Globalization - Good or Bad Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words - 1

Globalization - Good or Bad - Essay Example In terms of International Trade, the author has described globalization as the platform that sets a level playground for both rich and poor countries. The author has also affirmed the less developed country can only improve their situation through the assistance of World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. I agree to a greater extent the assertions of the author except at some few issues which I total disagree. The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund have been described by the author as the pillars of global governance systems. The author overlooked the power of sovereignty of states, democracy, and the international justice system. The claim that developing countries can only improve their situation through these two global financial institutions is not accurate. Wallerstein (2004) pointed out that the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund is ‘training’ poor countries to depend on them. Developing countries have difficulties servicing the loans they receive from these organizations. They find themselves overburdened by the huge interest rates and end up borrowing again from other sources including internal sources. This creates a scenario similar to the one of digging a hole to bury another hole. The problem still remains. In this regard, I view the two institutions as contributing to the slow growth of developing economies and not as the sole path to their economic prosperity. Multinational companies in developing countries have been highlighted as better paying compared to the local firms and that foreign firms are not really oppressing their workers. Hurst (2008) claim that multinational companies are one of the social oppressions in less developed and poor countries. They offer jobs to locals at a higher wage than local firms, but this should not justify the poor, working conditions, job insecurity, or the prolonged hours of work often witnessed especially in the manufacturing industry. The author claims that if the w orkers were not happy with these companies then they would leave. Hurst (2008) explains that is huge labor force in developing countries and very few job opportunities which leaves many workers to ‘persevere’ where they are. The reason, therefore, why these workers continue working for the foreign firms is not because they are happy but rather because they have nowhere else to look for a livelihood. On the issue of foreign companies being nothing compared to the government, and not being able to raise an army or taxes, the author failed to put into perspective that, at times, some senior government officials usually have personal interests in these companies. Revesz (1997) stated that when it comes to crisis where multinational firms are being accused of various reasons, ‘the states cannot be trusted’ in the way the matter is handled. He observed that despite huge negative publicity and accusations from both the media and the public, the government remains silent and waits for the ‘tide to settle’. The international trading system has been implied by the author as unbiased against developing countries. This may be true as far as international trade laws and regulations are concerned. But, on the other hand, according to Wallerstein (2004), there is a more serious issue of trade imbalance whereby developed countries have an upper hand due to their economic strength advantage, superior

Democratic Peace Theory Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

Democratic Peace Theory - Essay Example 5). In that context the democratic peace theory not only directly challenges the validity and efficacy of the alternate political systems, but also the existing accounts of international relations that lay emphasis on the concepts like the strategic common interests and balance of power machinations, while delving on the international relations between salient democratic powers (Newman & Rich 2004, p. 5). Democratic Peace Theory In a simplistic context, one could ascribe the democratic peace theory as a theory that upholds the fact that the democratic nations seldom engage in war with each other (Schraeder 2002, p. 17). There exist varied other terms aimed at explaining and grasping this theory like ‘inter-democracy non aggression hypothesis’ or ‘mutual democratic pacifism’. ... 17). The other hypothesis that is put forward in the support of the democratic peace theory is that the democratically elected leaders are conversant in resolving issues through negotiations, and hence they carry on with this attribute in their approach towards foreign relations (Schraeder 2002, p. 17). No wonder, there are many people who tend to deny or criticize the democratic peace theory. What is Democracy? To a great extent the validity and relevance of the democratic peace theory is dependent on as to how one tends to define or explain a democracy. Although there is no single paradigm that grasps a holistic definition of democracy, yet, experts have identified varied salient features that delineate an ideal democracy. On most important attribute of the democratic nations is that they do have a democratically elected constitutional form of government that is answerable to people. Besides, these constitutionally elected governments happen to be representative in their scope and nature, directly responsible to the public sentiments, beliefs and aspirations. A workable and pragmatic democracy is always subservient to the principle of the separation of powers, where the powers of the state are judiciously allocated between the varied pillars of democracy like the executive and the judiciary. All the worthwhile and true democracies do extend varied judicial and legal rights to their citizens, which are legally and ethically upheld by the constitution and the state. Last but not the least, democracies do believe in extending avenues for participation to varied sections and segments of the society. Hence, in the interest of practicality, while delving on the democratic peace theory; one does