GlobalisationFor many, the surprise of finding a McDonalds outlet in Moscow or Beijing pro

Globalisation

For many, the surprise of finding a McDonalds outlet in Moscow or Beijing provides no greater symbol of the spread globalisation. Used to explain all manner of economic, cultural and political change that has swept over the world in recent decades, globalisation is a term that continues to cause intellectual debate. Some see it as inevitable and desirable, but it is a contentious issue with an increasing number of individual citizens around the world questioning whether or not the implications of globalisation, in terms of international distribution of income and decreasing poverty, are effective. The beginning of globalisation is inextricably linked to technological improvements in the field of international communications and a fall in the cost of international transport and travel. Entrepreneurs and powerbrokers took advantage of these advances to invest capital into foreign countries. This became the basic mechanism for globalistion with the trading of currencies, stocks and bonds growing rapidly.

Breaking down the barriers through the free movement of capital, free trade and political cooperation was seen as a positive move that would not only increase living standards around the world, but also raise political and environmental awareness, especially in developing countries, predictions were that nations would become more outward-looking in their policy-making, as they searched for opportunities to increase economic growth. Roles would be assigned to various players around the globe as capital providers, exporters of technology, suppliers of services, sources of labour, etc. Consequently, countries and economies could concentrate on what they were good at and as a result, markets would experience increased efficiency.

The process of economic globalisation was without doubt led by commercial and financial powerbrokers but there were many others who supported the integration of world economies. As multinational companies searched for new work-forces and raw materials, nongovernment organizations and lobby groups were optimistic that in the wake of global business, indigenous cultures might be given a reprieve with an injection of foreign capital. This would, in turn, provide local employment opportunities. By spreading trade more evenly between developed and developing nations, it was touted that poverty would decrease and living standards would rise.

Governments saw the chance to attract multinational companies with taxbreaks and incentives to set up in-country, effectively buying employment opportunities for their constituents.

By the late 1990s, some trepidation started to surface and globalisatlon faced its most public set- back. The spectacular economic collapses in Korea, Brazil, Thailand and other countries were considered, rightly or wrongly, to be caused by the outwardly-oriented trade policies that globalisation espoused such as the growth of exports. These countries had enjoyed record growth for a relatively short time, but when faced with difficulties, the growth appeared unsustainable. The vulnerability and risk associated with reliance on exports and international markets was made clear.

Meanwhile though, through the 1990s and early 2000s, multinational companies continued to do well financially. Pro f. its were increasing, keeping shareholders happy, but the anticipated spin-offs were not being felt at the workers' level or in local communities in the form. of increased employment. These successful companies did not want to share the benefits of the increased efficiency they were receiving as g result of introducing their own work practices. The multinationals were setting their own agendas, with governments, in many cases, turning a blind eye fearing that they might pull out and cause more unemployment, Free trade was now accused of restricting governments, who were

A．Y

B．N

C．NG