This sample essay on Essay On Globalisation And Its Impact provides important aspects of the issue and arguments for and against as well as the needed facts. Read on this essay’s introduction, body paragraphs, and conclusion.
Globalization is good for individuals but bad for humanity. While Globalization may have many beneficial traits that have improved economical, social and political aspects of life here on Earth, I believe it still remains a detrimental operating method when applied to humanity as a whole.
Globalization itself is rife with International exploitation and promotes unfair practice In many ways. The term globalization refers to a modern phenomenon based on the connection of nations, cultures or businesses, often through economic activity (Archibald & lamination 2002). Specifically it refers to these groups becoming interdependent with one another on a global scale and therefore having more of a potential impact when decisions or actions are carried out (Crane & Matter 2007).
Much can be said to refute or support the statement that globalization Is bad for humanity and beneficial to Individuals but a lot of the ethical theories concerning this topic do seem to support the claim.
It is important to acknowledge that humanity can suffer through the impact of globalization because if we don’t things will become worse for the lane as a whole and leave only certain individuals to benefit. It is well known that globalization Is the cause of many “ethical problems for the manager of the multinational corporation” (Velasquez 2000, p. 343). The way that they choose to react to this potential for Injustice seems to be largely dependent on the ethical principles that can be applied to the situation.
Ethical relativism is one theory that has perhaps been a contributor to the failings of globalization in the business world and the multinational managers implementing this theory aren’t even fully expansible as this contemporary approach is one that has been approved since the early sass’s (Velasquez 2000). Ethical relativism asks that to consider whether something Is right or wrong one simply needs to apply the cultural norms of the society that the situation Is taking place. However having no universally acceptable moral standards has meant that when managers try to deal with internal problems involving workers from different cultural backgrounds, relativist theory wants them to simply apply the norms of the local culture. Velasquez (2000) asks us to consider how American and Muslim cultures approach sexual discrimination differently to one another. If the people of these cultures were to find themselves in the same work environment and an issue such as this had to be dealt with it would be considerably difficult to do so using ethical relativism.
In terms of globalization this would mean that while the business itself might not suffer the relations of the people in the work place and indeed of those two cultures would not be able to achieve any sort of mutual understanding and progress forward together. More disadvantaged nations. A point often but forward is the noticeable expansion libations offers to the western world. Multinational corporations move into countries where there are no labor unions or where the business is largely privatized and then make economic decisions based on their own interests. This is the case in many capitalist economies where globalization exists.
The ‘Mar’s theory of surplus value’ as discussed by Parker and Pearson (2005) emphasizes this by pointing out “when a capitalist makes a profit, they are essentially stealing value which is produced by labor”. It is quite simple to realize that whilst libations like this does create Jobs, it also takes away the potential for local production of goods to be made by workers at a fair price. This can create animosity and resentment between people who lose their Job because their company decides to manufacture its product offshore and the workers who then take on these Jobs for a fraction of the former employees wages. It also encourages unhealthy competition for factories and manufacturers to decrease their wages or costs in order to poach a multinational corporations business (Shaw, Barry and Sandburs 2009). Within this type of society there is no ensue of co-operation or togetherness, it is merely every man for themselves and that is a scenario that does not stand to benefit humanity in the short or long term.
The more sinister side of globalization is evident when examining multinational corporations treatment of workers in various countries, particularly developing nations. Violations of basic human rights seem to be ignored as economic importance and political power takes precedence in a lot of cases. Sneaker and apparel corporation ‘Nikkei’ are a perfect example of how humanity has suffered at the hand of libations. Below-average wages and poor working conditions plagued their Indonesian manufacturing plants, while child labor crimes were uncovered in their factories in Pakistan (Locke 2002). The theory of Kantian ethics directly disagrees with this sort of behavior as Kant argues that cutting costs to maximize profits through cheap labor is not a moral or ethical way for a company to act (Baron 1987).
As discussed by Crane & Matter (2007) the non-consequentiality theory known as Ethics of Duties, developed predominantly by Emmanuel Kant, raises the argument hat human beings use ration to make their decisions and therefore can be considered moral beings who know the difference between right and wrong. Kant subsequently developed a framework called the Categorical Imperative, made up of three different conditions by which every moral issue could be tested. The first condition is based on the theory that an action should reflect everyone’s principle beliefs (Crane & Matter 2007). Nine’s treatment of workers in the earlier examples would certainly not be consistent with the beliefs of many human beings and Hereford supports the claim that globalization in this case seems to only benefit the individual. It is imperative that this sort of immoral behavior be eradicated from everyone.
Focusing our attention on the effects of globalization that aren’t related to the economy still produces some negative drawbacks. Multinational corporations have been under attack for some time over their lack of accountability in regards to environmental destruction. Rather than working together democratically to reach decisions on what is best for the planet big business seems to be able to manipulate ales and regulations in order to suit their own needs. Bannered (2008) raises the instance of the 1992 environmental summit at ROI, in which non-government organizations demands were ignored to usher in a code of conduct that was developed by a council made up of multinational corporations. Humanity will only see more detriment if these corporations have nothing to answer to when they are killing the planet.
Globalization is also a major cause of the erosion of indigenous communities around the world, particularly those who live in areas that have a high resource-value Blench 2001). The case of the Kabuki uranium mine development that was approved by the Australian government is Just one example of globalization moving in to a world heritage listed area in order to create economic profit. The mine would sit in a location rightfully owned by the Aboriginal people, many of who had openly objected to the project. Their objections were largely ignored due to the nature of the project and also the parties involved who stood to benefit greatly (Bannered 2000). The fear that continued globalization could cause the eradication of regional diversity ND therefore kill off native cultures to make way for more western traditions to be implemented is very real.
If the trend keeps going towards this homogeneous way of life then this would be detrimental for humanity from a historical point of view. We would lose a lot of unique aspects of various cultures and natural parts of the world purely to make manufacturing and economic profitability simpler (Assailants & Cope 2006). Unfairly forcing people to change their views and beliefs Just to make it that little bit easier for profit mongers to make a dollar is not an appropriate way for unanimity to act. Although globalization was never created in order to level the playing field between the rich and the poor nations, it doesn’t seem to be doing enough to combat the problems caused by the economic greed that is inherit in its system. Globalization brings with it the risk that economical figures will be more focused on than the real world problems that are attached.
If some of these multinational corporations were to collapse then the effect would ripple through many different countries, some of which would struggle to find their way back as well as others due to their economic taxation. The creation of globalization has in-turn created centers of power that don’t have humanities best interests at heart.