Introduction

What is globalization? While some might provide an answer in this question by explaining the impact of the paradigm of creating a globally interlinked and interconnected market, this may not be sufficient enough to provide someone with the exact picture (or at least close to the exact picture) of what globalization is; what it brings, what it requires and how it impacts nations, societies and institutions world wide. Globalization is an easy concept to understand, but it is very complex in real life, as it has to deal with real life politics and economics. While there are many aspects of the world that is affected by globalization, the primary impact of globalization is felt in the economics. Identifying and discussing the economic impact of globalization is not just significant, but also fitting. Social science critics and historians believe that globalization affects economics more strongly than it can affect other aspects of human life. Nicola Yeates (2001) couldn’t have had expressed it more clearly and in a more defined text, writing in the book “Globalization and social Policy” about how the “major advantages and disadvantages of globalization are expressed in economic terms, and global economic forces are assigned a determinant role in social change (Yeates, 2001, p. 10).” This was the same idea that Jan Erik Lane (2006), author of the book Globalization and Politics, had in mind when she noted that globalization, particularly its advantages, are those which are clearly and easily identifiable with economics more than anything else (Lane, 2006, p. 4). This included, among other things, immigration, investments and most importantly trade. With these, it is no doubt that globalization ripples around the world through economic impact, and with it are the advantages and disadvantages experienced differently from one country to another. The focus of the discussion of this paper will be around the economic repercussions of globalization, analysing both the advantages as well as the disadvantages of globalization in the economics and in other important aspects of the society that is somehow connected and interrelated still with economics.

Theory and History of the Advantages of International Trade

The rise of the idea of international trade that gave way to globalization was lifted from the theory as well as related international economic history that happened before in many places around the world. It prompted globalization proponents to be convinced that globalization can indeed actually work based on what happened in some countries after they involved themselves in trade and economics that is synonymous to the globalization design. The theory behind globalization is that the opening of freer and broader trade connections between countries can improve consumerism, as well as the production of goods among countries. And improved production of goods by a country (as triggered by consumerism) is good for the country’s economy.

This particular theory was utilized before by many endeavors involving multi-national trade. For example, the European economic integration allowed many European countries to improve their local production of goods. Through the economic integration that happened in Europe, another important development was also realized, and that is the strengthening of the currency in the region, which is attributed largely to the shift among European countries and its economic and trade behavior and the opening of the doors towards international trade with neighboring countries in the region. Because of international trade, the currency in the region was made uniform so that trade among neighboring countries is made easier, shifting towards the standardized use of the Euros.

The theory of international trade is supported by the belief that the natural process of trade relations development will eventually lead towards international trade and international economic cooperation between many countries. In the past, localized economy and trade and the drive to develop one’s own country independent from other countries is supported by many different socio-political and socio-economic factors. The ability to connect with other countries is not as easy and as convenient as it is today; communication and transportation today is not as improved and as developed as it was before. This hindered the prospect of establishing sound and secure international business and trade. Prior to the entry of the notion of globalization among international economic and trade leaders, many socio-political situations around the world is characterized by their move towards freedom from colonial masters. This situation renders international trade as something that is not suitable at the moment; resulting to the fight versus colonialism is the rise towards nationalism, which favored national sufficiency versus dependence on international trade. Before globalization, the preference of local consumers are limited to what was locally available, but with the onset of mass media and the spread of culture from one country to other counties started the change in social consumer attitude and preference, which helped support the approval of the locals on globalization (Lane, 2006, p. 4).

But these situations are not permanent, and soon, the changes will make the world amenable to global trade. After colonialism was rendered obsolete and freed countries are trying to establish themselves in the international trade and economic scene, the prospect of international trade is once again viable and some countries want to explore. Nationalism was being replaced by liberalism, and economists are looking at the advantages that go with not only resorting exclusively to national sufficiency but also to international trade. With the entry of the fast technological developments involving telecommunications and transportation, countries and their leaders are moved closer to one another. The logistics required for international trade became available. Mass media influenced the culture and buying attitude of the people. Eventually, the peace experienced by a greater number of countries in the more recent past made more countries amenable to the exploration of international trade.

This eventually led to globalization and the participation of several countries in this particular trade scheme, which eventually saw the advantages of globalization “in opposition to those who favour the ideal of national self sufficiency (Whale, 1997, p. 7).”

Globalization and Development

Is globalization and development the same? Proponents of globalization market the idea of globalization around the world, particularly among third world or poorer countries, usually boxing the entire idea of globalization as something that should be understood side by side development. But is that the case always? Imperative in the discussion of globalization and its economic repercussions is the clarification that globalization does not mean, or does not immediately result to, or is automatically similar to development. Those who are moving against globalization points out that those political and economic leaders who support globalization distract the audience from learning more about the real implications of globalization by consistently substituting the idea of globalization with development, by making people think that globalization is equal to instant development. What most people forget is that the nature of economics always pits competitors to fight over the target market. In the presence of competition, someone is always bound to lose. For those who are set to lose in this new economic and trade dogfight, how can globalization mean development when the very idea is synonymous to closure of businesses that cannot compete with the new competitors coming from foreign lands?

Ted C. Lewellen, author of the book The Anthropology of Globalization, pointed out that one of the common and popular beliefs about globalization is that it is similar to development. The participation of a country in globalization or international open trade would automatically mean that the country will experience development, or at least short of what Lewellen (2002) describes as perceiving globalization to always have the feature of development that has the power of “saving mankind (Lewellen, 2002, p. 61)”. In poor countries where many are uneducated, it is easy to sell this idea, especially among those who are craving for new socio-political and socio-economic development that can promise them a change for the better. For poor people, there is nothing for them to gain if they question the wisdom of globalization, and the hope that it brings to the people is a sufficient temporary balm to make them believe that there is a positive hope in the immediate future.  This is the reason why globalization was warmly accepted in many Asian countries, particularly Asian countries that are struggling to manage the poor and those who are finding ways to improve their own economic health (Lewellen, 2002, p. 61).

It is important to stress the striking difference between globalization and development so that readers or the audience are reminded that during discussion of globalization, the speaker may not automatically point out to the idea of development too. For one, there are those who openly criticized globalization because of its negative effects to the community, society and to the world, economically as well as in other aspects. Because of the presence of the negative impact, development may not always be the immediate impact that globalization engenders.

If there are negative repercussions attached with globalization, then it is easier to understand why it is not moving vis-a-vis development, especially positive development. Globalization and development are neither completely similar nor completely different/contrasting; the two concepts simply are not one and the same or close. “Globalization and development are very different concepts (Lewellen, 2002, p. 61)”; at best, development happens in a country after globalization when the conditions allow it.

Globalization: Advantages and Disadvantages

Globalization is a concept that many people know today, but that does not mean that the reception globally for globalization is unanimous and univocal. Just like any thing in the world, there are those who are for and against globalization. The reason mainly lies on the advantages and disadvantages of globalization, and how individuals feel or perceive globalization is affecting them the most – is it affecting them negatively or positively?

Those who view globalization positively do not limit his/her understanding of globalization as a mere next big global multinational step taken by capitalism as what anti-globalization perceives it to be. Instead, it considers globalization as a shift that can allow the world to create a world economy that is integrated with each other, an economy that is more unified than competing; at least that was how Yeates (2001) was trying to put it (Yeates, 2001, p. 10).

Advantages of Globalization

Globalization has many different advantages. Individuals who are primarily consumers benefit from globalization through the improvement in the available goods for consumers to purchase, as well as the change in price range that makes commodities and services cheaper. Because of this, the consumer has more buying power, and more money for its purchasing needs. In a heightened state of consumerism, capitalists and members of the supply line also benefit through growth in sales and improvement in manufacturing goods that people consume. But there is more – through globalization and its features, some important political shifts are experienced to allow the market and the economy to grow in the direction that globalization points. The environment is also protected in the long run through the economic impact of globalization (Peters, 2004, p. 55).

Globalization and the consumer

Globalization is expected to affect the consumer because globalization is all about trade, economy, consumerism and capitalism, market and the production industry. The consumers will feel the impact of globalization because globalization means the entry of products for sale in different countries, the increased activity in import and export of goods, and (globalization) as an act of extending the concept of capitalism by using the concept of integrated international economy to demonstrate how best to improve consumerism and product manufacturing and sales in a global and international level (Peters, 2004, p. 55).

“Globalization…is good for consumers (Peters, 2004, p. 55).” The question for common consumers is HOW? The idea of globalization encompasses something that is very big and very complex that sometimes, it is very difficult to actually apply in real life the implications of globalization and how as a consumer these positive (or negative) implications can be felt or detected. Peters (2004) explained that one of the best explanation to provide the consumer so that they can understand how globalization affects the consumers positively is by explaining to the consumer how globalization improves the consumers’ options for goods/services they pay for (Peters, 2004, p. 55), which Yeates (2001) describes as “increased choice of lifestyle and consumption habits (Yeates, 2001, p. 10).”

The economists’ efforts to put the idea in lay man’s terms pegs the idea of the positive impact of globalization to consumers via the presentation of a wide array of options for consumers, which may not be available in countries that do not participate in the global international trade. According to professionals, one of the important things that consumers will get to enjoy because of globalization is the increase of available goods and items which can allow them the consumer the ability to exercise the basic right to choose and not just be forced to purchase something just because there is nothing else to choose from. Parallel to this change is the possibility that prices can also go down. This happens because once the market gets crowded, companies will resort to strategies that can allow them the bigger share of the market, and one of the tried and tested ways is to cut prices and sell in a price range relatively lower compared to the competitors (Peters, 2004, p. 55).

A much lower price in goods and service is always one of the strongest marketing strategies for companies to sell better. In the presence of growing competition, it is easy to assume that companies would resort to price-cut, and consumers are the first to be benefited by this change, and this is largely because of globalization. The positive impact of globalization to the consumers is an important characteristic of globalization’s overall positive economic impact because the creation of positive effects for the consumers engenders a healthy buying attitude among consumers. If goods available for sale in the international and local market are being consumed, this means that items for sale are experiencing a very healthy sales traffic, which in turn translates to incomes and sales and gives people work.

Via globalization, the consumers are not only empowered with the power to choose, but is also empowered with accessibility to goods previously unavailable to them because of several factors. For example, some fruits and vegetables are not available in particular times of the year because it cannot be produced locally in certain times of the year. Because of international, open, free trade, previously unavailable goods are now made available. Countries can produce them when locally production can’t make these goods and items available (Yeates, 2001, p. 10). To put it simply and realistically, Yeates (2001) explained that through globalization, “the wonders of Disney, Coke and McDonald’s are brought to those previously ignorant or deprived of them (Yeates, 2001, p. 10).” With this changes in the market, there is also positive change in the consumer – for example, more goods and cheaper prices gives the consumer more spending power, and more money to spend as well.

Globalization and the Citizen

The citizens also experienced the impact of globalization not just merely on the goods and items that they buy in the market, but also in the availability of a new range of jobs that can give them better salaries compared to previous, traditional jobs. New industries like business process outsourcing or BPO, the influx of call center offices especially in Asian countries that are fluent in the English language and other related types of industries are a product of globalization – one of the main drivers that power BPO and outsourcing and offshoring endeavors (Hunter, 2006, p. 8).

This contributes to the significant boom in the economies of countries where call centers and other BPO firms operated. This also helped in addressing the problem of unemployment in this countries, especially unemployment among fresh graduates who find it difficult to break inside their target industries because of lack of experience and work credentials, which usually leads them to opting for jobs where they are overqualified and yet underpaid. Call center companies hired people from different walks of life – from fresh graduates to those who are already retired and still seeking other ways to earn money (Hunter, 2006, p. 8).

Globalization and the Capitalist

The capitalists in the countries involved in globalization are also affected by the change in the international trade scheme. There were advantages and disadvantages, depending on how the capitalist was able to work the market. Globalization was beneficial especially for capitalists. This is because of the advantage brought by globalization especially in economy and deregulation, particularly in the US. At the onset of deregulation in the United States, the free market allowed capitalists and those venturing in stock market access to large sums of money that was floating around the market. “Deregulation and globalization together meant that virtually all the money in the world was available for speculation (Hodgson, 2004, p. 18).”

Because of this, some capitalists made large amount of money by successfully playing the stock market and combining it with successful business ventures that maximized the features and options made available by globalization. But not all capitalists felt that globalization was advantageous, especially for capitalists whose businesses did not survive the influx of globalization. Most of these capitalists are local capitalists, citizens of a particular country with a business locally which was overrun by the influx of cheaper goods that competed with locally made products. This is not surprising. For example, in countries were production costs and cost of labor is far more cheaper, like China, goods and items are produced and manufactured en masse spending very little compared to other countries that spend more in producing the same product. Because of globalization, these products which are produced with less cost can be shipped and sold to the local market of other countries with cheaper price tags (Hodgson, 2004, p. 18).

This impact of globalization renders local producers and local business entities incapable of competing versus items sold locally which are cheaper, coming from countries that can produce these items spending very little money compared to local production costs where the products are exported to (Hodgson, 2004, p. 18). In the Philippines for example, some capitalists and business entities are forced to close down because of losses incurred due to dwindling sales. Some resorted to cutting on manpower and cutting down labor costs at the expense of forcing laborers to suffer from below minimum wage incomes. More often than not, this is not enough to make the prices of locally produced items and goods cheaper and equal to the low price offered by imported goods. Making the situation worse is the colonial mentality of some locals who believe that imported products are better than locally made products.

In the case of Philippines, many companies have closed down because consumers are opting for cheaper, imported brands. In Marikina in the Philippines – a place that is popular for producing high quality shoes – many local shoe factories and industries acting as supply lines for the shoe production has closed down because of globalization. Cheaper shoes (usually imitation of branded shoes and slippers) shipped in the country from Taiwan and China is cheaper. In a country where a large percentage of the population is living below poverty line, it is expected that a large part of the target market will opt for cheaper items. Through this analysis, it is obvious that there are two kinds of capitalists affected by globalization – the capitalists from countries that can produce cheaper items are at an advantage and are in a position to gain from the scheme of globalization; while capitalists who cannot compete with low prices of goods for sale are forced to close shop before running into complete bankruptcy due to poor and declining sales.

Globalization and Political Restraint on Market and Economy

Others pose the question why globalization is something that is good for the country and for the global economy. The answer, according to Yeates (2001) is that, for one, globalization allows for the political constraints placed upon economic production to be loosened up a bit so that the local market can be allowed the chance to redesign and restructure itself in a way that can allow it to compete successfully globally, while at the same time allowing it the ability to integrate itself in the global market place where it can be made accessible to other better market and economic opportunities that the country can enjoy and use for its own local development while it is contributing significantly to global trade at the same time (Yeates, 2001, p. 10).

Globalization and the Dynamic Acceleration of Benefits from Increased Trade and Competition

Globalization resulted in a string of economic, financial and market-related developments – first, globalization increased trade activity. After the increase in trade activity is the increase in market competition. This development has brought forward several benefits (i.e. more goods and items, broader price range, the presence of cheaper options, etc). These benefits were somewhat accelerated. Economists point to globalization as the reason why these benefits are accelerated, why these benefits are now felt by the consumer. Without globalization, these benefits would have had happened still, but not in the pace and speed that globalization made possible in the first place (Peters, 2004, p. 55)

According to pro-globalization proponents, this characteristic of globalization is a very important point to present when it comes to establishing the advantages of globalization. Why not? What happened in the market was ideally commendable – the open economy fostered the change in market atmosphere, and how market competition changed and became more fast paced provides new advantages and gains not just for capitalists and manufacturers, but also to the consumers themselves. “Increased competition encouraged by an open economy leads to more innovation, more efficiency, and ultimately more growth (Peters, 2004, p. 55).”

An example of this accelerated growth rate that materialized because of globalization is the case of India. Critics believe that despite the bad things that economists say about globalization, India and how its economy grew and accelerated in the years of globalization was a very good case study for proponents of globalization. “Empirical data on economic growth rates leave no doubt that the opening to globalization has been enormously beneficial for economic growth in India (Nayar, 2006, p. 24).” There is a significant growth rate between pre and post globalization years that India experienced – from 3.4 percent growth rate that jumped to a 5.5 percent mark after globalization took effect in the country (Nayar, 2006, p. 24).

Globalization an Its Impact on the Environment

 Another positive repercussion of globalization is the ability of the society to be more environment-friendly. Clearly, there are many who contest this claim, in the belief that industrial countries protect its industrial environment and often are guilty of transgressions to the environment. It was because of the paradigm of industries-over-environment in the first place especially inside industrial countries that problems in environment pollution and even global warming are something that the world is currently presented with. But contrary to this popular belief about the guilt of industrial countries concerning environmental problems, some economists believe that as globalization spreads and industries increase in production and operation, the chances for protecting the environment improves as well.

According to Peters (2004) free trade is good to the environment because if the people and the society gets rich (as a result of growing market and free trade because of globalization), they would soon want to have a better, cleaner environment and be concerned with the welfare of the environment. The effort for this endeavor is something they can afford to pay for.  The impact on the environment by globalization is connected to economics because environment protection efforts are dictated by local and international economy. If this is achieved, social atmosphere has the chance to improve, making it participation to international trade better, which in long run, affects economics in a positive way, making environment protection and economic gain intertwined significantly (Peters, 2004, p. 55).

Globalization Benefits to Governments

 One of the aspects that globalization has seriously affected is local government. But similar to everything else, the impact is not something that is exclusive to positive effects – there were also negative effects, and it was a case to case basis depending on the country where globalization took effect in particular. Globalization affected the government because globalization has given the government renewed power and clout. The exercise of modern day politics is never without the consideration of things affecting the economics, and globalization is no exemption.

Because of globalization and its implications on world trade, governments were given new bargaining chips so that they can deal anew with the rest of the world. Because globalization as an economic movement was after soliciting the cooperation of every country as possible, globalization gave the governments of the different countries a chance to exert at some extent power and some elbow-and-leg room in international politics. Some countries used their participation in international trade to push for their other agendas which are not economic in nature (i.e. political, religious, cultural etc) (Lane, 2006, p. 4).

Other governments feel empowered by globalization in fields besides economic. China was using its newfound international clout and power via globalization and international trade to rally countries to support its move to quell and subdue what it believes as “renegade” and “rebel” province of Taiwan. This coerces and pressures countries to limit the resources and capability of Taiwan so that China can force it back to submission, which unfortunately did not happen since Taiwan too is a very well established country with strong and stable economic as well as political foundation (Lane, 2006, p. 4).

Some governments used the concept of globalization to improve their image locally and to improve their hold on the local population by using globalization to enhance the image of the governments’ leadership as something that is capable in bringing the country at par and shoulder to shoulder with the rest of the world. In these countries (particularly poor countries) government leaders are making promises about the prospect of globalization and how globalization can improve their economy and way of life. Through these promises, the local leaders especially those seeking re-election or even the temporary public approval found globalization as a useful tool to keep the attention of the masses focused on something that engenders positive hope and make the people believe in the current administration and distracted from other issues (Lane, 2006, p. 4).

At the onset of globalization, countries which are friendly and/or dependent on bigger industrialized countries that spearheaded the globalization movement, like the United States, were very optimistic of the promise of globalization that they even used this new socio-economic concept as a platform to convince the people that the current government is leading the masses towards a more fruitful and more improved future. Governments were involved in “institutionalizing globalization (Lane, 2006, p. 4).”Locally, globalization also gave government leaders power and made the government more important than ever, especially among traders, capitalists, manufacturers and owners of companies involved in supply lines and import/export, because the implication of globalization is economic in nature (Lane, 2006, p. 4).

With the participation of the country in globalization, the government has a significant hand in choosing which companies and industries are likely to participate in this new trade trend. Companies lobbied in the different government agencies so that their particular businesses and industries can get the support and nod of the government. Of course, these acts of blessing and rendering of support to local business entities who are set to profit or participate in globalization did not come for free; the government, in one way or another, was able to make this situation rewarding for their part.

This is true especially in bureaucratic countries were red tape and corruption is rampant. There are impending trade and economic changes and opportunities that globalization is set to bring in the country. Capitalists are muscling each other so that they can get the lion’s share in this new trade and economic situation. Some governments, no doubt, used their political role and participation in globalization so that even if it was the private companies that primarily participated in the international trade, the government and government leaders are nonetheless rewarded (in cash or in kind) by having the country participate in globalization.

Disadvantages of Globalization

There are critics who are already warning the world that globalization never always result to something positive. When Kolodko (2003) pointed out that the face of the world after globalization will be “heterogeneous” – he is referring to the fact that there are no exclusive “good-only” or “bad-only” effects of globalization (Kolodko, 2003, p. 12). The effects of globalization is also not easily identified as simply good or bad and that the identification of what was a good effect or bad effect by globalization is a process that is complex and is very difficult to undertake. Nonetheless, at its most basic state, globalization presents some disadvantages to go with the advantages (therefore making the whole heterogeneous personality of the world/country), since “not all the consequences of globalization are positive (Kolodko, 2003, p. 12).”

Those who move against globalization point to the same areas that people believe are affected positively by the advantages of globalization – from consumers to manufacturers and everything in between, even environment impact, as the same areas where the disadvantages of globalization can be seen, stressing that globalization cannot protect the environment and that growth in financial capability in the country is not evenly distributed contrary to the claims of pro-globalization proponents. “Globalization has created and/or underwritten the accumulation of wealth by the few and the impoverishment of the many, both between and within countries (Yeates, 2001, p. 10).” Globalization has its disadvantages, and this are found in the same plateau as its advantages – consumers, capitalists, the government and other social sectors, the political landscape, even the environment are the means by which the disadvantages can be seen, felt and experienced.

Those who believe that globalization is more disadvantageous than advantageous have more points to show for it. For one, globalization is only as good as the benefit that it can provide the countries involved in it in the short term – globalization was responsible for the creation of the Asian Tigers like Taiwan, Philippines, South Korea and Thailand, and the creation of the international trade triad of Japan, US and Europe. But just as these countries are just starting to celebrate how globalization has lived up to its billing as something that is immune to economic shocks and recession, the same group of countries stumbled and fall before the end of the twentieth century. Globalization and its proponents made the world believe about the presence and possibility of a world that can accommodate a healthy, world-wide economy through freer international trade and globalization, but the truth is that, this world is not real, after all (Punnet,  2004, p. 8).

Negative Economic Impact

 Kolodko (2003) identified financial crisis and how it can spread to other sectors of the global economy as one of the potential threats that the world is facing with the entry of globalization in the culture of international trade. There are other disadvantages like social inequalities, the disappearance of traditional aspects of manufacturing and trade in favor of newer ones, unemployment, poverty and even what is called the privatization of wars and the extension of armed conflicts engaged primarily because of the role, influence and hold of several leading countries in multi-national armed forces and the protection of business interests achievable through the undertaking of war or armed conflict against perceived threats (Kolodko, 2003, p. 12).

Loss of Cultural and National Identity

Another disadvantage that globalization brings to the picture is the risk of losing cultural and national identity, especially with the presence of what is called the possible revival of cultural colonialism since other countries are posed to heavily influence other countries through the things that they would sell in other countries, items, things, ideas and even beliefs that can alter, change and re-shape some important aspects of their national and cultural identity.

A very good example is the cultural shift happening in Asian countries like the Philippines – in a country that is not popular with having a significant number of people of African-American descent, globalization enabled young Filipino youths to see, hear and eventually imbibe a hip-hop culture that originated thousands of miles from the shores of this archipelago. Through globalization, the tangible aspects of hip hop culture was made available to the Filipino youth, and because of the ability to accessorize themselves through material accoutrement that globalization made possible, the hip hop circles in this country is growing and growing, a cultural change that can affect the change in national and overall cultural identity and personality of the country. In the long run, this can translate to economic result – the buying habits of the population, the growth of the buying power of the sector that are more inclined to buy products served in the country through globalization, which is advantageous for the seller but not for those whose goods will lose significant part of its previous target market/patrons (Suarez-Orozco, Qin-Hilliard, 2004, p. 114).

Negative Impact on the Environment

The environment is something that will be greatly affected at the onset of globalization. For some, the impact is mostly negative in nature, as globalization is more of a disadvantage hindering the positive progress of the world that is trying to save the planet.

Arguing against globalization when it comes to environment protection and the creation of an eco-friendly and eco-efficient world are proponents who believe that the social and economic situation that will happen once globalization realizes its full impact in a country is something that is not safe or amenable for environment protection. This is contrary to the claims of pro-globalization that the globalized world is a suitable situation for the shift of attitude towards environment protection.

Lane (2006) explained that an important proof why globalization is more of a threat to the environment is because of the hazard to the natural surroundings that the demand for increased production would result to. If globalization can indeed foster improved productivity, then industrial sites would increase in number, which can translate to more converted lands, and possible more pollution and industrial waste for the world to handle and manage. Because of this, globalization is pushing humans towards “destroying the conditions for the survival of this biological species” especially if “the worst environmental predictions come true (Lane, 2006, p. 4).”

Selective Financial Gains

 According to some critics of globalization, one of the ugliest facets of globalization is that, contrary to the beliefs of economic growth locally and internationally, globalization provides a situation wherein only a select few has the ability and capacity to become rich and make the most out of the new market and economic situation(Lane, 2006, p. 4). Proponents of anti-globalization remind the people about the dangers in the very polar financial and economic situation that can happen in the country as a result of globalization, stressing on what Lane (2006) describes as growing global disparities in affluence and wealth as one of the disadvantages of globalization (Lane, 2006, p. 4).”

This is all the more dangerous especially for countries which, prior to the influx of globalization, are already experiencing inequalities financially and economically across different small, medium and large scale industrialists and capitalists. Once globalization sets in, this already serious situation can worsen, burying the country deeper in socio-economic problem – a predicament that is contrary to the promise of globalization of helping countries in their economic and financial situations (Tisdell, Sen, 2004, p. 51). “Increasing economic globalisation continues to exacerbate existing economic inequalities (Tisdell, Sen, 2004, p. 51).”

Negative Effects on the Government

 But this was not the case always once the wheels of globalization started turning, and some critics noticed how things were reversed. Before, government leaders were thinking of using globalization and manipulating it for their own needs, purposes and goals. But in reality, what happened was in some cases, the government and several important aspects and institutions and way of life inside a country was the one that was being manipulated by globalization. Because of the participation of foreign countries trading with one another, countries are prone to the manipulation of bigger and more powerful countries (Suarez-Orozco, Qin-Hilliard, 2004, p. 28). “Globalization certainly undermines the workings of the nation-state – from national economies to traditional ideas of citizenship and cultural production (Suarez-Orozco, Qin-Hilliard, 2004, p. 28).”

Negative Impact to the Citizens

While globalization can be attributed for the rise of BPO and call center companies which boosted local economy and provided new jobs for many individuals, there are those who feel that this is not enough to justify the negative impact of globalization to the country. These are the citizens who are rendered jobless because of the companies that closed shop because of bankruptcy due to the inability to compete with the lower prices set by imported products for sale in the local market. Activists view this as another act of colonialism by foreign countries who are still trying to dictate the government how to manage its work and labor force, by employing those which can help their own industries and not protecting the people who are sidetracked by the lack of jobs because of globalization and its impact.

Globalization, Financial Crashes and the Boom-Bust Cycles

There are many cases of financial collapses that happened during the popular onset of the era of globalization. In these cases, countries that are involved in the crashes and financial problems are the same countries that readily participated in the global effort for freer international trade brought about by globalization. From European to Asian countries, there is significant number of cases wherein countries suffered from financial problems in their participation during the era of globalization (Suarez-Orozco, Qin-Hilliard, 2004, p. 28).

Poland, despite the shift in its political structure that made it more suitable for globalization, was in no better shape after globalization. It was also a humiliating experience for some Asian countries after they experienced serious problems during globalization, particularly South Korea, Thailand and Malaysia which crumbled during the 1997 financial crisis, something that happened oddly. In the same year when globalization was dubbed as being in its full swing, critics ask why globalization can allow countries to suffer these setbacks financially and economically if globalization was billed as a boon for countries, particularly for poor countries (Suarez-Oroco, Qin-Hilliard, p 28).

The Asian financial crisis is, after all, a suitable example in defining the possible extent and impact of the economic and financial repercussions that can be felt and experienced because of globalization. It was considered “the third largest economic collapse in the twentieth century (Kihl, 2004, p. 150)”, the two top financial crises happening in 1929 and in 1973 specifically. In this particular financial crisis, globalization was considered as one of the main causes of the problems, particularly how globalization created external pressure to local currencies and the local economy that worsened the financial problem and contributed to the nose diving of Asian local currencies and financial power (Kihl, 2004, p. 150).

The problem was not only in Asia and Europe, because the countries in Latin America were also experiencing some disappointing and frustrating financial and economic situations during the same period in this particular decade, particularly what was considered as a “never ending boom-and-bust cycles (Suarez-Orozco, Qin-Hilliard, 2004, p. 28)”, from which the countries capital markets suffered.

The assessment of critics from Korea regarding what happened in the engulfing of Asian countries in the move towards globalization and capitalism in economy during the 90’s is characterized by the presence of some negative characteristics. In Young W. Kihl’s book Transforming Korean Politics, the author described the result of this international trade development as something that resulted to some “disruptive effects on these countries (Kihl, 2004, p. 150)” including Korea and the Korean economy.

This observation was shared by fellow Asian financial critics. Indian financial experts, like Ashish K. Vaidya (2005), who are discussing globalization and its effects on the Asian economy also pointed to the dreaded boom-and-bust cycles, with the booming of the prices of assets followed by unexpected financial crashes that are really frustrating local economic players that are trying to stabilize the country (Vaidya, 2005, p. 31).

Punnet (2004) also explained that another significant proof about how the initial positive impact of globalization was close to being a fluke and how the countries eventually tumbled and fell down after the real impact of globalization was felt is the case of Argentina. From being a very promising economy in the early 90s because of globalization, Argentina’s economy eventually suffered and spiralled down by the first two years of 2000, largely because the local currency cannot stay toe to toe with the American currency and is finding it difficult to make the most out of international trade that is favorable to local interest (Punnet, 2004, p. 8).

While there are many explanations why such problems materialized in these countries and that globalization is something that is not to be blamed exclusively for the problem, one thing can be claimed – globalization has not completely obliterated the financial coffers of the countries involved. On the contrary, some countries managed to make the most out of globalization, but of course, with certain important conditions in play which may not be present in the case of other countries.

An example of this is China, which, according to economists and critics, managed to transform positively its economic situation with the help of globalization. But Suarez-Orozco and Qin-Hilliard (2004) stressed that more than globalization; it was China’s strong control and management of politics that enabled them to make the most out of globalization, which resulted to an improved economy for this Asian economic giant (Suarez-Orozco and Qin-Hilliard, 2004, p. 28).

The government has an active hand in globalization in this country as in the case of other countries, but the only difference is the presence of control exerted by the government so that globalization cannot wreak as much damage as it did in countries that did not fail to control globalization. Having laid out the advantages and disadvantages of globalization and its impact in the government, there are important things to consider when it comes to globalization and the government, and above all the consideration is the effective role of government in leadership, especially leadership in trade and economics (Lechner, Boli, 2003, p. 11). “The onus should be on crafting better government, not blaming globalization (Lechner, Boli, 2003, p. 11),” in the belief that a better, stable government cannot be overpowered by the ill-effects of globalization.

Globalization and the Environment in the Third World Countries

The target of globalization is not just limited to the participation of industrialized countries alone. Rather, globalization has actually actively incorporated the participation of less financially powerful countries, like members of the third world country or those poorer, so long as the participation of these countries provide the rest of the international trade network a positive contribution that the rest of the countries can make use of. In fact, many believe that the real target of globalization is third world countries.

Many literature sources support the idea that globalization promised third world countries several different advantages that can be gained in exchange for their role and cooperation in globalization. The most promising of those is the prospect of economic and financial gain through stronger market activity, locally and internationally. In some respect, globalization has indeed fulfilled its promise in helping the third world countries improve their economy and financial landscape. There are those who believe that the promise of economic growth and financial progress developed in a different way, different from what was expected or projected by the third world countries which made their own respective countries amenable to the rigors of globalization.

James (2006) pointed out that while global capitalism has indeed “brought varying degrees of development to Third World countries” including South American country Brazil and the South East Asian country Thailand, globalization cannot deny that the features that went along with the development that globalization promised to these two countries (as well as to other countries) is something that is described as “a certain kind of perverted, one-dimensional development with enormous social costs (James, 2006, p. 287).” Somehow, this has served as the microcosm for the many economic cases that is found among third world countries who relied on globalization and was somewhat disappointed by the turnout.

The predicament was similar, with very few differences – globalization sets in, involves the local economy and market with the prospect of development, only to find out later that the development that came in with globalization among third world countries is something that has also affected the country and its social culture in many different ways. It seems that the price to pay in exchange for the development that globalization can bring is somewhat high for third world countries. For one, third world countries did not realize that human rights violations is part of the globalization and development deal, but after globalization set in, third world countries found themselves handling human rights violations and related problems which stemmed from globalization (James, 2006, p. 287).

With the presence of human rights problems in third world countries because of globalization, the people are curious who they can turn to in their search for someone to protect them, especially since those who made the initial effort to help them does not have sufficient impact to alter the social situation. “It is evident, however, that challenges from activist and the non-government organizations alone cannot redress the adverse impacts of economic globalization on human rights conditions in the Third World (McGrew, Poku, 2007, p. 186).”

While some explained that third world countries would actually be given the chance to better enjoy the consumerist life, nobody seemed to have expected or anticipated that what would happen after the onset of globalization is that human rights enjoyment would somehow be constrained by something that is not really political in nature but economic (McGrew, Poku, 2007, p. 186). “Economic globalization has limited the enjoyment of human rights in many Third World Societies (McGrew, Poku, 2007, p. 186).” Somehow, the economic implications of globalization in third world countries was enough to produce a social situation which previously can only be done through exercise of political power.

Conclusion

Globalization is something that cannot be undone, because regardless of what people say about it, globalization is a very powerful force. Globalization is powered by the political engines of industrial countries that pushes for this economic and trade movement not just to help third world countries and poor countries improve financially and economically, but also to protect their own interests. More than anyone else, the industrialized nations are the ones that have much to gain in globalization. No economic super power is willing to lay out an economic and trade program that will allow other countries to be powerful too and change the status quo when it comes to international economic power. Some might buy the idea that there is indeed a genuinely good objective behind globalization, while others may believe that this is the way for industrialized countries to be able to dump surplus items on third world countries and be being able to do so with an international economic mandate. Despite the complexities brought about by the discussion about the effects and impact of globalization, it seems that the only important point of focus for the discussion revolves around weighing the advantages and disadvantages that globalization brings to the people and to the countries involved in it.

The advantages and disadvantages of globalization are indeed many to mention. In one way or another, its effect has reached a personal level that an ordinary individual in any part of the world, can feel and experience globalization in so many ways. But one of the main reasons why globalization – despite its advantages and disadvantages perceived and proven over the years – is taken very differently among different countries, social groups and in different social echelons in either industrialized or third world countries is because the truth is, globalization does not have a blanket effect that is similar, parallel and universal from one country to the other.

Because of this, some countries feel that they are getting the raw end of the deal when it comes to globalization, believing that other countries are getting the most out of this situation while some countries are playing merely as sideline spectators and/or beggars for crumbs falling on the table of the global economic hegemon. “Globalization is a contested set of phenomena because the countries participating in the process benefit differently (Lane, 2006, p. 4).” This case is pointing to the fact that globalization, it seems, have found willing endorsers among countries that saw that they have more to gain than to lose in this situation. This factor merely allows the world to continue to openly debate about the merits of the economic and other advantages and disadvantages of globalization, providing proofs based on the experience of each different country. Until every participating country feels that globalization has affected the world equally, globally, this trend of putting forward the advantages versus the disadvantages of globalization will continue to happen. The world will be constantly divided on its opinion about globalization depending on how much of the advantages or disadvantages of globalization have impacted the opinion of every individual about this particular trend in international trade.

References

Hodgson, G. (2004). More Equal Than Others: America from Nixon to the New Century.

Princeton University Press.

Hunter, I. (2006). Indian Offshore Advantage: How Offshoring Is Changing the Face of HR.

Ashgate Publishing, Limited.

James, P. (2006). Globalism, Nationalism, Tribalism: Bringing Theory Back In (Theory,

Culture and Society Series). SAGE Publications.

Kihl, Y. W. (2004). Transforming Korean Politics: Democracy, Reform, and Culture.

Sharpe, M.e., Inc.

Kolodko, G. W. (2003). Emerging Market Economies: Globalization and Development.

Ashgate Publishing, Limited.

Lane, J. (2006). Globalization and Politics: Promises and Dangers. Ashgate Publishing,

Limited.

Lechner, F. J., and Boli, J. (2003). The Globalization Reader. Wiley, John & Sons,

Incorporated.

Lewellen, T. C. (2002). Anthropology of Globalization: Cultural Anthropology Enters the

21st Century. Greenwood Publishing Group, Incorporated.

McGrew, A. and Poku, N. K. (2007). Globalization, Development and Human Security.

Polity Press.

Nayar, B. R. (2006). India’s Globalization: Evaluating the Economic Consequences. East-

West Center Washington.

Peters, R. T. (2004). In Search of the Good Life: The Ethics of Globalization. Continuum

International Publishing Group

Punnett, B. J. (2004). International Perspectives on Organizational Behavior and Human

Resource Management. Sharpe, M.e., Inc.

Suarez-Orozco, M. M. and Qin-Hilliard, D. (2004). Globalization: Culture and Education in

the New Millennium. University of California Press.

Tisdell, C. A., and Sen, R. K. (2004). Economic Globalisation: Social Conflicts, Labour and

Environmental Issues. Edward Elgar Publishing, Incorporated.

Vaidya, A. (2005). Globalization: Encyclopedia of Trade, Labor, and Politics. ABC-CLIO,

Incorporated.

Whale, P. B. (1997). International Trade. Taylor & Francis, Inc.

Yeates, N. (2001). Globalization and Social Policy. SAGE Publications.