The leading powers in the globalisation: Difference between revisions

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 of the question.

Does this mean that countries and societies that are not able to take leading roles in 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 any improvement to take place in global trade, but it is doubtful that these countries can make such a fast progress to be able to compete with these leading countries that dominate the world markets, despite of the dependence to natural resources that might be necessary. Thus is that to say that these less advanced countries will always be kind of puppets for the advanced leading countries?

Moreover we always talk about world prices, but what about the different incomes and different standard of livings. How can a less advanced country with meager incomes and under-paid labour be able to take place in a process of progress and improvement and become an equal part of globalization?  

Allow me to take couple of examples of recent years, countries which definitely were not the strongest industrial tigers, nor banking strongholds. Very fine example is Finland, country, which 20 years ago appeared from the shadow of iron curtain. Country with no specific raw material and energy reserves, not the most educated population and famous universities. And yet, with the good management of human resources, good governance, decision to follow the most modern industrial trends, Finland became the clear example of win- win solution. And it is not about good luck and Nokia; it is about the lowest level of corruption reached worldwide, increase of elementary and secondary education, very high language knowledge, etc. Comparable example of small, very poor country, with high growth, good governance, which simply was able to use its strategic geographic position, is Ireland. In South America, let us look on Chile, country deeply wounded by military regime, now stable, sustainable growing democracy, reaching admirable growth of GDP 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 real winner of globalization. Again - it was not financial stronghold, nor resources rich country, or science and technology backyard.

Preconditions to win-win in globalization: good governance, substantial decrease of corruption, stable democracy, good economic management, perfect management of human resources, visible improvement of public education. Good governance and fight against corruption are key issues.

Win-win solution for globalization is not that much about economics, as much as it is about politics. It might be difficult for young people to grasp the fact, that professionalism and criticism are not enough. Only by participation in the ways, which allow to lower corruption, which allow for transparent and good governance are the sure ways, how to subscribe for win-win global solutions.