The world is shrinking, trust me.

Monday, April 30, 2007

In this cartoon, there are three humble persons representing Asian, South American and African. They claim at the same time that they are very poor. And anther very rich man standing beside him says very ironically that it’s the effect of globalization. Since lots of countries in Asia, South America and Africa are developing countries, I think this cartoon is trying to say that globalization doesn’t really bring wealth to developing countries, or the wealth doesn’t distribute evenly in these countries to benefit poor people. Very obviously, it is an anti-globalization cartoon. But it is true that globalization doesn’t bring economic growth to the developing countries? Or it is true that the poor people in developing countries don’t really benefit from the wealth globalization brings to their countries? According to my opinion and some evidences I have found out from the internet, globalization brings very quick economical growth to lots of developing countries in East and South Asia which open their countries’ economy to the world, but a large number of countries in sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America and Middle east do not benefit from globalization since they don’t open to the world. And it is true that the wealth doesn’t distribute evenly in the developing countries benefit from globalization, resulting in the poor people become poorer and rich people become richer!
In recent decades, lots of developing countries have increased foreign trade, foreign direct investment, foreign acid and international borrowing. They have opened their countries’ economies to the world, trying to benefit as much as they can from global free trade liberation. And economic globalization really has raised the economic growth in these developing countries dramatically. Very significant examples would be China, India and lots of other countries in Asia-like Korea and Singapore. Those countries’ rapid economic growths in recent decades proof how beneficial financial globalization would be to developing countries. But lots of countries in Latin America, Middle East and sub-Sahara Africa don’t really benefit from globalization. This is because that most of the countries in these regions don’t really open their countries’ economy to the world. They only depend disproportionately on production and exports of traditional commodities. The deep-seated structural problems, weak policy frameworks and institutions, protection and home and aboard might be relevant reasons for them not to open to the world. According to a relevant source, from 1970 to 2000, the physical capital growth of china increases from 1.6% to 3.2% while the physical capital growth of 19 selected countries in Africa decrease from 1.3% to -0.1% and that of 9 selected countries in Middle East decrease from 2.1% to 0.3 %. From that, we can see the difference between opening economy to the world and not opening economy to the world. Nowadays as economic globalization is very “popular”, not joining the road of economic globalization would mean poor and backward while opening the economy to join this road would mean more chances to develop its economy.
Although lots of countries have enjoyed rapid economic growth from economic globalization, the wealth doesn’t distribute evenly in these countries, resulting in poor people becoming poorer! It is true that globalization may improve growth rate, increase productivity, enhance technological capability of the country, but it cannot redistribute wealth and income in favor of the poor! And in fact, it does the reverse-it redistributes the wealth and income in favor of the not so poor! Lots of the wealth going into the country is distributed among the rich ones, making them richer and richer. While the poor ones become poorer and poorer compare to those richer and richer people. As we know, one of the significance globalization brings to the developing countries’ economy is that more and more big and international companies are set up. Those people who have high occupations in international companies in their countries become richer and richer as their wages steadily increase through these years and they would manage to earn more money through personal businesses. While those labor workers are poorer and poorer as their wages which are their only incomes are forced to decrease further. The further increase in high occupations’ wages and further decrease in low occupations’ wages was mainly because that the high skilled workers in developing countries are very rare while there are large amounts of labor workers there. High competition for the labor jobs and high demand for skilled jobs result in poor become poorer and rich become richer. In many developing countries, the income inequality is very severe and increases even faster than that in developed countries. This cause large numbers of low-skilled workers in developing countries further deepen into poverty. So, globalization gives the developing countries which open to the world trade higher chance to develop faster, but the wealth it brings to the developing countries are not distributed in the favor of poor people, making them still poor!

Minyun- Economic Expert

Globalised @ 9:39 AM

Sunday, April 29, 2007

Let's take a look at some of the statistics of obesity rates in the world today by clicking on this link --> http://www.annecollins.com/obesity/worldwide-obesity.htm

A quick look at the statistics and one would realize that there is an increasing trend in the obesity rate of people across the globe, not just in the United States, but also in third world countries like Africa. One would think that obesity would only affect first world countries as they are the ones who have sufficient income to spend on food. However, the increase in obesity also occurs in developing countries- but for a totally different reason.
First, let us display more statistics to prove this trend in developing countries. Kosrae, one of the four states in Micronesia in Papua New Guinea has 88% of its adults overweight, and 53% out of this number are obese. So how is this made possible when Papua New Guinea is one of the most rural countries in the world today?

The culprit is none other then globalization. Globalization has the power to change the diets of all people. With globalization, importing and exporting goods internationally are made possible with the help of modern transportation. And this is precisely the reason for the increased number of people being obese everywhere. More and more countries are working towards a wage-based economy which has caused them to be more reliant on imported foodstuff. This also explains why Kosrae is now in such a dire predicament. Before globalization took place, local food such as fish would come in fresh and be consumed, but right now, the locals there would go for packaged food lacking much needed nutrient. So what happened to the local food? Again, blame this on globalization. Federated States of Micronesia had sold its fishing rights to Japan in the year 1993.

With the existence of Mutinational Corporations (MNCs) and mass production, the prices for these imported processed foods will be lower than others. People living in poverty will therefore go for these foods as they are cheaper but all these foods are usually high in calories which will also inevitably compromise their nutrient levels. In the past where the rich will usually consume majority of the fat, it is now vice versa, where the poor are consuming majority of the fat content and accompanying obesity will always be diseases such as diabetes, cancer and nutritional deficiencies as stated in the article, putting a toll on their health.

However, it is also unfair to say that globalization has done wrong to every single individual. With changes, there will always be bound to have two sides of the story. Whilst it is true that globalization has caused obesity across the globe, it has also improved food security. The 2004 tsunami in Ache, Indonesia, caused hundreds and thousands to die and left many more homeless and starving. Without the food aid of neighboring countries such as Singapore and the United States, many of the homeless would not have survived the ordeal and be on the road to adapting to their new lives. On a side note, it is also because of globalization that made it possible to send rescue workers to help tend to the injured and clearing of debris and corpses to prevent the outbreak of a disease.

All in all, it can be argued that globalization both benefits and harms us. It depends on which aspect we are looking at and from whose point of view. Globalization can be seen to harm the people in Kosrae, but can also be seen to save the lives of the people in Ache.

Janice Fan
The Environmental/ Health Expert

Labels: food aid, Globalization, health, obesity

Globalised @ 4:53 PM

Saturday, April 28, 2007

Article “Africa's Shady Politicians Are at Root of Continent's Destitution” by George Ayittey
Taken from http://www.aworldconnected.org/research/pubid.2839/

research_detail.asp

REFLECTION
Look at Africa, already entangled in “steaming squalor, misery, deprivation, and chaos”, as quoted from the article. As if these weren’t enough, Africa is also too deeply sunk in poverty and members of the government are too busy enjoying themselves with the riches from globalisation and oppressing the people to even care about the situation. There’s recent proof that four out of ten Africans are barely surviving in absolute poverty, and sadly, this trend is increasing. This is credited to the corrupt politicians and other members which are part of the higher status in society, who use funds for their own purposes and do not include the welfare of the Africans in their agenda. Evidence from the UN reveals that more than $200 billion was looted by these members of the elite and NONE of this was used to salvage the poverty situation in Africa. What’s worse is that, the government refused to take the blame and instead, attributed the downfall of Africa to uncontrollable external factors: racism and discrimination from other countries, an international economic system unfavourable to them and insufficient foreign aid.

Though Africa is still lagging behind the world in terms of globalisation progression, it still benefits from globalisation - improving economy, increased food supplies and probably a better life. Unfortunately, its corrupt government chose to invest the money, not on profitable investments, but on the President’s largesse. Though globalisation has offered Africa a way out of its poverty, a salvation from its hellish days, but the government has practically wrecked this chance of rebirth. What globalisation has offered them-profits, wealth, higher living standards, better lives for their people, are wasted in the hands of those useless politicians. In a bid to pursue fame and wealth, political leaders toss aside the welfare of Africans and concentrate instead, on worthless matters concerning the black market and handing out rewards to their lapdogs. It is no wonder that Africa is quickly becoming the poorest country in the world, and with it comes starved Africans, a stagnant economy and a government deemed impractical and “useless” (though that is somewhat true). The government does not cherish the benefits of globalisation, and instead chose to exploit it.

On the other hand, the writer of the article chose to blame globalisation partially for Africa’s poverty. Globalisation has opened doors to the West, and being naïve politicians hungry for wealth, and more wealth, they put implicit trust in the West. Africans gradually got hooked onto food aids, imports and disaster relief aids, and when they were discarded by the West, they sunk into more poverty. Globalisation, indeed, does no good to the poor and it will be the total reverse if the country was wealthy. In an indirect way, globalisation has allowed Africa to fall prey to the West, in addition to its corrupt leaders who know next to nothing. If Africa never learns how to make full use of the benefits globalisation offers, and instead chooses to let itself sink into absolute despair, maybe it deserves poverty then. What Africa should do now is to welcome a growing economy and a qualified government. Only then can Africa pull itself out of poverty.

Political Expert, Vanessa :D

Labels: Africa, globalisation, politics

Globalised @ 10:15 PM

To view article, click -->http://fading-hope.blog-city.com/mnc_criminals_feat_coca__cola.htm

Globalization has always been defined as increasing the connectivity and interdependence of the world's markets and businesses. This is often perceived as a good thing which people have embraced. It has after all helped us in many ways from the advancement in the technological and medical field to the increase in the reaping of economic benefits in countries and also not forgetting allowing for a change in culture otherwise known to many as Americanization. However, is globalization all that? Have we just been blindly enjoying the benefits globalization has brought us such that we have turned a blind eye towards the potential downfalls globalization may cause us in the future? This is real. And we can already see the effects of it through the above article.

This article is a fine example of what is happening throughout the world, not just India. It is a problem that many third world countries have to face as they are being exploited by Mutinational Corporations (MNCs). Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) making use of these third world countries has brought both pros and cons to them. When an American company is being set up, in let’s say China, they bring in their technological knowledge and train the locals. When the American company leaves China in the future, the skills that the employees have learnt during their stay will continue to be with them when they look for another job.

However appealing the MNCs may seem, it is in harsh reality that nothing is perfect. If scrutinized carefully enough, attention will be brought to the fact that MNCs actually heavily contaminate these third world countries resulting in serious environmental pollution henceforth affecting the locals there. For example, Japan had set up a copper smelting plant run be PASAR in the Philippines. This plant has reportedly discharged its waste containing large amounts of boron, arsenic, heavy metals, and sulphur contaminants thus polluting Philippine’s supply of water through releasing toxic wastes into the rivers. It is precisely the same reason why fishing and rice yields have sharply decreased. Apart from this, on an even more serious note, research has also shown that this has caused major impacts on the health of the employees and also caused pregnant women working in that area to born out deformed babies.

Also, due to the advancement in genetic engineering, MNCs can now produce genetically modified seeds such that when farmers buy these seeds from the corporations and plant them, they do not produce any seeds for the farmers to plant. These farmers will then have to continue buying seeds from the MNCs which do not come at a cheap price. This will further poverties these farmers considering that their only source of income is through farming and that the MNCs are business companies after all with having the main objective as profiting in mind.

Thus, it is clear for all that it is the MNCs that profit from the whole process of globalization. It is globalization that has allowed the existence of MNCs in these third world countries to thrive. (It is globalization that causes health problems and pollution to the water supply). It is globalization that has allowed for the existence of genetic engineering benefiting the MNCs. (It is globalization that poverties the already poor farmers struggling to make ends meet.)

Janice Fan
Environmentalist and Health Expert

Labels: Environment, Globalization, MNCs, poverty

Globalised @ 8:45 PM

Article "As Globalisation’s Benefits Grow, So Do Its Skeptics" by David Wessel
Taken from http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=9005

REFLECTIONS
This article highlights the increased foreign relations of each country, and with it comes trade and its importance. The need to sustain this peace among countries is now greatly felt by most countries, examples from the article being the fact that Europe formed the European Union (EU) to prevent any more warfare on its continent, and US pursued trade in a bid to rid themselves of Russian influence during the Cold War.

Globalisation has opened up countries, introduced trade and made trade a fundamental necessity for economic growth and strong foreign relations. With the growth of trade come higher employment rates, higher living standards and a widening gap between the rich and poor, the capable and the less-skilled. As benefits coming from globalisation increase, more people are becoming skeptical towards this whole ideal of globalisation-where everything is now practiced at international level and everything, from trade to economy to the welfare of the people, is supposed to grow. Governments of many countries have long used globalisation as an excuse to ensure peace in their country, as a means to end wars. Take for example, how the USA ended the Cold War. Former President Bill Clinton ensured the former Soviet Union that the North America Free Trade Agreement will bring job opportunities to the people, and improve the economies both ways. This is not the case.

Though the governments are enjoying the various benefits of globalisation, increased employment of the people, improved foreign ties, prospering economy and a way to set the country rolling for rapid growth, those people not being able to upgrade themselves, lacking in capabilities are suffering. Also, a distinct gap between the rich and the poor has formed itself; while the rich are getting richer, the poor is forced further down into the trench and possessing no opportunity of self-salvation. Just imagine the rich using the poor as tools for them to get out of the trench, the rich being the government and large companies, monopolies, while the poor being the lower-skilled and older workers. Did the government ever stopped to consider the poor, or is globalisation just progressing too fast for anyone to take note of the poor and lower-skilled?

Like removing a veil from it, the cons of globalisation are finally uncovered and the effects felt. People are finally experiencing the inequality of globalisation, but what can the government do about it? To the government, the welfare of the country’s development is obviously more significant than the welfare of the poor. Without the latter, maybe globalisation may carry on without a hitch and the government can finally breathe easy.

Political Expert,
Vanessa.

Labels: globalisation, politics

Globalised @ 7:49 PM

Monday, April 23, 2007

Article: “Europe’s Political Parties Buffeted by Globalization” by Jonathan Fenby
Taken from http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=6240

REFLECTIONS
Countries, the United States, Italy, France, United Kingdom, are finally awakened to the fact their political parties are no longer in total control of the political scene. European politics are left in fragments, and oppositions challenge the authority of political groups. Politics are left in a mess as demands for a change in political leaders arise; and standards of political groups are sliding as French Trotskyite leader remains in dreamland and Germany’s left party loses its momentum.

Since globalization entered the scene in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, principles of freedom, justice, and liberty have been spreading rapidly throughout the world, more so after the Cold War in the 1950s and 1960s. One will be correct to say that the world is open to globalization right after the Cold War, and it is then that deep-rooted political practice of various countries are shaken by the impact globalization made. Also, it is said that the size of the world is reduced due to the widespread opening up of countries, and increased trade.

Protest parties against Europe’s major political parties are sprouting up everywhere due to the renewed emphasis in freedom and liberty, though they do not care if the extreme left and right groups they support take office. These protests stem from the effects of globalization on the country’s economy, cultural development and politics. This threatens the power political parties hold over the country, and also their authority. The article states that members of the protest parties “look backwards, toward a world where they believe there were fewer problems, people were better cared for, and nobody had to worry about competition from low-cost manufacturers on the other side of the globe”. They protest against what globalisation brings about - the disqualification of lower skilled workers in the job sectors, robbing farmers of their jobs, the decreasing need for industries dealing with garments and machinery. They want to return to the times before globalisation, and they regard globalisation as the root of all their problems.

Is globalization all what we expect from it, topped with a golden halo? Or are there tons of problems which arise purely from globalization, so many that we do not even keep track of it?

To the protestors, globalization may be deemed as an unfortunate thing to happen, as a giver of negative effects only. But to political groups, globalization is the start of rapid economic growth, employment, cultural development etc. Globalization may be the best thing to happen to the country and may be regarded as the fastest route to a country’s prosperity. Two sides to the same issue, and viewed differently by two groups of people. Returning to the state of the past is near impossible with the continuous growth made by globalization, and majority of countries are proceeding too quickly to stop and think. Those protest parties seem to be at the receiving end of globalisation’s adverse effects since they are stagnant at the “worker” stage. What they do not see is the big picture-that globalization is indeed improving the countries economy and promoting world peace by bonding countries. Increased trade helped countries to open up and also ties between countries are strengthened, and this will go on indefinitely with the continuous expansion of globalization.

Political Expert,
Vanessa
p.s. I'm not the economic expert afterall. :D

Globalised @ 7:11 AM

Sunday, April 22, 2007

Source: http://www.cartoonstock.com/directory/g/globalisation.asp

It is obvious to all who see this cartoon what the cartoonist is trying to convey. Smartly dressed in suits and ties, these big sized Americans are a representation of superiority compared to what seem like the people from the third world countries who appear to be all bag and bones, hardly able to afford any clothes. The caption suggests that the Americans view the lives of these people as less valuable and precious compared to theirs.

As we can deduce from the caption, “we all have to make sacrifices for the environment, and you’re ours!” the Americans are probably trying to get these third world country people to be their guinea pigs to carry out experiments on them to see if their hypothesis of a new potential medicine would succeed. The cartoon already depicts this. If their experimentation on these so called “insignificant” people do not succeed, then these people may suffer from certain complications or perhaps even die.

Some may argue that this cartoon is only showing an extreme situation but in reality, things like this do happen, even perhaps as this is being penned. For example, in 2001, Pfizer, a drug company in New York had caused the death of 11 African children as they were being used as human experiments to test the effectiveness of Trovan, a new meningitis drug. Some of the African children who survived are not spared from its aftereffects such as becoming death and mute altogether either.

This is a clear example of the destructive and preservative power that globalization has on us. Globalization has undoubtedly helped in the vast advancement in the medical field but it is also because of globalization that Pfizer was able to go all the way to Africa (where they must have thought that the Africans’ lives were less valuable) to source and make use of these African children which lead to some of their demise.
If not handled carefully, apart from speeding up the process of breaking through researches, globalization will also be the murderer of many humans whom were being subjected to failed experiments and this will continue to happen in the future. This is indeed the irony of globalization for without the former; there will be no latter.

The Environmental/Health Expert

Janice Fan

Globalised @ 12:25 AM

Thursday, April 19, 2007

Abstract from “China conveys regret over trade complain”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/11/business/worldbusiness/
11yuan.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=business

HONG KONG, Wednesday, April 11 — The Chinese government expressed “deep regret and strong dissatisfaction” on Tuesday with the Bush administration’s decision to file two complaints against China with the World Trade Organization.
Separately, it released statistics showing that Chinese exports grew last month at the slowest pace in five years, but that hardly tempered the entire first-quarter surplus, which doubled from the previous year.

The Chinese reaction to the trade complaints was slightly stronger than China’s statement on March 31 regarding American duties on imported paper. That statement expressed “strong dissatisfaction,” but did not mention “deep regret.”
The American decision to complain to the W.T.O. “will seriously undermine the cooperative relations the two nations have established in the field and will adversely affect bilateral trade,” Wang Xinpei, a Commerce Ministry spokesman, said in a statement on the ministry’s Web site.
An editorial in the official China Daily newspaper on Wednesday took the toughest Chinese position yet, warning that, “In fact, actions against China could trigger an outbreak of massive protectionism that could seriously undermine global economic growth.”

China’s customs agency released statistics Tuesday showing that Chinese exports to the rest of the world grew last month at the slowest pace in five years, rising just 6.9 percent from a year earlier. Correspondingly, the country’s trade surplus narrowed to $6.9 billion in March, from $23.8 billion in February.
But the surplus for the entire first quarter doubled from a year earlier, to $46.4 billion. And economists predicted that the surplus would continue to rise and dismissed the importance of the slowdown in March.
“So, in our view, this number will do nothing, zilch, nada, to address political concerns in the U.S. about China’s overall trade surplus,” Stephen Green, an economist in the Shanghai offices of Standard Chartered Bank, wrote in a research note.
The deceleration followed a slowdown of exports from the major Southeast Asian economies: Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand. That has prompted some in Asia to worry whether industrialized countries were losing some of their appetite for Asian goods.
But economists said that last month’s slowing of exports from China was probably temporary, a result of short-term events.

Facing criticism from Congress that more should be done to address the widening United States trade deficit with China, the Bush administration announced Monday that it would file complaints with the W.T.O. The complaints, which were lodged at the organization’s headquarters in Geneva on Tuesday, accuse China of tolerating widespread violations of trademarks and copyrights and of unfairly limiting the importation of books, journals, movies, videos and music to state-owned companies.
The Commerce Ministry in China posted its response on its Web site at midday Tuesday, an unusually quick move by the Chinese government’s standards.
Mr. Wang denied the American allegations, saying that “the Chinese government has always been firm in protecting intellectual property.” He added that until now, China and the United States had been “in good communication and consultation with each other over access to the Chinese publication market.’
China is far more dependent on exports for economic growth than any other large country, and it has shown reluctance to be drawn into a broad dispute with the United States.

Related article: US files 2 WTO cases against China
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070410/ap_on_bi_ge/us_china_trade_
29;_ylt=AiJRyWw4norrt21ugeOWIcj.ucsA

Reflection:
This article deeply reflected the effect of globalization on individual nation’s economy. As the temperature of globalization continuously rises up, the economies of different countries are connected more and more closely. Individual states are no longer developing the economy within their own states. They import goods and services from other countries and export goods and services into other countries. Different countries’ economies are closely connected. Once one state has some problems coupling with its businesses, other countries would “meet with disaster” as well.
As this article said, America has decided to accuse China of tolerating widespread violations of trademarks and copyrights. America did so as china’s loose control of the copyrights and trade marks severely hurt her own economy. According to another article called “US files 2 WTO cases against China”, American companies were losing billions of dollars annually from piracy levels in china that remains “unacceptably high”. And “the America’s imbalance with China grew to $232.5 billion, the highest ever with a single country.” Since America’s benefits were severely hurt, the “protectionist moves” against China by the Bush administration were very dense recently. Filing cases against China to WTO is only the latest movement.
And of course, China hasn’t benefited from America’s accuse. According to this article, “Chinese exports to the rest of the world grew last month at the slowest pace in five years, rising just 6.9 percent from a year earlier. Correspondingly, the country’s trade surplus narrowed to $6.9 billion in March, from $23.8 billion in February”. Although Chinese government has lots of reasons for the decrease in exports and claimed that it would only be temporary as the entire first-quarter surplus doubled from the last year, what must be admitted is that these claims and the “protectionist moves” against china by the Bush administration would severely affect china’ s economy in the future. Just as what Wang Xinpei- a Commerce Ministry spokesman said, “The American decision to complain to the W.T.O. will seriously undermine the cooperative relations the two nations have established in the field and will adversely affect bilateral trade.” If the cooperative relationships between china and US are affected, the outcomes would be destructive, not only to china, but also to US, since both countries are very important economical cooperators to each other. The article said very correctly: “China is far more dependent on exports for economic growth than any other large country, and it has shown reluctance to be drawn into a broad dispute with the United States.”
Again, according to the article “US files 2 WTO cases against China”, the US submissions Tuesday trigger a 60-day consultation period during which trade negotiators from both countries will try to resolve the two disputes. If that fails, the US can ask for the WTO to establish investigative panels. I sincerely hope these two countries would adjust the disputes peacefully without triggering any destructive economical or political problems since it is true that “actions against China could trigger an outbreak of massive protectionism that could seriously undermine global economic growth.”

Minyun_Economic Expert

Globalised @ 2:19 PM

Resources: http://www.economywatch.com/indianeconomy/india-and-global-economy.html

India and global economy
If we look at the Indian experience since independence, we find that export pessimism permeated the policy stance throughout the early decades of our planning. Import substitution was the principal instrument of trade policy and was regarded in the early years as not only the correct strategy but also inevitable in a continental economy like India. The gulf crisis and its impact on India provided several lessons for us, and one of them was that a relatively closed economy does not provide immunity from a foreign exchange crisis. Incidentally, India excelled in managing the crisis and emerged as one of the very few countries in the world, amongst both the developed and the developing, to have never defaulted on its external obligations. In the aftermath of the Gulf crisis, policy actions were initiated as part of the overall macroeconomic management well coordinated to simultaneously achieve stabilization and structural change. External sector policies designed to progressively open up the Indian economy formed an integral part of the strategy for structural reforms. In this context, improvement in exports, both merchandise and invisibles were recommended. Suggestions were made regarding modulation of import demand on the basis of the availability of current receipts to ensure a level of current account deficit consistent with normal capital flows. Further, Indian policy makers took up measures to enhance non-debt creating flows to limit the debt service burden. A switch over to market-determined exchange rate; building up the foreign exchange reserves to avoid liquidity crises and elimination of the dependence on short-term debt were some of the most important changes that were suggested. It is evident that these changes in the external sector policies of the 1990s, paid rich dividends in terms of growth and resilience to a series of external and domestic shocks. In the 21st century, there has been a dramatic shift in India's approach to external sector management in tune with the changing circumstances. First, with the emergence of marginal current account surplus, the sustainability of India's current account deficit may not be a problem though the deficit on her trade account persists and has been increasing. Second, the main contributors to the positive outcome in India's current account are workers' remittances and export of software, both being a result of process of global integration. Third, the exchange rate regime as well as external debt management has served India well, especially the avoidance of sovereign debt through commercial borrowings. The new policy regime helped India withstand several global crises while maintaining a respectable growth. Fourth, the management of capital account has acquired the primary focus rather than the current account. Fifth, a judicious integration with the global trade regime has imparted some competitive efficiency and confidence to the domestic industry and perhaps, even to commercial agriculture though to a limited extent. Finally, it has become evident that the management of the external sector is closely linked to the domestic sector and the major thrust of Indian public policy is now on managing the integration. In brief, India has moved from managing external sector to implementing an optimal integration of domestic and external sectors, and the global economy.

Reflection:
Since independence, India went on the right way to develop herself-open to the world trade. In the early decades, export permission permeated the policy stance in India and it has successfully overcome the Gulf crisis. While in recent decades, India tried to manage external sectors and even implement an optimal integration of both domestic and external sectors. Progress of India has been very impressive because it chose to participate in global trade and tried hard to manage its economy to suit the global trade. The basic wise economic policy it has implemented was the main reason for its fast developing economy.
India’s experience proved that integration into the world economy would help countries to promote economic growth and development, especially developing countries. Many developing countries, include India which have opened their economies in recent years, have experienced faster growth and more poverty reduction. As a group, Developing countries have become more and more important in world trade today, they now account for one third of world trade. Many developing countries have substantially increased their exports of manufactures and services relative to traditional commodity exports and the trade between developing countries has grown very quickly, with 40 percent of their exports now going to other developing countries. From these, we can see that policies make an economy open to the rest of the world are needed for sustained economic growth. No country in recent decades has achieved economic success without opening to the world.

Minyun _Economic Expert

Globalised @ 2:10 PM

Tuesday, April 17, 2007

An Advanced Country Perspective:
Does Globalization Harm Workers’ Interests?

Anxiety about globalization also exists in advanced economies. How real is the perceived threat that competition from "low-wage economies" displaces workers from high-wage jobs and decreases the demand for less skilled workers? Are the changes taking place in these economies and societies a direct result of globalization?

Economies are continually evolving and globalization is one among several other continuing trends. One such trend is that as industrial economies mature, they are becoming more service-oriented to meet the changing demands of their population. Another trend is the shift toward more highly skilled jobs. But all the evidence is that these changes would be taking place—not necessarily at the same pace—with or without globalization. In fact, globalization is actually making this process easier and less costly to the economy as a whole by bringing the benefits of capital flows, technological innovations, and lower import prices. Economic growth, employment and living standards are all higher than they would be in a closed economy.

But the gains are typically distributed unevenly among groups within countries, and some groups may lose out. For instance, workers in declining older industries may not be able to make an easy transition to new industries.

What is the appropriate policy response? Should governments try to protect particular groups, like low-paid workers or old industries, by restricting trade or capital flows? Such an approach might help some in the short-term, but ultimately it is at the expense of the living standards of the population at large. Rather, governments should pursue policies that encourage integration into the global economy while putting in place measures to help those adversely affected by the changes. The economy as a whole will prosper more from policies that embrace globalization by promoting an open economy, and, at the same time, squarely address the need to ensure the benefits are widely shared.

Government policy should focus on two important areas:

education and vocational training, to make sure that workers have the opportunity to acquire the right skills in dynamic changing economies; and
Well-targeted social safety nets to assist people who are displaced.

This article is a segment from:
http://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/ib/2000/041200.htm#VI

REFLECTIONS

The above article states cons of globalization, which takes the opposite stand as what we view globalization as-a provider of luxuries and many benefits to come! It basically outlines the fact that workers, especially blue-collared workers, are losing their benefits and place in society, many thanks to globalization. The article also questions the fact that globalization is the direct cause for these workers to lose their jobs and in turn “decreases the demand for less skilled workers”, as quoted from the article. The article raises a truckload of questions which are indirectly concerned with us, our present and future. Is rapid economic growth of each country a product of globalization? Are we really neglecting the needs of less skilled workers in our endless pursue for an upscale economy, and with it high-skilled jobs? Should the government put forward plans to help ingratiate these less skilled workers into the rapidly growing global economy, or leave them in degradation? And the most important of all, is everyone benefiting from globalization economically or is this just the case for those dominating the economic scene?

In actual fact, these less skilled workers are being major hindrances in achieving rapid globalization and economic growth as they lack the skill of adaptability and also the ability to catch up with the more highly-skilled. They eventually lose out to the more capable, intelligent lot in this endless rat race towards globalization. Currently, which country does not welcome globalization with open arms, with its benefits: “capital flows, technological innovations, and lower import prices” as quoted from the article. With globalization come wealthier economies and higher employment levels coupled with higher living standards. This spells better lives for many who are benefiting from this rapid economic growth, and also better opportunities for the better-skilled, better-learned. You reap what you sow, and in our current society, the more you contribute to globalization and economic growth, the more you benefit from globalization. This is not the case for less skilled workers.

Those who are outcast from these benefits are actually the less skilled workers and those in declining in older factories, as stated from the article. What globalization has brought upon the two differing groups of workers is so ironic: while these less skilled workers are struggling to accept change and adapt to the rapid pace of life, everything falls into place for the highly skilled as they busily upgrade themselves and prepare to benefit more from globalization. From my viewpoint, the less skilled are forever doomed in the deep murky waters of globalization, struggling blindly to stay afloat but failing miserably. The benefits from globalization exclude them, and there is nothing they can do besides remaining in the lower economic classes of these countries which are pursuing even greater technological and industrial growth. The unequal sharing of benefits may even deem globalization as an unfair motion. Shouldn’t all workers, regardless of their skill, have equal access to the benefits of the flourishing economy?

What has the government actually done to help these less skilled workers? Unfortunately, to include them once again in the flourishing economy is akin to retarding economic growth and the rate of globalization. What the article actually suggests is to encourage the less skilled to pursue education once again, acquiring new skills to help themselves ingratiate into the prospering economy. Another option is to have “Well-targeted social safety nets to assist people who are displaced”. Will these options work? Will the less skilled workers finally become a part of the globalised economy? Maybe the day will come when there will finally be equal sharing of globalization benefits and less-skilled workers will no longer be existent.

Economic expert,
Vanessa.

Globalised @ 7:00 AM

Sunday, April 15, 2007

Global Stem Cells (edited)

Here's the link to the article: http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS06H01

(words in italic are definitions)

“Embryonic stem cells are derived from embryos that develop from eggs that have been fertilized in vitro—in an in vitro fertilization clinic—and then donated for research purposes with informed consent of the donors”

Recently, there have been many news reports on how the embryonic stem cells are the future to curing diseases. These cells are unspecialized cells which has the potential to become any specialized cell in the body. Scientists believe that they are the way to curing previously incurable diseases such as congestive heart failure, blindness, diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, cancer etc. A single embryonic cell line can also supply an unlimited amount of stem cells and is easily available from in vitro clinics. These cells have the potential to theoretically cure any disease as they can transform into specialize cells required.

However, there have been many problems to this new area. If the cells are being transplanted to a patient, there is quite a high probability of the body rejecting it. They may form tumors and harm the patient instead of helping to cure them and most importantly, they face ethical issues because through this process, the embryonic also considered as a human life, gets damaged which is also the main reason why many people in the world disapprove of the use of embryonic stem cells.

“An adult stem cell is an undifferentiated cell found among differentiated cells in a tissue or organ, can renew itself, and can differentiate to yield the major specialized cell types of the tissue or organ.”

Unlike embryonic stem cells, adult stem cells do not have ethical issues. This is because during the process of curing, the cells can be retrieved from the bone marrow and umbilical cord instead of the embryonic and they seem to be as flexible as the embryonic stem cells. Apart from this, another important thing to note is that since the adult stem cells used will be that of the patient’s own, there will be no possibility that the body’s immune system will reject the cells and cause complications. There will also be no possibility of a tumor forming.

On the other hand, adult stem cells are small in number and may not have enough to do a transplant. They may also not live as long as embryonic stem cells. Finally, adult stem cells may not be able to transform into any type of specialized cell as they are already “somewhat specialized” (which by the way, makes inducement less complex).

Adult stem cells have been far too underrated compared to their embryonic stem cells counterparts. An uproar of commotion has been going on about the latter and how it will be the key in unlocking the cure for incurable diseases. However, embryonic stem cell has by far never been successful in curing any of these diseases on human and on the contrary, adult stem cells have. Recent studies have also proposed that the last disadvantage in the previous paragraph of adult stem cells may be overcome as they are found to be transdifferentiated, where they have the ability to change to different types of cells under various conditions.

If adult stem cells are eventually recognized and focused upon in the medical field, then there would be a huge impact on the lives of people with these diseases. Their lives would take a turning point by which people all over the world would have a chance to rid of previously incurable diseases. These people across the globe would have a chance to lead a normal life like the average person. And since adult stem cells can be found anywhere in the body, there would be no lack of adult stem cells.

Be it adult stem cells or embryonic stem cell research, there is a need for these researchers to go global. The researchers of one country will not be able to break through this huge project by themselves as the mere weight of it is simply too heavy. They will have to exchange their findings and results with other researchers all over the world to ensure consistent results if stem cell is to mark its place in the world today and help in curing the sick.

All potential cures would have to go through vigorous tests and experimentations before it can be practiced on humans. Some of these include experimentation on certain types of animals. By going global, tests could be conducted in countries that may produce more accurate results due to the various environments. Apart from this, globalization will also speed up the stem cell research process. By making the whole research international, better or perhaps more advanced technology could be brought in to facilitate the research and bring it into the next stage.

For example, the United Kingdom has already taken its first step in doing so by setting up the UK Stem Cell Bank which stores cell lines (These are specific cell types artificially maintained in the laboratory for scientific purposes) crucial for stem cell research in the event of such needs by the researchers of any country. This ensures that they will have the tools to carry out their research for progress.

We all know the vast potential stem cell has and without globalization, the development of researches could never have been this advanced. Because of globalization, the future is bright for patients with presently incurable illnesses.

Janice Fan
The Environmentalist Expert

Globalised @ 8:46 PM

Thursday, April 5, 2007

Television Set:

Alas, make way for the ever so addictive, so popular, so convenient television set!

Yes, that’s right! With just a click of the button on the remote control, this box-like machine can take you down to the ocean bed to visit the creatures of the deep and with just yet another click, transport you to the United States to witness first hand the 911 crashing of the twin towers.

The television set is indeed an amazing tool, having the ability to let us see things around the world without literally leaving your door step. Through this, Cultural globalization has silently invaded our lives and it is taking us by storm! News channels such as CNN and BBC can be watched globally around the world anyplace, anywhere, anytime so long as you have a television set.

Now, tell me, which country doesn’t have a television set?

Vending Machine:

Goodbye troublesome bottles, hello convenient packs. Consuming your favourite drink has never been so convenient!

Vending machines are the biggest source of convenience food e.g. packets or cans of drinks, instant sandwiches, snacks and instant passport-sized photographs since its invention in 1888. We have vending machines in school too, right here in the canteen. Vending machines are convenient and simple to use, just the thing for busy people like us! :D

Vending machines are now found in the corner of every street! This is the perfect example for globalization as there’s no country in the world without a vending machine now in the twenty-first century. Vending machines have ingratiated themselves into our technology-addicted generation, and are irreplaceable in our endless pursue for an even faster pace of living. There’s nothing faster than to toss coins into a vending machine for a quick snack or drink, or even lunch if we are in a rush. Vending machines have indeed achieved globalization, as its usage has spread worldwide and continue to grow.

Projector

Hitachi was founded in 1910 in Japan as an electrical repair shop. Today it is one of the leading retailers in new technology whose products, which include air-conditioners, batteries, computers, televisions, mobile phones and camcorders, are found all over the world. Even in 2D's very own classroom - the projector!

These projectors are used in every classroom in almost all schools in Singapore and I feel that they are a very good example of globalization and companies expanding and going beyond sales in their own countries to become international.

Converse Pencil Box

What’s this? The pencil box of “Converse”. In our college, you can find lots of products of Converse. For example: shoes, class T-shirts, schoolbags, pencil boxes, socks and so on. Even around my sitting area in the class, I can find more than 2 Converse schoolbags and more than one converse pencil boxes. Converse is a global famous brand for sportswear. It’s one of the evidences of the effect of globalization on business! Similar brand, such as Nike, Puma, Adidas are all young people’s favorites. Wherever you go, Europe, Asia, America; you can find these brands in the shopping mall, you can find these brands on hundreds of young people’s sportswear. They even become the basic knowledge of youth. Nobody would not know what Nike, Puma, Adidas, Converse are! That’s the powerful impact of globalization! Globalization helps local businesses extend over the whole continent or even the whole world. If these companies are really strong enough, their products would soon become global famous brands. Their brands would be known by everyone living in the earth!

Globalised @ 2:00 PM