Manipulation of GlobalisationWord文档格式.docx

1、 What are the major forces for globalisation? Will globalisation bring about more opportunities or more risks? Is globalisation an economic, technological, cultural, social or political issue? Different understanding of and different attitudes towards globalisation affect the process of globalisatio

2、n differently. Meanwhile, the theories on globalisation are themselves a powerful weapon, which has been used to promote or fight against globalisation. Key words: globalisation, opportunities, risks, information age, white paper1. Whats Globalisation?A multitude of scholars have so far studied and

3、defined “globalisation” from different perspectives, but of the various definitions I prefer this one: “globalisation means the growing interdependence and interconnectedness of the modern world”（the Secretary of State for International Development, UK, 2000）, because I believe that “globalisation i

4、s political, technological and cultural, as well as economic”（Giddens, 1999, in Mohan, 2000）.2. Drives for GlobalisationThe British government has clearly summarised the driving forces for globalisation:“The increased ease of movement of goods, services, capital, people and information across nation

5、al boarders is rapidly creating a single global economy. The process is driven by technological advance and reduction in the cost of international transaction, ”（White Paper: 15）.Among the aforementioned various forces, Mohan （2000:127） stressed that “the rapid increase in the volume of financial fl

6、ow is, possibly, the defining feature of globalisation”. In my opinion, it is largely the capitalist pursuit of maximising profits that drives globalisation forward. Some Western scholars may argue that “globalisation cannot be reduced to a question of capitalism alone” （Scholte, 1997, in Mohan: 121

7、）, but they also admit that “the pursuit of surplus accumulation has provided a principal and powerful spur to globalisation” （Scholte, 1997, in Mohan: 121）. The profits created by globalisation dont always come from the traditionally defined international trade, as most people may have imagined. St

8、atistics shows that “globalisation is characterised, too, by the growth of transnational companies, which now account for about a third of world output and two-thirds of world trade” （White Paper: 15）. Thus, the global firm is regarded as the ideal-typical model of global production, because the glo

9、bal firms, with the ability to integrate production, marketing and consumption, are better equipped “to exploit the comparative advantages attendant upon each part of the process. If one part becomes uncompetitive it can be moved to another more competitive location. Such integration allows the pare

10、nt company to retain the intellectual property rights”（Mohan: 125）.Obviously, this functional integration, which facilitates intra-firm trade, decides “profits, however, tend to go to the countries in the North where TNCs have their headquarters” （Rigg: 36）. In a word, the economic force is a very p

11、owerful incentive to globalisation.3. The West and the East: Different Attitudes Toward GlobalisationOf all the factors that affect globalisation, I personally believe that the attitudes of national governments towards globalisation are crucial to the process of globalisation. If a government believ

12、es in the opportunities created by globalisation, it will endeavour to push globalisation forward. On the contrary, if a government believes in the risks created by globalisation, it will be either reluctant to align itself with globalisation or be resistant to globalisation. In this case, it is vit

13、ally necessary to discuss the different conceptions of globalisation held by different countries.3.1 OpportunitiesIts universally agreed that “globalisation creates unprecedented new opportunities and risks”, in the terms of Tony Blair （2000）, but the Third World, on a whole, argues that the opportu

14、nities are exclusively for the rich countries while the risks are mainly for the poor ones.In this respect, the British government claims that “it depends on the policy choices adopted by governments, international institutions, the private sector and the civil society” （White Paper: 15）, because if

15、 “managed wisely, the new wealth being created by globalisation creates the opportunities to lift millions of the worlds poorest people out of the poverty. Managed badly and it could lead to their further maginalisation and impoverishment”（White Paper:Then what are good policies? Aziz and Westcott （

16、1997） argued that what matters is the complementarity of with three separate elements needed in combination: “trade openness, macro stability and a relatively low degree of government involvement in economic activity”（Mosley: 613）. As a matter of fact, “good policy takes on a different meaning in ea

17、ch developing or transitional country contingent on its structure, its stage of development and the external shock to which it is subject. In particular, policy response varies by region”（Mosley: 614）. The British government concluded that “openness is a necessary- though not sufficient-condition fo

18、r national prosperity”（White Paper:17）. Its true that, after the developing countries inserted themselves into the global market, they “have seen a substantial increase in their trade/GDP ratios” （Kaplinsky: 119）, but ironically, at the same time, “its share of global output fell markedly （Kaplinsky

19、: 119）. This phenomenon was termed by Kaplinsky as “immiserising growth”, describing “a situation where there is increasing economic activity （more output and more employment） but falling economic returns”（Kaplinsky:120）.Its undeniable that “globalisation has seen a massive increase in global wealth

20、”（Rigg, 2001）. But the Third World countries are concerned with how the wealth created by the globalisation is distributed among countries, and whether the globalisation has increased the inequality between countries. Also ironically, drawing on the same facts, the rich countries and the poor ones h

21、ave come to opposite conclusions.The British government （2000） asserted that “the best evidence to date suggests that theres no systematic relationship between openness and inequality, or between growth and inequality”（White Paper: 15）. One of their major evidences is that in 1990 the average real i

22、ncome in the countries containing the richest fifth of the worlds population was 18 times greater than in the countries containing the poorest fifth; “by the late 1990s, this has fallen to 15 times greater”（White Paper:Meanwhile, Rigg （2001）, based on the World Development Indicators （1999） released

23、 by the World Bank, argues while world GDP grew sharply, “there has been a widening gap between a wealthy elite of countries and a mess of poor countries”（Rigg: 36）. “At the same time as the world has become richer, the number of people living in poverty has increasedto around 1.2 billion on the bas

24、is of the Worlds Banks definition, which is those living on US$1 a day or less”（Rigg: 37）. Even a WTO-sponsored report published in 2000 acknowledged the fact: “While there is no simple relationship between trade and poverty, the evidence seems to indicate that trade liberalisation is generally a po

25、sitive contribution to poverty alleviation”（Rigg:37）. This seems strikingly contrary to the British governments belief: “economic growth is an indispensable requirement for poverty reduction”（White Paper: 18）.It is the writers view that the aforesaid discovery by the poor countries has, in fact thou

26、gh not expressed, caused them to suspect that the West seems to have been trying to mask the truth, and more terribly, this will cause the Third World to suspect whatever conclusions the First World will draw, at least in terms of globalisation. The different understanding of globalisation is not on

27、ly caused by different international political ideologies, but also caused by different methodologies. For example, employing different statistical and analytic methods, we may come to different conclusions about the same phenomenon. Therefore, to label the issue as “ideological” couldnt put an end

28、to the debate.For instance，in terms of the different results of globalisation achieved by the rich countries and the poor ones, the Western powers declared this depends on “initial circumstances and on the policies that government pursue”（White Paper: 35）. But the reality is that the initial economi

29、c and technological circumstances in the poor countries are absolutely inferior to those in the rich countries, which means that most of （if not all） the poor countries are doomed to impoverishment and marginalisation, even after they have turned to the global economy at immense costs. Confronted wi

30、th this reality, the British government claims “all profound economic and social change produces winners and losers”（White Paper: 18）. And a WTO-sponsored report echoed: “However trade reforms will create some losers （some even in the long run）” （Rigg: 37）.3.2 Risks Nobody could deny that globalisat

31、ion will create some unprecedented risks and challenges, as Tony Blair （1995） admits: “What is called globalisation is changing the nature of the nation-state as power becomes more diffuse and borders more porous. Technological change is already reducing the power and capacity of government to contr

32、ol its domestic economy free from external influence.” （Mohan: 121）But for the poor countries, the risks are even devastating sometimes, which the rich countries dont seem to bother to take into further consideration. Anyway, I will try my best to summarise the major risks sensed by the poor countries as follows:Politically Globalisation requires a fundamental tra