Thursday, November 7, 2019
Would Globalization Tie the World Together or Tear it Apart Essays
Would Globalization Tie the World Together or Tear it Apart Essays Would Globalization Tie the World Together or Tear it Apart Essay Would Globalization Tie the World Together or Tear it Apart Essay Essay Topic: Apocalypse Now Ã¢â¬Å"If you were to look at the Harvard course catalog, you might think that Government was the department that handled political economyÃ¢â¬ (Eggers).Ã As globalization is the most popular system discussed in the field of political economy today, the fact that politics impacts this system is absolutely clear.Ã Hence, globalization as a system cannot be run like a business that only functions to maximize profits.Ã After all, there are political agendas intimately connected to this system.Ã These agendas determine whether globalization would tie the world together or tear it apart Ã¢â¬â an oft debated issue in scholarly literature on globalization.Does Globalization Accompany Integration or Disintegration?The very fact that this issue is oft debated reveals that globalization is not tying the world together, hence it is expected to tear it apart.Ã Arnold writes that global markets are a mirage.Ã In other words, markets are not being ho mogenized despite the fact that global brands like Coca Cola are available almost everywhere.Ã Also according to the author, who is a respected former faculty member of Harvard Business School, markets around the world are becoming more local and fragmented as time goes on.Ã Each market that an international business considers entering must be assessed not only for its revenue potential but also needs specific to the market segment that the organization desires to sell its products or services to (Arnold).Ã Thus, Arnold explains how companies ought to Ã¢â¬Å"buy globally, sell locallyÃ¢â¬ (122-25).Among other things, this concept calls for organizations considering going international to develop a globalized or universal mindset.Ã A company that buys globally is best able to tap into new international business opportunities.Ã What is more, buying globally gets the purchaser acquainted with different cultures.Ã If, in future, the purchaser intends to start an int ernational business, his or her knowledge of various cultures would certainly help.Ã An organization that decides to sell its products and services to Ethiopians, for example, has to study the culture of the target market.Ã So, even though the question of whether globalization would homogenize cultures is oft debated, the system of globalization is not set to tie the world together.Friedman writes that the Cold War system was a divided one, while globalization calls for integration.Ã Ã¢â¬ËThe WallÃ¢â¬â¢ defined the old system, whereas the new system relies on Ã¢â¬ËThe WebÃ¢â¬â¢ (Friedman).Ã Moreover, Ã¢â¬Å"No two countries that both had McDonalds had fought a war against each other since each got its McDonaldsÃ¢â¬ (Friedman 195).Ã Thus, globalization is conducive to both peace and economic growth.Ã Even so, Americanization and globalization go together, and the backlash against globalization comes from have-nots that do not possess the resources of the United States and could therefore turn out to be AmericaÃ¢â¬â¢s enemies.Ã Friedman mentions terrorism in this context, and relates its causes to AmericaÃ¢â¬â¢s success in the global economy.Ã To put it another way, Americanization is a symbol of AmericaÃ¢â¬â¢s power around the globe.Ã And, this calls for envy and resentment on the part of those who have not the markets and the military might of the United States (Friedman).But, the author fails to explain how global political problems can be surmounted in the system of globalization.Ã After all, globalization has not ended wars around the world.Ã It is generally believed that an increase in international trade is accompanied by an increase in income inequality, seeing that the majority of the people in developing nations are poor and cannot afford to purchase relatively expensive foreign goods in the local market, nor form big enterprises to sell to the foreign public.Ã Friedman agrees that globalization incr eases income inequality around the world.Ã He further states that if globalization is managed correctly, it is expected to help our world in significant ways.Ã In fact, the United States could play a unique role in stabilizing the system of globalization (Friedman).Ã Then again, if the world cannot turn its back on globalization, as Friedman argues, it is essential to consider reasons why political problems between the United States, European Union and the developing world cannot be sufficiently resolved for everybody to benefit from globalization.Ã The United States, for example, could have opted to support developing countries in joining the Electronic Herd or financial markets on the Internet.Ã Instead, the United States and the European Union engage in war after war in poor countries where terrorists fight for income equality.After all, there is a new belief system that has been adopted by Western nations at the same time as the system of globalization is analyzed and reanalyzed throughout the world.Ã HuntingtonÃ¢â¬â¢s thesis in Ã¢â¬Å"The Clash of CivilizationsÃ¢â¬ is based on the assumption that the world requires perpetual conflict to go on existing, which is why civilizations must clash in the post-Cold War era.Ã The author insists, in particular, that Islam must certainly clash with the West during this period.Ã Although HuntingtonÃ¢â¬â¢s prophecy has been fulfilled, especially after the events of September 11, 2001, many believe that this clash of civilizations is sustained by separatists, bigots or racists alone.Ã Hence, this clash was neither unavoidable, and nor is it impossible to put an end to it.Ã In other words, HuntingtonÃ¢â¬â¢s arguments are valid only in the viewpoint of those that are ignorant, as Said would claim.Also according to Said, the article, Ã¢â¬Å"The Clash of CivilizationsÃ¢â¬ was Ã¢â¬Å"intended to supply Americans with an original thesis about Ã¢â¬Ëa new phaseÃ¢â¬â¢ in world politi cs after the end of the cold war.Ã¢â¬ Ã Unfortunately, racism has always plagued America, which is why countless Americans did not question HuntingtonÃ¢â¬â¢s main argument Ã¢â¬â that Islam and the West must clash, as the Muslims try to obtain great wealth and military power to counter Westerners.Ã Said further notes that there are Ã¢â¬Å"uncountableÃ¢â¬ ¦editorials in every American and European newspaper and magazine of note adding to this vocabulary of gigantism and apocalypse, each use of which is plainly designed not to edify but to inflame the readers indignant passion as a member of the Ã¢â¬ËWest,Ã¢â¬â¢ and what we need to do.Ã¢â¬ Ã Toward the end of his article, Huntington uses words that former President George W. Bush seemed to have memorize, apart from innumerable brainwashed Americans who do not always learn to question the tactics of political framing: that the West must Ã¢â¬Å"protect its interests in relation to[clashing] civilizations.Ã¢â¬ ;;C onclusion;It is noteworthy that international politics would not allow globalization to tie the world together.Ã As a review of Harm De BlijÃ¢â¬â¢s book, The Power of Place: Geography, destiny, and globalizationÃ¢â¬â¢s rough landscape reads,The author divides the world into two parts: the core and the periphery. Ã Nations at the core are globalized, industrialized and prosperous. Ã For people in these nations - to use Thomas FriedmanÃ¢â¬â¢s terminology - the world is flat. Ã In other words, people from core nations have relatively equal opportunities as their economies accrue the greatest benefits from globalization. The rest of the nations are underprivileged and poor.People who cannot migrate from nations identified as peripheral also cannot escape poor living standards, including lack of access to modern healthcare. Ã This is fate, according to Blij. (Ahmed)Clearly, the core nations are not interested in changing the status quo (Ahmed).Ã Why should the rich world support hostile, underprivileged people such as terrorists?Ã But, even if the West were to plan to change the status quo, the fact remains that globalization cannot even create global markets to tie the world together.Ã Hence, the system of globalization is expected to tear the world apart as the so-called clash of civilizations goes on.
Posted by Clinton Wright at 7:12 AM