MENDONES, ANGELIKA GE 4 – CONTEMPORARY WORLD

There’s one possible victim of the ongoing pandemic that stands out in the midst of lockdown
measures imposed the world over.

We’re talking about globalization or the process by which businesses or other organizations
develop influence on a global scale.

It refers to a situation marked by substantial degree of economic activities carried out across
boundaries of different countries or nations. The nature of economic activities in the kind
globalization existing before the pandemic, goes much beyond the simple import and export
trading activities. A highly-interconnected world made this successfully possible.

International economic connectedness has dramatically raised gross domestic product, reduced
poverty, raised living standards, improved health, and made information vastly more available
than before.

But then like a thief in the night, COVID-19 came and everything went topsy-turvy after that.

Economies that have relied on their openness to thrive whether they be financial and corporate
hubs, such as Singapore and Hong Kong; as keystones of global supply chains like Taiwan,
Bangladesh and Vietnam; or as tourist centers, like Thailand, have had to rapidly and
comprehensively isolate themselves.

What we are seeing is an almost complete paralysis of the global economy caused no less by
restrictions on the movement of people. These sudden changes to global mobility are already
prompting companies to rethink their supply chains.

Businesses that have relied on the openness of the world economy are trying to digest what this
all means — and what the world will look like when the pandemic is finally brought under
control.

Closed borders, travel bans, paralyzed supply chains, and export restrictions have prompted
many to ask whether globalization itself might fall victim to the coronavirus. In fact,
globalization was already in decline well before the outbreak, having reached its peak before the
2008 global financial crisis and having never recovered since then.
As one economic expert observed, the pandemic will certainly highlight the risks inherent in
overdependence on global supply chains, prompt a renationalization of production, and put stress
on the notion of international interdependence. The likely result, he said, is an acceleration of
changes that have long been in motion toward a new, different, and more limited form of
globalization.

“The worldwide interconnectedness of goods, services, capital, people, data and ideas has
produced undeniable benefits. But during this pandemic, the risks of dependency have fully
entered the public consciousness,” he says.

For American consumers, the first visible sign came when virus-shuttered factories in China
prompted delays in Apple’s delivery of iPhones, and continued as other firms reported
interruptions.

Even in its early days, the pandemic has demonstrated the fragility of supply chains. It prompted
national responses rather than cooperative international ones, and reinforced nationalist
arguments for reshoring manufacturing and more limited migration. It has also illustrated that
national governments remain the primary actors — the responders of last resort to a pandemic
and its economic consequences.

To the idealists among us, a worldwide pandemic would seem precisely the kind of common
threat that could usher in a new era of international cooperation. In reality, governments have so
far made decisions largely on their own and with little consultation.

For sure, this will not be the end of globalization. But the world is likely to see a different, more
limited version of global integration than the one we have known over the past three decades.

It may mark the endpoint of the post-Cold War era but the enchantment with ever-greater
international integration is gone. It would be a folly to replace globalization with the same kind
of isolationism and protectionism that has impoverished nations before.

The nature of globalization’s next phase and the pattern of cross-border engagement and
interdependence after the pandemic will be the larger question against which many of the most
important political debates of the coming years will play out.

https://tribune.net.ph/index.php/2020/05/08/globalization-pandemics-biggest-victim/
MENDONES, ANGELIKA GE 4 – CONTEMPORARY WORLD
BSBA FM1- NIGHT CLASS FEBRUARY 18, 2022

PRELIMINARY EXAM

1. WHAT DO WRITERS THINK ABOUT GLOBALIZATION?

Look for and read THREE newspaper opinion editorials (op-eds) discussing
globalization. You may use local or international op-eds. Write a 50-word summary
of each op-ed. Identify whether they subscribe to a particular definition discussed in
class or they have a new definition. Also, identify whether they are broad an
inclusive or narrow and exclusive.

 https://tribune.net.ph/index.php/2020/05/08/globalization-pandemics-biggest-victim/

Not only people are at risk in the midst of this pandemic but globalization is also at
jeopardy. Closure of borders and existence of travel and exports restrictions have caused
a country in becoming a dependent country. As we adapt to new normal, the next phase
of globalization is what we look forward to.

The opinion editorial has the same definition of globalization as upon our discussion in
our class. In this op-ed, globalization is defined as a situation marked by substantial
degree of economic activities carried out across boundaries of different countries or
nations just like how we defined it as interconnectedness of people and business across
the world that eventually leads to global, cultural, political, and economic integration.

The op-ed was broad and inclusive. By its definition of globalization, it focuses not only
to a country alone but also to countrymen and to other countries. It focuses to the
worldwide interconnectedness of goods, services, capital and people by which Covid-19
affected.

 https://opinion.inquirer.net/126356/the-new-globalization

Over time, there are many great benefits of globalization like advanced technology that
helps economy, transportation and communication. As years passed by, globalization has
a twist. Social media is being used to spread violence and hatred. Globalization is
becoming an economic restructuring, worsening inequality, dampened international
cooperation, and weakening of social cohesion and trust.

The opinion editorial define globalization as like one of the characteristics discussed
which is that globalization spreads ideas, knowledge, technology, culture and religion.
The op-ed distinguishes the big role of advance technology in transportation, land and air,
the same with the new ideas for information and communication technology. But seems
to have been abused that leads to global financial and social crisis.
 The op-ed was broad and inclusive. The op-ed distinguishes the help of other country to
another. The imports and exports of materials in creating a great product or services that
will help not only a sole country but also to other country’s economic status.

 https://www.philstar.com/opinion/2020/05/24/2016093/end-globalization

Many countries are booming economically due to globalization but some have been left
behind. The philosophy that if the wealthy become wealthier can also raise the status of
everyone is not happening. The rich are getting richer, and the poor continue to suffer.
Sharing wealth to other countries is a dream that will never happen.

The opinion editorial defines globalization as economic sense. The writer wants to
convey message that not all countries are benefited by globalization. He questions reports
that economies were growing and GDP was rising. Because of globalization, there is
income inequality which causes rise of populism.

The op-ed was narrow and exclusive. As mentioning the China became an economic
giant, China focuses on how to develop their country and on how to compete globally
with other country. By focusing in developing their country, they are giving importance
to their constituents.