Is globalization good or bad to third world countries?

Question

i just need an answer to it which would be benificial for one of my subject.

Answer 1

I think it's bad. They've created a system where the most desperate gets to sell their product. This, however, often means that the producer is not making as much as they ought or need to. The West is known to also undercut other countries with dodgy trading practices (subsidies and protection of their own industries etc). Globalisation is evil and nasty.

Answer 2

I think it works against third world countries in a cultural sense. Because first world nations, mainly the U.S., have the money and thus power to dictate trends and the culture in general, this hegemony is transfered to other nations through globalization. How do people like Brad Pitt become so popular in countries that do not even speak english? Thus, countries cannot compete because they lack the money and power to combat this cultural imperialism. Further, as the US hegemony spreads, it consoldates even more power in the US, as its products and culture become the most desired.

Answer 3

in my opinion, "globalisation" can be good - look at internet, information, kyoto agreements, geneva conventions etc. However the current economic management of globalisation is pretty poor and heavily biased in favour of the developed nations. I've just finished reading Globalisation and it's Discontents by Joseph Stiglitz which is a pretty good one if you want to know more about the IMF's influences on economic globalisation.

Answer 4

Globalization favours 0.33 international international places. the whole portion of globalization is to permit manufacturers to apply the underpaid workers in those international places to make the products that they sell interior the 1st international international places permitting them to make obscene revenue with poorly synthetic product. take a check out the adaptation between US made and chinese language made clothing! ...however the chinese language have the jobs and the U. S. workers are finding for something to do.

Answer 5

i think it works both ways if there's a certain kind of protection especially for the underdeveloped, poor countries!! the powerful ones should not have cheap labor and their product should be taxed highly compared to developing or underdeveloped countries products wghich should be tariff free and subsidized by the rich counteries

Answer 6

The best answers are balanced answers. And fortunately for your topic there is a LOT of information to support or not support globalisation movements in underdeveloped (third world) nations.

Having said that I would regard it in my expert opinion as being an overall bad thing if done too quickly, but having a few good side effects along the way.

For instance, consider a multinational company that takes advantage of the cheap labour pool to create subsidiaries in the third world. Usually when this happens the company will also provide shelter, education, health and other programs for its workers. The downside is that if the company leaves then so do the schools and clinics.

Don't get too carried away with the "we should pay them as much as we pay us" argument. A case not too far back with Dupont found that it's not always a good idea to pay Indian workers the same rate as American workers. They tried this one Christmas by making bonuses the same amount across the world, based on how high up a person was in the company. In the poorer nations the bonus was so large that managers quit their jobs, bought houses, and went into early retirement. Obviously having significantly fewer managers in India created problems for Dupont's operations there.

The main problems with globalisation occur when third world markets are overwealmed by the sheer volume and wealth of the developed world. For instance, if it becomes so economically cheap for the consumer to buy something from overseas than from their own country then it damages the nation's gross domestic product (GDP)... For instance if people started importing bananas because it was cheaper than growing, soon there would be no banana growers left in that nation because they are unable to compete. Ironically since the banana farmer cannot produce a crop that sells, he is unable to buy any bananas himself and will be forced to find another means of making a living. These problems are often overcome using trade protectionism methods such as import quotas or taxes. Ie, if you want to sell your bananas here we're going to tax them first so that the end price is comparative to the local product.

One of the best models for understanding how globalisation works is known as the Core Periphery Thesis. It's best you look it up because it's too hard to explain it susinctly here.

Basically the theory goes along the lines of:
Core - Large ecnomically robus city or nation
Periphery - Areas around the core

As the core grows it has to expand to areas around it in order to sustain the demands of its own population (generally spend less but earn more).

If the core is around cities or nations that are culturally similar (eg speak the same language, like the same things, share the same religion, etc). Then it will expand along those borders first because these areas carry low risks as communication is easier.

When these low risk environments run out, the core then looks to expand along other avenues. Georgraphy used to be the main one due to transport costs and travel. But more recently core nations will pick a periphery that is far away but holds good resources and is politically unstable. By moving in with military operations the nation can be brought down and rebuilt to suit the culture of the core state. Once this is in place, the core than uses its newfound political leaders to set up trade laws and foreign policies that benefit the core (and usually the periphery as well).


Another theory you'll be expected to tap on is Trickle Down theory, which is sometimes sarcastically referred to as Trickly Up theory. Trickle Down is the idea that if all borders are open, the benefits experienced by developed nations will also be felt by underdeveloped nations. Like with the case of the babanas above, if you open borders right up then the third world has access to cheap bananas (benefit). Trickle Up is what people noticed happens instead, resources tend to go out of the third world and into the first world because by having an economical advantage they are able to offer to buy out things like entire mining regions with one hand. As is nearly always the case with diamonds.

Even the case of HIV medication beign exported to Africa at a cheap cost produces a problem. Consider one 'cure' now on the market that can be given to a pregnant woman with HIV that will prevent her from passing it on to her unborn child. Sounds liek a good thing huh. Well its a bit of a problem when the parents die and the children are left to raise themselves because the nation can't support a foster care system fo that size.

So really, to answer your question. Go with bad because while globalisation may have some good traits, generally it destroys the third world through uneven economics.

Answer 7

Studies suggest is it good if they create an "open economy" to the international market. It benefits them tremendously.