831
edits
The leading powers in the globalisation: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
The leading powers in the globalisation (view source)
Revision as of 08:35, 30 August 2017
, 08:35, 30 August 2017no edit summary
Jana Dlouha (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
''5. Is it impossible to create fair prices worldwide? Or are the institutions just not willing to change the status quo? If so, is the European Parliament willing and ready to engage? Do you have examples from your work in the EU parliament? '' | __NOTOC__ | ||
'''''5. Is it impossible to create fair prices worldwide? Or are the institutions just not willing to change the status quo? If so, is the European Parliament willing and ready to engage? Do you have examples from your work in the EU parliament? '' | |||
''10. Who do you think decides role allocation in this process of globalisation? Do you think some societies hold the main power in their hands or do you think every society has the power to take its place in the process of globalisaton? What possibilities do the countries without strong financial, energy resources have to become competitive?'' | ''10. Who do you think decides role allocation in this process of globalisation? Do you think some societies hold the main power in their hands or do you think every society has the power to take its place in the process of globalisaton? What possibilities do the countries without strong financial, energy resources have to become competitive?''''' | ||
===Answer by Jana Hybášková:=== | ===Answer by Jana Hybášková:=== | ||
| Line 26: | Line 27: | ||
The EU should itself first stick to clear and transparent rules in environmental protection, labor force rights, intellectual property protection, state subsidies, competition policy. In so doing, we would be able to counter negative globalization pressure. | The EU should itself first stick to clear and transparent rules in environmental protection, labor force rights, intellectual property protection, state subsidies, competition policy. In so doing, we would be able to counter negative globalization pressure. | ||
====Ilknur Yilmaz==== | |||
First of all I want to thank Jana Hybášková for taking time and answering our questions. Smile. | |||
Now I want to come to the answer to the question. | |||
“The leading powers are the most competitive. Countries able to dominate markets, dominate globalization.” | |||
Does this mean that countries and societies that are not able to take leading roles in the global market will not have a chance to become an equal competitor or equal partner in the process of globalisation? Most countries can maybe build up any industry or make any improvement necessary to take place in global trade, but it is doubtful that these countries can make such fast progress to be able to compete with these leading countries that dominate the world markets, despite the dependence on natural resources that might be necessary. Is this to say that these less advanced countries will always be kind of puppets of the advanced leading countries? | |||
Moreover, we always talk about world prices, but what about the different incomes and different standards of living? How can a less advanced country with meager incomes and under-paid labour be able to take its place in a process of progress and improvement and become an equal part of globalization? | |||
Monday, 7 December 2009 | |||
====Jana Hybášková==== | |||
Allow me to use a couple of examples from recent years, countries which definitely were not the strongest industrial tigers, nor banking strongholds. A very fine example is Finland, a country which 20 years ago appeared from under the shadow of the iron curtain. A country with no specific raw material and energy reserves, not the most educated population and famous universities. And yet, with good management of human resources, good governance, a decision to follow the most modern industrial trends, Finland became a clear example of a win-win solution. And it is not about good luck and Nokia; it is about one of the lowest levels of corruption achieved worldwide, an increase in elementary and secondary education, very high language knowledge, etc. A comparable example of a small, very poor country, with high growth, good governance, and which was simply able to use its strategic geographic position, is Ireland. In South America, let us look at Chile, a country deeply wounded by a military regime, and is now a stable, sustainable growing democracy, achieving admirable GDP growth even in years of crisis. And again, no proximity to financial markets, no substantial natural resources, nor accumulated cultural capital. | |||
Another, more complicated example of course is India, now a real winner in globalization. Again - it was not a financial stronghold, nor a resource-rich country, or a scientific and technological backyard. | |||
The preconditions for win-win in globalization: good governance, substantial reduction in corruption, stable democracy, good economic management, perfect management of human resources, visible improvement of public education. Good governance and the fight against corruption are key issues. | |||
The win-win solution for globalization is not that much about economics as about politics. It might be difficult for young people to grasp the fact that professionalism and criticism are not enough. Only by participation in ways which allow a reduction in corruption, and which allows for transparent and good governance are the surest ways to subscribe to win-win global solutions. | |||
Monday, 7 December 2009 | |||
[[Category:Is globalisation a neutral process?]] | |||