1

Martin Atanasov

Instructor Nazemi

BIS - 305

26/01/2010

The key concept we have discussed so far this quarter has been globalisation

and the results that have come from it across the world. Generally globalisation is

described as a continuing process by which regional societies, economies, and

cultures have become incorporated through a globe-spanning network of

communication. Furthermore, the term is sometimes used to refer specifically to

economic globalisation: the incorporation of national economies into the international

economy through foreign direct investment, trade, capital flows, technology,

migration. While the seeds of globalisation were planted during the colonisation of

the Latin America, Asia, Africa, and the Middle East, the process of globalisation

really accelerated in the 20th century when trade between countries became easier (but

not necessarily fairer) and the introduction of the World Wide Web allowed people to

become more educated about the rest of the world. This paper will address how

different people view globalisation, how it has encouraged development in the

Western world but has had a reverse effect in the non-Western world, and its

connection with colonialism.

Globalisation has both its admirers and its critics. “According to its admirers,

globalisation is spilling over into a variety of areas, creating a “world village” based

on cultural and political globalisation” (Green & Luehrmann, 2007, 9) Furthermore,

globalisation improves interdependence which is nurturing a sense of community and

sharing over the identity politics that once divided us by religion, ethnicity, language,
 2

and so on. Also, supporters of globalisation claim that it is not advertising

homogenisation and that it is not the same thing as Westernisation; rather,

globalisation is advertising advancing of our recognition of the world’s diversity.

On the other hand, the critics “argue that globalisation isn’t so much about

interdependence as it is about furthering dependence.” (Green & Luehrmann, 2007,

10) Antiglobalists point out that dependence is a form of international

interdependence – except that dependence is marked by en extreme power imbalance.

Economic globalisation is capitalist globalisation which means that corporations and

the rich are being advantaged over other societies. In addition to that, globalisation is

claimed to have brought a more homogenous world which in turn means cultural

destruction for the majority.

Both pro- and anti-globalists have valid points. It is true that globalisation has

brought people and their cultures closer than ever before. Today, thanks largely to the

World Wide Web; it is much easier to find out what is going on on the other side of

the world. Also, if trade is fair, everybody can benefit from open trade between

different countries. However, because the developed countries (DCs) have not had a

balanced trade with the less developed countries (LDCs), and thus, while

globalisation has benefited the DCs, it has greatly disadvantaged the LDCs (Green &

Luehrmann, 2007, 121).

While globalisation has certainly encouraged development in the Western

world, countries in Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Middle East have become less

developed due to the fact that the economic development that came through

globalisation has affected them a lot less. It can be argued that Western countries had

an obvious advantage in terms of economic development over the colonised countries

which eventually became LDCs. While the early from of globalisation meant
 3

extraordinary wealth for Europe, for the people to be conquered the European

presence was a disaster. Worse was the fact that most of the colonised countries were

left by their mother countries without much notice or help. Thus, the economic

development of the former colonised countries was in shambles. Even though, the

DCs have continued to promote free trade, trade has been anything but free between

the DCs and the LDCs. For example, “If developed countries practiced the free trade

they preach – such as eliminating all barriers to imports from Africa – the region’s

exports would rise by 14 percent (an annual increase worth approximately $2.5

bullion)” (Green & Luehrmann, 2007, 119). Ever since the colonisers left them, the

LDCs have had to play catch up with them in terms of economic development.

However, as shown in the example, DCs have not treated the LDCs with the same

attitude they have treated each other. Even cases such as East Asia have had an

average income only about 13% of the core’s (Lechner & Boli, 2008, 191). Those are

hardly outstanding results from a so called success-story. Despite the claims that

globalisation have brought the LDCs’ economic development closer to the DCs’, the

size of the gaps between both remain, testimony to the failure of catch-up.

The root of the problem is that, for the most part, globalisation was initiated by

colonialism. Globalisation did not start naturally; rather, it was forced upon the

colonised countries thus their difficulties in accepting it. When eventually the

colonisers left, they had put the colonised countries on a disadvantageous course from

which it has been very difficult to diverge. Even after a large part of the non-Western

world gained their independence, they have continued to suffer from neo-colonialism

due to developed countries joining former colonisers to gain the benefits of

colonialism without its costs. The European colonisation of Asia, Africa, Latin

America, and to a lesser extent the Middle East radically changed people’s lives. The
 4

effect was often shattering as native political systems were destabilised or destroyed.

Social structures were deformed, economies misshapen, and cultures split up (Green

& Luehrmann, 2007, 67). Furthermore, the West has regularly intervened to remove

from power non-Western governments (such as Mossadegh in Iran) seeking

fundamental structural changes in class relationships and income distribution.

It is clear that globalisation has changed the world as we know it. The effects

of it have been varying. For some people it has brought up a lot of good, for others

not so much. While globalisation has contributed to a more developed Western world,

it has also brought an extreme power imbalance between the Western governments

and their non-Western counterparts. That can be directly blamed on the fact that the

seeds of globalisation were forcefully planted on the colonised countries during the

colonisation period. This is not the right way to bring economic equality in this world

and thus ever since then there has been an economic imbalance between the

colonisers and the colonised which has been impossible to balance. It remains to be

seen if solutions can be found where the whole world would be able to equally benefit

from the process of globalisation.

 5

References

Green, D. & Luehrmann, L. (2007). Comparative Politics of the Third World: Linking

Concepts and Cases (2nd Edition), 9-10, 67, 119, 121. Colorado: Lynne Rienner

Publishers

Wade, R.H. (2004). Is Globalisation Reducing Poverty and Inequality? In Lechner, F.

J. & Boli, J. (2008). The Globalisation Reader (3rd Edition), 191. Massachusetts:

Blackwell Publishing