It would be difficult to argue that the world economy on the whole has suffered as a result of this globalization; on the contrary, international trade has increased, and nations that had previously been economically quiet are now waking giants. South Asia is probably the most recognized example of this with countries like South Korea, Taiwan, Indonesia, the Philippines, and Malaysia manufacturing a huge portion of the world's goods. These countries' Gross National Products have certainly increased, but have living conditions for the majority of the populations?
What we are discovering is that millions of rural people move to manufacturing centers in these nations. The throngs of workers live in subhuman conditions and flood the pool of available workers, thus perpetuating low wages, and poor working conditions, not to mention destroying the effectiveness of unionization. In the most extreme cases, we are approaching something like corporate feudalism. What we are seeing is an actual increase in the separation between the rich and the poor, the haves and the have-nots, the Northern Hemisphere and the Southern. Many developing nations have been able to find a niche, a specialization within the global market that brings them international income. However, many have not. In addition, the flight of manufacturing centers from domestic soil to countries with lower wages and regulations leaves the cities that the companies left with no jobs, like in Flint, Michigan, where living conditions begin to mirror those developing nations that the vehicle manufacturing plants left for.
Globalization's implications for the world's poor are both promising and worthy of concern. The Garifuna are a group of Afro-Caribbean people that inhabit the Caribbean coast of Central America, from Belize to Nicaragua. Their way of life still relies heavily on fishing and subsistence farming, yet tourism and globalization is descending upon them whether they are ready or not. My undergraduate research on the complexities of tourism development in Honduras brought me into regular contact with Garifuna communities. Globalization promises them improvements in the realms of economy, health, and sanitation.
However, several older generation Garifuna people I talked to expressed concern over the trend in Garifuna youth to be more materialistic, desiring commodities represented in media images from the US. Most of the English spoken by the Garifuna teens that I interacted with were song lyrics. They expressed incredible fascination with American culture. Many “thug” mannerisms depicted in American pop-culture were portrayed by these young Garifuna.
One of my key informants was called “Homie” and his choice of an American pop-cultural "street name" was not unique; most of his friends used similar names. (Image courtesy of Jessica Dunlap, 2006)
What the Garifuna elders consider to be a threat to the perpetuation of their culture, is also a threat to their environment. With few jobs to be had, the kind of money required to buy the things that we so often take for granted does not come easily for most Garifuna. As a result, there is much support for environmentally destructive large-scale tourism projects and foreign-owned factories (Maquilas), whether these are sustainable or not, for these endeavors promise the most jobs. Tax-free zones, minimal environmental regulations and nearly non-existent labor laws are only some of the incentives promised to international investors by developing nations.
What it boils down to is that the poorest people of the world see western ideals of affluence, individualism, and materialism without having the means to achieve the objects of these ideals. In other words, the images precede the societal and economic changes. This seems to lead to development focused on immediate income rather than sustainable or responsible economies.
In a speech given to the U.S. Congress on February 21, 1990, Vaclav Havel (then the president of Czechoslovakia) said: “Interests of all kinds: personal, selfish, state, national, group and, if you like, company interests still considerably outweigh genuinely common and global interests. We are still under the sway of the destructive and vain belief that man is the pinnacle of creation, and not just part of it, and therefore everything is permitted… In other words, we still don‟t know how to put morality ahead of politics, science and economics.”
I believe globalization, in its present form, is a result, a side effect, of the actions taken by economically driven powers seeking their own financial success. We are seeing that Laissez-Faire capitalism is not the all-equalizing force it has been touted as. That said, the ball is rolling, and as much damage as it may cause, it will not be stopped. Therefore, we should not focus on ending globalization, for that decision is not ours to make, too many have seen its fruits. Instead we must change globalization from being a side effect, to an intentional process guided by the principles of fairness and justice. We may not be able to solve all of the world‟s problems, but we can, and should, begin to assess our own contributions to these problems and correct our actions wherever possible.
Havel, Vaclav 1990 “Address to Congress” in Grace Cambell, Michael Gillum, Dorothy Sulock and Mark West (Editors) 2002 The Asheville Reader: The Individual in the Contemporary World Acton, Mass. : Copley Custom Publishing Group
