Based on the text globalization seems like double edged sword. The problem with the text is that it does not consider the future. The question should be: what is the impact of globalization going to be in the future, based on the past?
I would like to explain based on North Korea and India. In North Korea a protectionist system is at large. They do not import nor export anything. They rely solely on their own production. In the last 60 years they have made little-to-no progress in just about every field. Their People are starving; their people are shrinking; their people are dying at younger ages. This is a government, which is denying globalization, entry in to their country.
As it looks now they do not plan on changing these things. So their people will be worse off in the future than they are now based on the decline that we have observed in the past.
India on the other hand has made progress in the last 60 years. The text refers to people being without drinking water, because of the Hyundai plant. That is one village with problems now, and I do understand that it must be horrible. However, one needs to consider the future. Right now India seems to be a place where the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer but that is how it always is. That is how it always starts. As cars were invented only the rich could afford them. Should we have stopped making cars? No we researched developed and figured out how to make them so that everybody could afford them. Globalization takes time, and on the way of getting their people will be hurt. Globalization follows the principle “for the greater good”.
So I believe in a long run globalization is better for developing countries. Regardless how hard it is at the time it is better then the alternative; protectionism.
Blogging...an open diary
15 years ago
No comments:
Post a Comment