171
edits
Justifiable Risk or headless Fear? The Difference between experienced and factual Disadvantages of a Process called Globalisation: Difference between revisions
Justifiable Risk or headless Fear? The Difference between experienced and factual Disadvantages of a Process called Globalisation (view source)
Revision as of 16:00, 21 November 2009
, 16:00, 21 November 2009→Body: Arguments and Analysis
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
One of the most spread concerns at this is the fear of losing the own job. The globalisation of human capital leads to heated discussions and negative associations with the whole process of globalisation, especially in the Western civilisation, since the production in Asia and Latin America is in almost all cases cheaper, occasionally better and more and more often better and cheaper. Often the fear of losing the job to a competitor from abroad superposes all other effects, notwithstanding whether they are reckoned to be positive or negative. In this case, the boundaries between negative consequences and personal dismay become blurred. To actualise the discussion of the globalisation of human capital several aspects need additionally to be considered. First of all, we need to evaluate who is affected by this change on the employment market in fact. In relation to the Stolper-Samualson-Theorem one awareness can be concluded - the globalisation of human capital only refers to the low educated level, while executives and tasks with a high educated basis of knowledge are almost unaffected. Hence, this system for chances of success which basis lies in the education of people, not in their origin or place of birth might even be a fairer system than the one we are living in right now. | One of the most spread concerns at this is the fear of losing the own job. The globalisation of human capital leads to heated discussions and negative associations with the whole process of globalisation, especially in the Western civilisation, since the production in Asia and Latin America is in almost all cases cheaper, occasionally better and more and more often better and cheaper. Often the fear of losing the job to a competitor from abroad superposes all other effects, notwithstanding whether they are reckoned to be positive or negative. In this case, the boundaries between negative consequences and personal dismay become blurred. To actualise the discussion of the globalisation of human capital several aspects need additionally to be considered. First of all, we need to evaluate who is affected by this change on the employment market in fact. In relation to the Stolper-Samualson-Theorem one awareness can be concluded - the globalisation of human capital only refers to the low educated level, while executives and tasks with a high educated basis of knowledge are almost unaffected. Hence, this system for chances of success which basis lies in the education of people, not in their origin or place of birth might even be a fairer system than the one we are living in right now. | ||
This idea leads to a second global concern. When discussing about globalisation often the word fairness appears, especially in relation to the 3rd world or more precisely to the least developed countries (LDC, for more information and criteria see [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Least_Developed_Countries]]). The general opinion claims that the so-called “losers“ of the globalisation would suffer from this process. There is a huge concern existing in prospects of the development of these countries. However, in this case causes and effects are mixed, since the process of globalisation did not impoverish the once successfully acting country. Hence, the question comes whether the political, economical and/or social situation of countries like Burkina Faso, Cambodia or Sierra Leone really did change to the worse since the globalisation process started to accelerate. Those countries never took the step towards the development to an industrial country. Therefore the globalisation process did not narrow any of the countries‘ chances to improve their situation. Not clear, though, is the question whether globalisation will do this. One argument for that is the frequently cited increasing gap between the rich and the poor (''cf. Transnational corporations, global capital and the Third World,1998, p. 45–66''). Albeit this argument surely describes a serious phenomenon of the contemporary era, there are more aspects which need to be considered. To start with, it is of the utmost importance to stress the influence of education in order to improve a countries‘ welfare. As above already pointed out, the chances of improving the individuals‘ situation and consecutively the countries‘ welfare by education increase. Additionally another consequence of globalisation has a positive impact: by emphasising not only local but global problems financial means from foreign countries help improving the educational system in case the LDC country itself does, for whatever reason, or can not afford investing. | This idea leads to a second global concern. When discussing about globalisation often the word fairness appears, especially in relation to the 3rd world or more precisely to the least developed countries (LDC, for more information and criteria see [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Least_Developed_Countries]]). The general opinion claims that the so-called “losers“ of the globalisation would suffer from this process. There is a huge concern existing in prospects of the development of these countries. However, in this case causes and effects are mixed, since the process of globalisation did not impoverish the once successfully acting country. Hence, the question comes whether the political, economical and/or social situation of countries like Burkina Faso, Cambodia or Sierra Leone really did change to the worse since the globalisation process started to accelerate. Those countries never took the step towards the development to an industrial country. Therefore the globalisation process did not narrow any of the countries‘ chances to improve their situation, otherwise the Asian tigers would not be existing ([[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Asian_Tigers]]). Not clear, though, is the question whether globalisation will do this. One argument for that is the frequently cited increasing gap between the rich and the poor (''cf. Transnational corporations, global capital and the Third World,1998, p. 45–66''). Albeit this argument surely describes a serious phenomenon of the contemporary era, there are more aspects which need to be considered. To start with, it is of the utmost importance to stress the influence of education in order to improve a countries‘ welfare. As above already pointed out, the chances of improving the individuals‘ situation and consecutively the countries‘ welfare by education increase. Additionally another consequence of globalisation has a positive impact: by emphasising not only local but global problems financial means from foreign countries help improving the educational system in case the LDC country itself does, for whatever reason, or can not afford investing. | ||