Quite a few people suggested in discussion that the meaning of globalization varies depending on perspective. With this in mind, I want to further discuss globalization from the perspective of a periphery nation (developing/third world country). There are obviously pros and cons to globalization for everyone. But do you believe globalization is ultimately good or bad for the periphery in regards to economics, politics, and culture?
I believe there are a lot of economic advantages. Globalization creates an increased and more stable supply of cash to developing countries. It gives them more access to the market and ultimately increases communication across the economic hierarchy. If it weren’t for globalization, the U.S as a developed nation might not have much reason to interact with those countries on the periphery. Economically speaking, without globalization some countries might be entirely isolated and would have no access to resources or products not offered in their immediate vicinity. Most people would agree that globalization brings about opportunity for the periphery.
So why would globalization potentially be a threat? There are two overarching arguments I want to discuss: exploitation and cultural oppression. Some fear that the periphery is too easily exploited. While globalization brings about the business of big name corporations (as we heard from our Nike case), it also carries ethical issues. Are big businesses taking advantage of the locals of less wealthy and politically influential places? I would say to a certain extent yes. I think it is good that the business is brought to places that desperately need jobs and economic stimuli, but certain ethical issues arise in cases involving unfair work practices and poor working conditions like sweatshops. When I studied abroad in New Zealand I took a class entirely focused on Global and Local Cultures and how the two affect each other. When it comes to culture I think it is important to realize that it is a two dimensional relationship between the global and the local. Global culture and local culture are in a dialogue. I don’t believe that any singular culture is oppressing another’s. Because countries are interacting I think they are causing each other’s cultures to change. While core countries may have a dominant role in this exchanging of culture, I do not see periphery nations as being totally passive in cultural exchange.