Political Consequences of Globalisation free essay sample

Today’s world is faced with various questions concerning political affairs such as peace, legislation, policymaking, and cooperation between states and even societies. But one of the fundamental dilemmas of the contemporary times is undoubtedly the question of globalisation. This phenomenon is based on numerous worldwide exchanges in the field of economy, social life, culture, ideology and the environment- all of these elements leading to certain political consequences. Globalisation, which has been pushed forward by the expansion of capitalism, has been seen in the political world since 1848, when Marx and Engels stated how the â€Å"bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world market given a cosmopolitan character to production and exchanged â€Å"local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency† for â€Å"universal inter-dependence of nations† (1966: 112). Nowadays, many people around the globe ask themselves the questions: What are the political costs of globalisation? Does it bring prosperity and development to our world or poverty and the deepening of differences in national wealth between countries? Does it bring people together and serves as a means of knowledge about various cultures or is it a form of spreading and forcing people into accepting a universal ‘pop’ culture? In this essay, an analysis of the political consequences of globalisation will try to answer these questions. We will write a custom essay sample on Political Consequences of Globalisation or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page Globalisation has influenced and even changed the world system in various positive ways. According to the supporters of social democratic global governance, globalization, after the fall of the Soviet bloc, has created opportunities for advancing the â€Å"cause of human rights, to challenge dictatorial rule, and to spread the principles of democracy throughout the developing world. New criteria of liberal democracy have been advanced in most international development organisations to judge the relative fitness and legitimacy of states, making it difficult †¦ for dictatorial regimes to gain legitimacy in the world arena† (Putzel 2004). But on the other hand, globalisation got rid of the idea of checks and balances, leaving hegemons, like the United States, in charge which may sometimes lead to breaking of the multipolar world order and principles of peaceful international relations introduced after the end of World War II. For example, this was visible in the case of the Iraq invasion. Modern globalisation is also seen as the world-wide exchange of information amongst people. Universally used tools, such as the internet, have led to the creation of the so-called ‘cyber-sphere’ in which people are able to converse freely about the political situations in their countries as well as exchange their personal insights and feelings. The cyber-sphere is also perceived as a new dimension of communication for governments, which are able to control their economies that are now existing in the cyber world. Furthermore, the internet became not only the means by which people are able to exchange valuable ideas but it is also used as a weapon by terrorist groups. Moreover, it provides access to a variety of scientific sources but it also creates the risk of plagiarism and theft. Various governments are not able to fully regulate what is being done or said on the internet, therefore, it is very important for countries to work together in the fight against extremism and cyber-crime. Furthermore, globalisation became the source for the accelerating competition around the globe which thus led to the increase in production and efficiency. Competition and increasing market space can lead to specialisation and an improved division of labour. There are also economies of scale and scope that have salutary effects on costs and prices and which provide a strong impetus for economic growth† (Pere 2007). Competition is able to increase standards of living and promote higher wages. Also, according to Anthony Giddens, globalization over a period of time has weakened the notion of the nation-state and â€Å"regenerated local identities† (1998: 2 8-33). It is now forcing governments to consider a wide range of actors such as individuals, firms, nations, trading blocs or non-governmental organizations and â€Å"providing a form of governance over society and economy, which is no longer the prerogative of governments† (1998: 28-33). This tames the government’ egoistic decisions in the economic sphere that might enrich their own countries but lead in fact to the decline of others. According to the globalisation theory, many states were forced in the past few years to abandon their particular political drives in the economic sphere, and due to this the differences between national economies are slowly diminishing (Thompson 2010: 132). â€Å"Underlying this thesis is a rather deterministic conception of globalization as an ‘iron cage’ which imposes a global financial discipline on governments, severely constraining the scope for progressive policies and undermining the social bargain on which the post-Second-World-War welfare state rested† (Held et al. 1999). Because of this the gap between the rich and the poor is rapidly growing even into the 21st century. â€Å"[T]here is evidence that the bottom 10 per cent of the world’s population has become even poorer since the beginning of the 1990s† (Croft 2010: 211). While it can be noticed that some parts of the world, mainly in Asia, have witnessed the positive side of globalisation that led to swift growth and substantial poverty decrease, many other areas in Latin America and most of Africa have experienced economic immobility or even decline that lead to the rise in poverty and inequality. Furthermore, many instabilities of countries at a regional or global level are due to the interconnectivity and interdependence of economies. Economic insecurities and crisis in one country can lead to local or even global problems. â€Å"The most dramatic instance of this was the exchange rate and financial crisis in Asia, which started in Thailand in 1998, and spread to other South-east Asian economies but which also sent ripples throughout the international financial system† (Pere 2007). These links that bind the world’s economies together suggest mutual vulnerability which might lead to conflict. Various countries are sceptical about the positive aspect of globalisation and therefore they believe that they have lost the grasp on their own economies and became the victims of powerful and bigger countries, various multinational firms, and international institutions. Joseph Stiglitz, who is the former chief economist of the World Bank, is one of many that support this notion. He wrote in Globalization and its Discontents (2002: 214) that â€Å"globalization today is not working for many of the world’s poor. † He was right in the fact that many of these poor countries are not able to eat the fruits of globalisation. Their percentage in the volume of global trade is decreasing. There are many aspects of globalisation that are non-economic, yet have an even greater impact on the contemporary world. There have been many new security challenges in the interdependent world that have led to regional conflicts and violence. International security issues have become very interconnected. These issues raise questions about problems like scarce energy or water provisions, illegitimate and tyrannical governments, terrorism, and environmental issues such as global warming and epidemics such as HIV or AIDS. Stuart Croft illustrates this interconnectivity by showing how â€Å"a concern with a terrorist organization might connect into international trade (smuggling of †¦weapons), into international finance (control of terrorist finances), and into development issues (how to support the development of regions beset by terrorism)† (Croft 2010: 189). Moreover, even though the end of the Cold War diminished the fear of nuclear weapons, it did not lead its total disappearance. There is still an on-going proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Due to this, globalisation can put at risk the countries of the world. Al Qaeda and other transnational actors have formed global networks of operatives, challenging conventional approaches to national defence in what has been called asymmetrical warfare† (Nye 2013: 257). Additionally, with less state control over foreign exchange and the removal of most trade barriers, non-state actors gained unrestricted access to income from res ources such as narcotics, diamonds, and weapons supplies. â€Å"This created a perverse and vicious cycle: falling state revenues, leading to increasing ineffectiveness of authority, allowing expanded smuggling, leading to further declines in revenue† (Putzel 2004). Today’s globalisation has gone much â€Å"farther, faster, cheaper, and deeper† (Friedman 1999: 7-8). This swiftness creates another problem- it forms uncertainty and makes it much more difficult to shape policy responses. Karl Polanyi in his book The Great Transformation claimed that â€Å"the market forces unleashed by the Industrial Revolution and globalisation in the nineteenth century produced not only great economic gains, but also great social disruptions and political reactions† (1944). Many countries have responded in various ways to the speedy changes made by globalisation. In countries such as Iran and Bosnia, globalisation has been very frowned upon because it challenges the conservative or even extremist views of those nations and brings in foreign (i. e. Western) ideas. In addition, the anti-globalisation attitudes are partially a reply to the alterations shaped by economic interdependence. â€Å"From an economist’s view, imperfect markets are inefficient, but from a political view, some imperfections in international markets can be considered ‘useful inefficiencies’ because they slow down and buffer political change. As globalisation removes such inefficiencies, it becomes the political prisoner of its economic success† (Nye 2013: 261). In conclusion, the concept of globalisation has both positive and negative political consequences. It intensifies inequality by which it increases political risks and widens already present social gaps. It causes developing countries to have the hardest time when trying to assimilate into global economies and markets. Globalisation is a means by which people are able to exchange valuable information and ideas but it also poses a threat because it opens doors to terrorism and cyber-crime. Additionally, due to globalization, today’s decisions about global politics lay mostly in the hands of international and non-governmental organisations and this partially leads to the weakening of the nation-state. Therefore, â€Å"Globalisation [has] transformed the terrain of politics, but the role, and indeed the need for the establishment or reinforcement, of modern states has never been more important†.