goals and limits will become lower and lower. The
important thing is that we welcome the changes and that we react well to them.

In the article, "Modernity: An Introduction to Modern Societies," it says on page

17, "Essential to the idea of modernity is the belief that everything is destined to
be speeded up, dissolved, displaced, transformed, reshaped." Change is destined to
occur in anything, especially in the ideas of modernity, postmodernity, and
globalization. Sometimes when things are going slow and a change is in need,
catalysts are put into the picture to speed things up. When things are going really
bad in a situation, everything will be changed in order to start over. These types of
changes can occur in anything, especially in modernity, postmodernity, and
globalization.
There are many different causes of change. Change can be an accident, an
unexpected outcome of an event, or an attempt to solve a problem. One thing is for
sure and that is change is inevitable. As time goes on, the ideas of modernity and
postmodernity will change. The cultural flows and the intensification of
globalization will also change with time. These three terms will continue to
change until all civilizations have passed.

Nowadays, all businesses are being affected in one way or another by

globalization and by the rapid advance of technology, especially in the area of
communications.
Some businesses are trying to expand their markets to gain advantage of such
process; however, the use of English by entrepreneurs from the United States as
the only language to communicate with stakeholders is taken as a ethnocentric
attitude throughout the world.

English has become one of the most important languages, but, most of the time its
use is limited to politics, international trade or international relations. In other
words, most of the people who use it are somehow involved in jobs that require
them to use English; the same is not true for those businesses' consumers, who
most of the time only speak their native language.

What is still surprising for many is that even though the majority in the United
States is conscious of the continuous globalization process, the US department of
education does not facilitate students with courses in other languages during their
first years of study.

In her article "Speaking other tongues," Diane Crispel (1997) points out that even
though it is easier for a person to learn a foreign language at an early age, students
are offered this opportunity at later years during middle school or high school.
These classes were not a requirement in any of the States as of 1991.

Nevertheless, the number of students taking foreign language classes in high

school or college has been increasing since the early 1980's; but not all of these
students try to continue practicing that second language once they get out of high
school.

The need for language skilled people has not just been growing in the business
industries but also in the area of education. Crispel mentions that during the years
of 1993 and 1994, the demand for foreign language teachers was much bigger than
the supply. Around twenty four percent of the schools offering these jobs found it
very difficult to fill those vacancies.

This shortage of personnel for the education system might be due in part by the
great demand and higher salaries those people receive when working in other
industries.

A lot of companies in the United States have passed policies that require the use of
only English in the workplace. Some studies have revealed that the fact of having
workers with poor English skill is costing around 175 billion per year in loses
related to productivity, wages, and unemployment compensation. Furthermore,
this makes non-native English speakers remain in low wage jobs.

There are currently more than 25 million foreign people forming part of the work
force, which represent more than 11 percent of the total workforce. Setting
policies can become discriminatory acts against these workers and companies have
paid millions in legal disputes because of such policies. Even the federal
government passed a law instituting English as the only language to be used in this
area; but such law did not get approves by the senate.

We need to acknowledge that the process of immigration into the United States
has not diminished at all, and in fact the percentage of immigrants is still raising
and experts agree that it is not going to stop in the near future.

While US companies are still trying to force their workers to speak only English,
companies in Europe establish learning programs to teach their workers, most of
whom speak two or three languages, what is known as a lingua franca, or a
"language that is used to communicate among a nation's diverse cultures that have
diverse languages."

Though the United States at the moment is the major economy worldwide,
economists and marketing experts consider all of Europe as an example when it
comes to relations with employees and consumers of an enterprise.

With the establishment of the European Union, the member countries allowed not
just the free trade of products within each other; the Union also allows the free
movement of people or workers within these nations. This meant that there were
going to be people from different nations, and with different languages working
together. An example of this is the European Central Bank, which will be in
charge of the central banks of the 15 nations when the Euro begins circulating in
the continent. The Governing Council and the Executive Board of the ECB is
formed by individual from the EU nations and the only way for them to
communicate with each other is by using a language that is common to all of them;
in this case English.

But countries in Europe are not the only ones trying to improve communications
for their people; China can also be a good example. In a country with more than
1.5 billion habitants, the number of languages or dialects might differ within
regions; therefore, the government is establishing the mandarin language as their
lingua franca to improve communications internationally with Singapore, Taiwan,
and other Asian countries.

The second major factor that has and still is playing a major role in the spread of
the English Language is Technology with the continuous advancement of the
communication systems.

One of these methods is the World Wide Web, which makes it easier and cheaper
to communicate with other individuals around the world and provides businesses
with a very powerful tool to advertise their goods or services worldwide.

Matt Bellm (1998), who works as an Internet editor for various global companies,
points out the importance of the World Wide Web, and how this powerful
marketing tool is being underutilized by multinational organizations all over the
world.. He explains that although the World Wide Web is being used globally,
82.3 percent of the existing web sites are written in English.

In a research carried out by Euro – Marketing Associates, an international

marketing agency located in the San Francisco area, the company reported that
there is only 28 percent of people in Europe that are able to understand English,
which means that most of the world population is not able to understand what is
written on the Internet. With this information we can deduct that most of the
global companies are not reaching millions of consumers not only in Europe but in
all of the other continents as well.

To avoid the language barriers, some software companies have began developing
translation software not just for web pages but these can also help with the
translation of other documents such as letters or memorandums.

Babelfish has become one of the preferred software by companies to translate their
web pages. It can be easily accessed through altavista.digital.com, a search engine
that gives admittance to many other translation web sites. Babelfish provides
translation from and to different languages, among them, English, Spanish, French
and Portuguese.

The software is very easy to use, the user just has to enter the web page to be
translated and Babelfish will do the rest of the process; that is, it will translate the
web page into the language required and then will place the page in the URL
designated by the customer. The software will not affect any graphics during the
translation so the page will look exactly the same just in another language.
Graphics sometimes might pose a problem since the software is not going to
translate any titles or subtitles that are part of a graph; therefore, the user is the one
who has to translate graphs.

Although the translation is very good, we need to have in mind that this is just
software and the translation might not be perfect, which can later bring problems
to the company. We have to take into consideration that sometimes even similar
cultures can have different ways of interpreting the same word. For example, in
Spanish the word "cabro" in most Spanish speaking countries refers to a male goat;
in Peru the same word is understood as "fagot," whereas in Chile it simply refers
to a young man.

The easiest way to solve this problem and perhaps the only solution is to have a
native speaker or an expert of the translated language who is familiar with the
slang or idioms used in such language.

A second translation software recently introduced by the Software Company

Lornout & Hauspie of Massachusetts is Coronado. Coronado is and integrated
system that provides consumers not just with translation but also provides them
with a searching feature that allows the customers to select their translation based
on different work fields such as engineering, business, economics or medicine.

Although this program is still developing, it provides into and from Spanish,
English, German and French. However, the company is still developing the
translation for Japanese, Chinese, Dutch and Portuguese.
The advantage of Coronado over Babelfish is that if the consumer needs a very
precise translation, they can use a human translation online, but the prices per page
are far more expensive but many times worth it.

As for the costs of maintaining a multi-language web page, most experts in this
area agree that they are nothing compared to costs of other methods of advertising,
since web pages can also have as an advantage the fact that this can also be used
as a retailing tool. This means that customers can place their order through the
Internet.

In conclusion, one of the ways to avoid a large number of problems caused by the
differences in languages in the United States would be by teaching students at an
early age a second language instead of waiting until their last years of education
when it is more difficult for them to learn.

By doing so, the United States might not only eliminate some of the language
barriers that exist within most US companies but such companies could be in a
better position to compete with other foreign companies anywhere.

Entrepreneurs must recognize that although English is recognized as the language

for international business, most of the people around the world do not use it, and
they are the ones who the business should focus on when they are trying to reach
consumers in different countries.

They must also understand how foreign languages are used and they must be
careful whenever they employ it; after all, as Jonah Bloom writes in his article, "it
might be funny when we look at the mistakes some companies make when
advertising in other languages, but it will not be funny when your company is the
one that has made the mistake."

The liberal approach to global economics, the dominating force in international

affairs today, has been supported by this “winners and losers” theory.
Consequently, globalization currently presents many issues, such as environmental
problems, loss of local jobs, great economic differences between nations and
social classes alike, a decay of morals, and finally, foreign dependency. These are
aspects of life that no one enjoys, yet they are perpetuated by the current economic
stronghold, liberal-extremism. This extreme form of capitalism is not helping the
people of this world, and, in many cases, it’s actually hurting them.

To understand the roots of the liberal-extremist stronghold, one should look at the
“winners and losers” way of thinking exemplified by sporting events such as the
aforementioned 1986 World Series. It is human nature to look for a winner and a
loser in any situation. When people see a winner, the opposite side of the spectrum
is the loser, and likewise, when people see a loser, its opponent must be the winner.
This was the attitude of the world at the end of the cold war. As the Soviet Union
collapsed, bringing a conclusion to the 47 year battle between the United States
and communism, one could easily assume communism to be the “loser”. In the
nature of a human being, if people notice that communism had lost, being claimed
as the “wrong answer” to society’s problems, then we deferred that free-market
liberal capitalism, being the opposite, was the “correct answer”. This leads the
world into the 90s: an era where free markets ruled on a global scale.

Even a protectionist might admit capitalism brings with it important and beneficial
theories for structuring an economy. Liberal globalization can bring good to the
people of the world, and indeed, in many ways, it currently does. Evidence comes
in products of capitalism, such as the modern day communication advancements,
namely the Internet. “The Communications and Internet Revolution,” Johnathon
Aronson’s contribution to the textbook The Globalization of World Politics, states
that the internet and capitalism worked side by side to bring prosperity to the 90s
Believing that the internet will shape the future of our economy, he cites the rise in
e-commerce as being a huge factor in the economic success. In this way, the
internet offers expansion opportunities to businesses, and businesses give the
people one more reason to become an internet user. Today, the ideas of capitalism
are spread easily to the far reaches of the globe.

Another gift of capitalism is the idea of risk, the motivator for all social progress.
To realize the success of risk, one must compare it to the motivators of past, such
as religion, tradition, and nature. The progress in the feudal era was not motivated
by risk, and it is blatantly obvious that it did not give culture the rapid progress of
the post-feudal age. In capitalism, one gains financially from making the existence
of others more pleasant, giving people a productive reason to take risks. David
Ricardo fully embraced this capitalist idea, and brought it to the global economic
level. According to his Theory of Comparative Advantage, any nation could
prosper from the trading with others, even if there is no absolute advantage. In his
theory, not even a nation as economically powerful as the United States could be
the absolute best at everything, and even if it was, it would be better to specialize
in only a few particular products, therefore becoming so good that it changes the
industry forever. If one nation practices specialization, than other nations can
become specialized in different fields, and with free trade, all nations would
benefit. This dependence will not only aid the economy, it will also help resolve
diplomatic issues between states. This was the blueprint third world countries,
such as Taiwan, followed to enter into the global economy.

However, there are many glitches in today’s extreme-liberal practice. The

economic theory of risk presents an ecological risk to the world. As companies
grow and yearn to take more risks (specifically, buying from third world countries
with cheaper products created by a less environmentally-safe factory system), the
eco-system suffers. These profit-based risks taken by CEOs every day damage the
fragile health of our planet. Anthony Giddens, author of Runaway World,
probably explains it best, stating, “Risk always needs to be disciplined”.

Risk in today’s globalizing economy can often have much different effects than
that of the contained economy of the past. Indeed, the risk takers from
industrialized nations are reaping the benefits of their work, yet citizens of poorer
countries of the world do not share the same benefits. Between the years of 1989
and 1998, there were great shifts in the distribution of wealth among all the people
of the world. In ’89, the poorest fifth of the world held 2.3% of the world’s capital.
In 1998, it had dropped to 1.4%. In the same time span, the richest fifth of the
world’s population obtained a greater percentage of the world’s capital. Statistics
do not lie: a capitalist would surely appreciate the use of cold, hard numbers as
benchmarks for development. The wealth distribution between states has become
just as varied as the distribution between social classes. According to David
Morris, author of “Free Trade: The Great Destroyer,” the Per Capita GNPs of
modern and third world states have become extremely different. In 1750, modern
and third world states had a Per Capita GNP ratio of 1:1. By 1930, it was 3:1, and
in 2000, the ratio became an appalling 8:1. A global free-trade economy was
supposed to bring wealth to the people, yet it appears to be bias as to which people
and nations receive the benefits. Who is achieving the higher standard of living?

This distribution of wealth is not as Adam Smith envisioned. The father of

capitalism, many accidentally hail him as the founder of our modern global
economy. Granted, Adam Smith could have never imagined the technologically
advanced world that we live in today. However, he would have looked down upon
big business just as he looked down upon strict government controls. Today’s
virtual companies provide as much of a dominating class as a traditional hierarchy.
In either situation, there is one more powerful group asserting its will upon all
other people. A small business man, Adam Smith also liked the idea of the
employers being “close to home”. Regionally centered companies could give jobs
to one certain area, and consequently, the area then has more money to become
consumers of the same company that employs them.

Taking a slightly different stand than that of Adam Smith, David Ricardo would
most likely approve of the steps the world is taking in embracing free-market
capitalism. The greatest proponent of free trade, he was fictionally recreated in
Russell Roberts’ The Choice: a Fable of Free Trade and Protectionism. When
confronted with the idea of sweatshops, Ricardo dismisses them, saying that low
wages are better than no wages. A true capitalist in every sense, Ricardo
exemplifies the inhumane way that businesses act. In 1850, as American workers
were suffering through an era of industrialization, there were no moral standards
that employers had to have when it came to dealing with their workers. America
has come a long way, however, and is now a very humane and clean country in
terms of working conditions. Yet its capitalists, who have been nurtured by this
safe working environment, currently turn a blind eye to any unfair treatment of
workers in far away lands. Rather than extending American values, they are
spreading the strictly profit-based ideas of liberal capitalism.

In addition, the extreme-liberal globalization has had a mental impact on head of

states across the world, causing inhumane decisions to be made. Increasing are
their Social-Darwinistic feelings, while their humanity is failing. A primary
example of this is Brazil, which is the state with the greatest economic difference
between its wealthy and its poor. In Brazil, 50% of the population suffers from
malnutrition. Yet, to gain power in the global economy, it continues to export an
ever-increasing amount of its food. One Brazilian economist calls this practice of
starving its people, “a matter of national survival”. Enlightenment thought states
that the duty of government is to serve the people, not to impoverish them. David
Morris summarizes it best, stating, “In the global village, a nation survives by
starving its people”.

Environmental damage, loss of local jobs, unequal distributions of wealth, and

morals are not the only things wrong with free-market globalization. The current
global economy may not be anything more than foreign dependency at a
dangerously high degree. To see this, one can look at Taiwan, a nation that has
fully embraced Ricardo’s ideas. It is now the leader in production of scanners and
motherboards, making an astonishing 90% of the world’s supply. This may seem
very productive, and it is, yet the potential for problems is much greater. With
specialization, any attack on Taiwan from a nation such as China, or a natural
phenomenon such as an earthquake could send the economy of the entire world
into a terrible state of disaster.

People no longer live in a world where a powerful state could sustain itself in the
case of a crisis on the other side of the earth. A dangerous possibility of this is
China’s trade relations with the United States. When the US began trading freely
with China, it hoped that by doing so it would bring China into a state of
American dependence. Being a U.N. Security Council member, China now might
think twice about vetoing any bill the U.S. tries to pass. However, what happened
was not expected by world leaders: The United States became dependent upon
China. Dependence may be good for economic growth on paper, but its
consequences could be devastating. All it takes is one nation to jab at the delicate
fabric of international cooperation, the breeding ground for global-liberalism, to
present major problems for nations of the world. Dependency can have other
adverse effects as well. A nation that wants to gain power on world issues can
demonstrate its control over other states by implementing any form of trade
restriction. The oil embargo of the 1970s is a primary example of a state exerting
force on the global marketplace to get attention. Even though both nations are
taking losses, the political rewards can often overcome any short-term losses (34-
39). If China and the U.S. fail to meet eye to eye on any issue, who is to say that
China would not issue a devastating anti-trade bill, preventing the free flow of
goods from China to America and vice versa?

In addition to major world events disrupting the delicate balance of free trade, the
IMF currently warns that the same bust effect that severely wounded the US
economy in the 1929 stock market crash could once again happen. This time, it
will be caused by the extreme trade deficit that America runs at. The United States
currently imports about 20% of its GDP, which is an incredible and unprecedented
figure. After the Roaring 20s, have people not learned a lesson about putting all
faith in the laws of supply and demand?
Summarizing, it should be noted that the state of our world today is not what
liberals envisioned it to be in 1991. The rich are getting richer and the poor are
getting poorer, despite our technological advancements. Due to profit loss
potential, this unlimited technology society possess is not being put to the cause of
cleaning up our environment. States try to get rich from free trade, and end up
starving their citizens. Specialization has brought the world to a brink of economic
disaster. Losing local jobs has become commonplace. Yet most importantly,
morals are being lost at the cost of profit. The world looks good on paper, yet it
lacks morals and stability to fulfill the needs of all people on earth.

To conclude, I would just like to state an opinion and proposal. Liberal

globalization brings out the worst in people, and it supports the worst problems of
today’s society. What is needed is a new flavor of globalization; a flavor that
supports the people as well as the companies. What the world needs is Democratic

Pluralism; a theory that brings the morals and standards of protectionists to the
global-economic level. An example of a Democratic Pluralistic policy is the
government support of worldwide unions, ones that reach into the depths of
sweathouses in developing third world countries. More ideas would be regulations
on how much a country can export if the needs of the nation’s people are not being
met, or environmental standards for all nations, industrialized and developing.

This flavor of globalization would not only satisfy the global desires of multi-
national corporations, yet it would meet the every day needs of workers around the
world.

To further describe exactly what Democratic Pluralism is, I have two practical
analogies for it. First, I consider it to be the New Deal of the modern global
economy. Secondly, it is much like the soft serve ice cream that’s sold at most ice
cream stores. If the chocolate is free-trade and the vanilla is protectionism,

Democratic Pluralism is the chocolate-vanilla swirl that blends the wholesome

values of vanilla with the monetary profits and social progress of chocolate.
Protecting local businesses is the right thing to do, as it promotes jobs for local
workers in the present time. Liberal ideas such as poor working conditions and
low wages need to be done away with. However, trade with other nations need not
be ceased, for it is the key to unlocking the potential of our future. In an imperfect
world, this may be the most compromising and perfect system one can formulate.
References:

Ball, Donald A. and McCulloch, Wendell H. (1996). International Business: The

Challenge of Global Competition. Irwin: Illinois.

Crispel, Diane. (1997, January). Speaking in other tongues. American

Demographics, 19, p. 12-15

Strauss, Gary (1997, February 28). Can't anyone here speak English? Consumers
frustrated by verbal gridlock. USA Today. P. A, 1:4