Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Preface
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Economic Globalization and the Development of Poor Nations
- 3 The Sources of Opposition
- 4 Alternatives to Globalization
- 5 The Anti-Globalization Movement and the Multilateral Agreement on Investment
- 6 Regulating International Financial Markets
- 7 The Student Anti-Sweatshop Movement
- 8 Saving Globalization
- References
- Index
1 - Introduction
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 June 2012
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Preface
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Economic Globalization and the Development of Poor Nations
- 3 The Sources of Opposition
- 4 Alternatives to Globalization
- 5 The Anti-Globalization Movement and the Multilateral Agreement on Investment
- 6 Regulating International Financial Markets
- 7 The Student Anti-Sweatshop Movement
- 8 Saving Globalization
- References
- Index
Summary
The benefits of globalization, write Albert Fishlow and Karen Parker, are many:
[T]elevision sets, microwaves, automobiles, and computers have become less expensive and more reliable. Were it not for job creation in the high-wage export and technology sectors, the slowdown in U.S. productivity and earnings would likely have been greater. The evidence suggests that foreign direct investment has contributed to the growth of U.S. exports, which are produced with more advanced technologies by higher-skill, better-paid workers. To the extent that trade augments competition and expands potential markets, productivity is enhanced, although economists debate the degree of change.
(Fishlow and Parker 1999, 9)Their position represents the consensus among economists concerning globalization. Taken as a whole, global market integration is seen as a desirable process, one that helps to advance worldwide living standards.
However, an important anti-globalization movement in the United States rejects this view. Instead, it sees in globalization a process that should be abandoned or radically altered. These activists think of globalization as possessing overwhelmingly negative social consequences. They believe that its impetus derives from the greed of multinational corporations and that its benefits accrue almost exclusively to the already rich. Barbara Ehrenreich captures the voice of this opposition when she writes that “wherever globalization impinges, inequality deepens. From Mexico to Japan, the rich are getting richer while the poor are becoming more desperate and numerous” (Ehrenreich 2000, x).
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Globalization and the Poor , pp. 1 - 8Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2003