Globalisation has hurt more economies than it has helped

Thomas L Friedman, author and the 3 time Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, in his famous book – “The world is flat”- defines globalisation as the inexorable integration of markets, transportation systems, and communication systems to a degree never witnessed before – in a way that is enabling corporations, countries, and individuals to reach around the world farther, faster, deeper, and cheaper than ever before.

This means, there would be faster availability of the latest technologies around the world, an increase in mobility of persons, goods, capital, data and ideas but also an increase in infections, diseases and pollution. Thus we see that globalization brings not just the best what the world can offer, it brings in the worst also.

Globalization has definitely played a big role in reducing poverty due to increased integration through trade, investment, and long-term capital flows. This can be confirmed by looking at the fact that the proportion of the world population living in poverty has been steadily declining and since 1980 the absolute number of poor people has stopped rising. But, like every coin, there is a second side to this story. The effect of the collapse of Lehmann Brothers and the sub prima crisis in the US proved how a localised event can cause a devastation across the globe. The recession resulting after the aftermath of the above events are still felt across the globe. India itself is a perfect example. From the hey days of 2008 where the talk was when the GDP will touch double figures, the situation has turned dramatically in the space of few years where a GDP growth rate of below 5% is hailed as a success in this dismal global economy.

The irony of globalization is that the best of globalization accrues to the rich whereas the worst of globalization hits the poor the hardest. Thus we can see that unless a country reaches a certain level of developed status, there is...

Similar Essays