Economic, Cultural and Political Impact of Globalisation

stinting, Cultural and Political Impact of GlobalisationIn this rapid ever-changing humankind, externalisation affected multitude and resigns around the knowledge domain largely. A British Labour Party politician, Cl ar Short, once said People chip in criminate me of being in favour of world(prenominal)isation. This is equivalent to accusing me of being in favour of the sun rising in the morning. (Ridgers, 2012) This quote shows quite swell that globalisation is the new ages of human history, which is inevit able. Most of the deal appreciate that globalisation is the process of interconnectedness between the people, companies, policy-making sciences of several(predicate) nations, in which driven by massively increased championship and cultural exchange (Navar, 2003). However, it whitethorn be too simplistic. Globalisation, in fact, has many underlying moments and brings some unforeseeable consequences. Therefore, this taste depart attempt to analyse globalisation and find out its real definition. In order to demonst place this, this es dictate willing discuss the meaning of globalisation in triple dimensions economy, finish and politics along with three waves of globalisation, namely hyperglobalist, sceptics, and transformationalists.Globalisation in economy dimension refers to the worldwide causal agent of the global economy, resulting in the increased interconnectedness of national economies with free rapture of goods, capital, and services across national borders (Guttal, 2007). Financial markets, such as faith markets, commodity markets and capital markets atomic number 18 the apparent casefuls. Base on the hyperglobalists perspectives, thither are four main factors that turn tail to the process of globalisation in the economy (Martell, 2007). Firstly, transfer of trainingation advances. With the improvements in transport, a large number of people and goods are able to move much quickly (Guttal, 2007). As a result, the cost o f transporting goods becomes relatively cheaper where in that respect are many larger freight ships available (Guttal, 2007). Also, it means that the cost per item mess be minify since the cost of transporting is the key reason which influences it (Guttal, 2007). Secondly, the freedom of trade. The typical example of it goes to the europium Unions (EU) free movement and trade, which includes goods, workers, and services (Nayar, 2003). This promotes people in different European countries to open or do business in each others countries (Nayar, 2003). Thirdly, applied science revolution. It offers a more(prenominal) accessible and convenient communication between people around the world with the birth of electronic communication devices, such as smartphones, email, faxes, and social ne bothrking websites or apps (Nayar, 2003). Lastly, labour availability and skills (Guttals,2007). It could tackle the problems of jobs and skills shortage in More sparingally Developed Countries ( MEDs) and reduce the unemployment risk in slight frugalally Developed Countries (LEDs) in the meantime (Guttals, 2007). Moreover, it can outlet improvement of cheaper labour costs (Guttals, 2007). For example, Indian people whose country with the high unemployment rate are employed in Germany with lesser wages to fill the IT vacancies in that respect (Campe, 2008). Since it seems that the process of globalisation is not inevitable due to the reasons above, then it may be appropriate to look at what impact will it make.Hyperglobalists avow that capitalism is one of the many manifestations of globalisation (Guttal, 2007). As we know it today, capitalism is an economical system in which a countrys industry and trade are owned privately by people with minimal interference from the government (Campe, 2008). In this case, hyperglobalists claim that the growth of capitalism results from the rising interconnectivity between countries (Martell, 2007). They animadvert that when the w orld becomes more integrated, the economies are becoming denationalised in which the relevance and means of nation-state are declining (Martell, 2007). Also, they view the transnational corporation (TNCs) the companies that operate in different countries, becoming the biggest global influence and not nations, for example, Coca-Cola and MacDonald (Campe, 2008). Consequently, the global economy is considered to give way integrated, accepted and included different parts of the world (Guttal, 2007). Hyperglobalists claim that global economy brings some advantages. Firstly, global economy promotes the increasing world-wide trade and the rise of the number of TNCs in which helps countries, especially LEDs by training the topical anaesthetic people with new skills and jobs (Manu, 2000). Secondly, improvement in the standard of living that generate a better living condition for people living in countries that are globalising (Manu, 2000). For example, countries who welcome those foreig n investments could earn more revenue as globalisation has brought about more opportunities for trade (Manu, 2000). The Sin commotionorean government utilize this revenue to develop sectors, including welfare, transportation, and education.In contrast, sceptics perspectives consider global capitalism as a myth (Martell, 2007). They believe that the nation-states still shoot the responsibilities to program line the flows of economic benefits even though the number of TNCs is increasing (Martell, 2007). For example, foreign investment flows into the control of several advanced economics (Martell, 2007). This shows that TNCs are still relevant to their certain nation-states and gain profits for these states (Martell, 2007). They in addition look global economy negatively. They state that global economy is essentially not globally inclusive for two reasons rising protectionism and increasing supranational inequality (Liedekerke, 2000). In economics, protectionism represents a ord er to restrain trade in goods and services (Liedekerke, 2000). Sceptics claim that the increased competition among nations is the main reason of causing protectionism (Teichmann, 2002). For example, the lower costs of labour in China and India make many companies have located their take facilities on that point (Teichmann, 2002). Benefiting from the increased revenue, these countries can rapidly develop their infrastructure like pass networks and industrial parks, which further improve their attractiveness to foreign investors (Teichmann, 2002). Consequently, this strongly nemesisens veritable economies such as Thailand and Singapore and more so for LEDs with poor semipolitical stability and infrastructure like Cambodia and East Timor (Manu, 2000). According to World wellness Organisation (WHO), Economists predict that increased competition from low-wage countries will destroy jobs in richer nations and there will be a race to the bottom as countries reduce wages, taxes, wel fare and environmental controls so as to be more competitive, at enormous social cost. Pressure to compete will niggle the ability of governments to set their own economic policies and the move towards deregulation will reduce their power to protect and promote the interests of their people. (Liedekerke, 2000) When the protectionism leads to the high international inequality, the income gap between countries is widening (Nayar, 2003). For instance, business owners in developed countries are able to outsource their operations to other countries in lower costs of production due to the improved communications and transportation (Nayar, 2003). As a result, higher retrenchment rates become higher, and income among the average workers reduce, turning into a phenomenon that the rich getting rich and the poor becoming poorer (Nayar, 2003). During 2012, the 29 richest states on kingdom generated 48 percent of the world output, whereas the 51 poorest nations contribute only 2 percent of th e worlds total output (Manu, 2000).While the globalisation makes a immense change to business dealings, it also has cultural implications. Culturally globalisation refers to an interconnection of ideas, customs and values around the world (Guttal, 2007). In hyperglobalist perspectives, globalisation leads to the homogenisation of the world under American popular gloss or westward consumerism (Martell, 2007). It states that globally people are enjoying the homogenised global grows as the culture consumed is no longer exclusively from their own nation (Guttal, 2007). The national culture is declining significantly as people are interconnected with a popular culture (Guttal, 2007). For example, globalised culture shown in different areas, such as unison, television, and sport. Firstly, music from certain countries has spread and sold across the world, notably the Beatles in the fifties (Campe, 2008). People could learn the English language, English love stories, and ultimately c ulture through their lyrics (Campe, 2008). Secondly, Hollywood shows on television which originally produced for local audiences has been wide known in the world through globalisation. Consequently, the American culture, customs, performance, folk tales which step forward in the Hollywood shows dominate global culture (Campe, 2008). Lastly, footballs popularity shows the globalised culture in sport. People with different nationalities would royally support the football teams. Also, it is common that there are many football players in a team are of different nationalities. Moreover, football is included in Olympic Games. In this case, hyperglobalists say that the emergence of the new technologies is the key role in promoting the global culture, especially Internet and Satellite communication (Campe, 2008). People all over the world could receive the news, messages or information instantly from these corporations.However, sceptics view the global culture differently that it is, in fa ct, Western Imperialism (Teichmann, 2002). They criticise that globalisation poses a threat to classical nationalism where Western cultures dominate over all others (Teichmann, 2002). They also condemn that globalisation inevitably leads to the clashes of culture as the speed of globalisation has been accelerated significantly by the improvement of engine room (Guttal, 2007). The noteworthy example can be found in migration. In the United States, the melt pot, which refers to the assimilation of migrants into one single culture, has been happening (Campe, 2008). Another example can be found in Hollywood films, in which poses a brawny influence in the global film industry (Campe, 2008). It is found that 95 percent of the global movies are produced by the USA whereas, on the African continent, only 42 films are produced each year. On the other hand, transformationalists beg that globalisation refers to the intermingling of cultures and people (Guttal, 2007). It is said that cultur es are hybridised and transformed into new forms (Teichmann, 2002).politically globalisation means the expansion of the worldwide political system (Koshy, 2001). In the hyperglobalist opinion, political globalisation challenges the nationalism, which leads to the decline of national-state and the loss of national sovereignty (Koshy, 2001). global formations including the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and the European Union (EU) superseded the nation-states to take the lead in decision-making (Haynes, 2003). Many states sovereignty is weakened when the membership in intergovernmental organisation asks them to hand over (Agnew, 2009). For example, German students in Scotland unexpectedly are allowed to voter turnout in elections to the Scottish Parliament. However, sceptics propose political globalisation in mixed ways, again. They say that states retain autonomy and sovereignty unevenly (Agnew, 2009). Some states have gained, and some have lost political power, for example, many states become stronger with more social democratic policies. They also suggest that there is a grand power inequality between the states (Liedekerke, 2000). The to the highest degree powerful nations would use those international political body as a tool to impose their will for their own benefit and to exempt themselves from restrictions when it is disadvantageous to them (Koshy, 2001). Oppositely, some weak nations, perhaps, have no freedom to speak their will in front of these most powerful nations. In contrast to another two views, transformationalists see political globalisation in a relatively positive way (Haynes, 2003). They think there is a shared sovereignty between nation states and international organisations (Haynes, 2003). Nation states still have the power to make important decisions. States and international political body cooperate with each other to solve the global problems, such as demands for human right, environmental pollution, developments in international transport and communication (Haynes, 2003).In conclusion, this essay has attempted to demonstrate the meaning of globalisation in economic, cultural, and political dimensions. In these dimensions, it is not hard to see that technology revolution in recent years has played a lively role in the growth of globalisation. Moreover, with three perspectives on globalisation, it is likely to terminate that there are various meanings of globalisation in different dimensions and it is neither the totally positive nor negative. Globalisation helps as well as harms the world relations. Therefore, it is better to raise public awareness of globalisation, so that people could take it carefully to avoid the worst consequences.Bibliography Agnew, J A. (2009) Globalization and sovereignty. Lanham Rowman Littlefield Publishers.Campe, C.V (2008) Atlantic Community. in stock(predicate) at http//www.atlantic-community.org/app/webroot/files/articlepdf/Globalisation%20and%20Nationalism.pdf (Accessed 12 March 2017)Guttal, S. (2007) Globalisation, Development in Practice, 17(4/5) 523-531.Haynes, J. (2003) canvas Connections between Comparative Politics and Globalisation, Third World Quarterly, 24(6) 1029-1047.Koshy, N. (2001) Political Dimensions of Globalisation, Economic and Political Weekly, 36(18) 1513-1517.Liedekerke, L. V. (2000) Economic Globalization The Political Challenge, Ethical Perspectives, 7(1) 3752.Manu R. Shroff. (2000) Globalisation, Economic and Political Weekly, 35(7) 498-584.Martell, L. (2007) The Third Wave in Globalisation Theory, International Studies Review, 9(2) 173-196.Nayar, B. (2003) Economic Globalisation and Its Advance From Shallow to Deep Integration, Economic and Political Weekly, 38(45) 4776-4782.Ridgers, B. (2012) The Economist. unattached at http//www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2012/08/z-business-quotations (Accessed 12 March 2017).Teichmann, I. (2002) Globalisation. London Watts