Research Paper on "Anti-Globalization and Its Effects"

/>

Anti-Globalization: One Country's Patriot Is Another's Traitor

Global economic policy serves as the foundation for much of the globalization strategies, trading agreements and trading programs between nations today. These tariffs, treaties and initiatives have since put into place the dominant schools of thought as it relates to economic policies and the role of globally-based Foreign Direct Investment (FD). Advocates of globalization argue that this approach to defining global economic systems has acted as a growth catalyst that has been responsible for the most rapid run-up of economic growth the modern world has seen in recent centuries (Hynes, Cerna, 2010). Supporters of globalization also argue that open globalization can speed up entire industries and make them more competitive, more market-focused and capable of growing more responsive to customers' needs. While the many trade agreements have certainly led to this level of free market dynamics and growth, it has also left entire nations at the bottom rungs of the economic ladder with little chance of improving their per capita incomes and enjoying the economic benefits of growth. Advocates argue that only through exceptional effort, personal productivity and innovation at the process levels of any given industry can a nation rise up on the economic ladder, claim their place as part of the club of countries with per capita incomes over $10,000 a year, and be part of the OECD eventually. This is the dream of 3rd world nation leaders and the reason many tolerate the pains and costs of globalization on their nations. They are betting on the future of growth yet in the meantime, their countries' workforces pay sometimes a high price for being in the global economic value chains of various industries and not always having their fair share of opportunity to share in the economic value generated. Anti-globalization advocates argue that this approach to selective globalization is actually prejudicial and harms more than helps countries who participate (Hynes, Cerna, 2010). Further the point is made that the greater the level of economic uncertainly, the greater the level of unemployment, the higher the reliance on external sources of income in 3rd world nations with economies that may be stagnant or declining in terms of economic growth. The more severe the economic downturn as measured by unemployment and negative economic growth, the greater the resentment and anger at MNCs who start using a 3rd world nations; workforce as their low-cost production or service partner (Hynes, Cerna, 2010). As the global economic recession continues, it's as if a large weight has been placed on these nations and their weak points in terms of economic, social and political systems and beliefs are starting to crack and fissure. The catalyst of anti-globalization can be traced directly to this dynamic occurring in the majority of 3rd world nations who are working harder than ever on globalized MNCs yet see little if any benefit to their quality of life -- many actually see a reduction in the quality of their lives as well (Drache, Froese, 2006).

The Rise of a Global Economic Arrogance

Anti-globalization advocates and evangelists argue that globalization is not egalitarian in the least and driven by economic and political elites who see the potential of taking advantage of 3rd world nations to accelerate cost reductions and efficiencies in their value chains (Hynes, Cerna, 2010). They also have successfully shown how globalization limits state sovereignty and has been responsible for more exclusionary economic policies between nations than any other set of economic policies in the past (Brooks, 2004). Anti-globalization advocates have also argued that globalization creates exclusionary programs and policies that block 3rd world nations for being able to advance up the economic ladder of progress over time as well (Zaslove, 2008). Studies of the effect of oil companies throughout coastal African communities are shown as a case in point (Hynes, Cerna, 2010). The most radical factions of the anti-globalization movement also point to the fragmentation of societies and disintegration of families and social structures as a result of the extreme pressure globalization demands place on lesser development nations.

One would suspect that there would be a fair number of anarchists in the ranks of anti-globalization advocates and evangelists. While this cause does attract those citizens in search of a cause, there are a large proportion of anit-globalziation supporters who have advanced degrees in economics, political science and law (Zaslove, 2008). These highly educated supporters of anti-globalization state that the fabric of democracy could be damaged if globalization is allowed to grow unhindered by checks, balances, compliance and limits to growth. Anti-globalization studies have been conducted that show the effects of exclusivity over the long-term on the economic growth of the nation participating as manufacturing, sourcing or service providers in globalization strategies (Brooks, 2004)(Zaslove, 2008). The net effect is that their GNP and GDP flat lines and their workforces, businesses and tax bases do not benefit from the gains made by the MNCs who initiate the programs to begin with. The net result is a fragmented, balkanized nation that is poorer than before and more excluded from global economic growth as a result. This philosophy is decidedly anti-globalization and sees its effects as divisive and costly for any nation to participate.

Seeking Blue Oceans

The advocates of globalization argue that by seeking out trading, production and service partners globally, they can accelerate their value chains' performance and gain greater cost reductions and profits over the long-term. Their contention that globalization is essential for competitiveness and growth over the long-term. The value chain concepts as originally defined by Dr. Michael Porter of Harvard University sets the ideal framework for integrating global partners into a value chain (Porter, 1986). Many MNCs and pro-globalization advocates also argue that seeking out uncontested market spaces, or as they are often called, "blue oceans" must be supported by an intensive globalization strategy. The argument of pursuing blue ocean strategies to gain greater insight into local markets and also gain critical intelligence not available in the host nation has shown empirical proof of being an effective strategy (Kim, Mauborgne, 2005). Drs. Kim and Mauborgne point out that innovation and the creation of entirely new markets does not necessarily require billions of dollars in investment; it takes an insight into unmet needs and the use of unique, valuable intelligence on a local market level (Chan, Mauborgne, 2005). The compilation of studies that Drs. Kim and Mauborgne-based much of their studies on show that incumbent firms with knowledge networks that traverse broad cultural, economic, geographic, and social distances in society were the most effective in being a catalyst of strong growth. In other words, the basis of creating new markets and seeing the positive effects of globalization is based on creating an effective and highly reliable, agile knowledge network that can send and receive insight and intelligence in real-time information transactions (Chan, Mauborgne, 2005).

The irony of this insight is that the greatest supply chain systems, platform and networks thrive on knowledge sharing to reduce costs and create knowledge as the most critical competitive asset of all (Dyer, Nobeoka, 2000). The Toyota Production System (TPS) is renowned for its focus on creating cross-supplier collaboration and encouraging suppliers to speak with each other and Toyota as well. This is unheard of in American auto manufacturing as suppliers are often pitted against each other in competitive bidding and cost reduction strategies driven mostly by fear. In the TPS model and its approach… READ MORE