Social Change and Development
The world has become a global village. This has been rendered possible by commerce, technical implementation, media, manufacturing of goods, investiture, pecuniary reasons, socializing, and to some extent matters resulting from the political spectrum. However, globalization has division between the virtually progressed countries and those that are embracing development. The lax rules and freedom on commerce vouches for healthy economies of the progressed nations because they draw in the wealth from the underprivileged nations. This only serves to increase the rift between the developed and the underprivileged nations and also widen the disparity.
Starkly, this paper brings to fore the various situations under which the disparities occur with thus exposing ‘creating a global village’ as a smokescreen.
In the pretext of social change and development
To sear it on our minds, this paper digs into the economic affiliation involving the virtually progressed nations and the budding nations between the early 60s and late 80s, in terms of the embracement of world revolution and reliance of nations. However, as Babb 2005 cited in Ray 2007 aptly put it, the situations which occurred between the 80s and 90s have drastically altered the changed the argument and in the meantime and improved the course of making the economy global.
The 3rd World Debt calamity triggered the strategies which saw the budding nations join market concession as a sure passport for keeping up with the affluent nations albeit after being pushed by both the World Bank (WB) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). This strategy implied that both the WB and the IMF would give financial muscle to the budding nations albeit conditionally which implied thatr the nation would cut on price increments, decrease expenditures and stop regulating the monetary movement. Moreover, as Ray (2007) points it out, there were conditions to novel or efficient financial aids, which entailed the aiding the lending courses were adamant on rendering personal, the freedom of trade and the selling.
The financial aid situations set by both the IMF and WB did transform the budding nations to strained financial positions which has made a number of nations been sloughed off the qualification to get financial help simply because they can be unable to repay. Thus, as pointed out by Jotia (2009) the budding nations deemed it that the creating of a global village was a smokescreen of The developing countries then felt that globalization is just another form of taking over and denominating whereby the sole advantage was to the affluent nations.
As Stiglit (2003), as quoted Jotia (2009) deduces, the making of a global village is funded by the IMF except that underprivileged citizens of nations such as Morocco, Indonesia and Papua New Guinea pay tax-free prices on foodstuff and energy. The reports of those infected with AIDS in Thailand escalated because the IMF pushed for reduction of expenses in the health sector keeping in mind that hordes of while many of the people from affluent nations are forced to compensate the learning of their young ones using the expenditure recuperation IMF protocols. Thus, as Hu-Dehart, (2003) reports, the young ones are forced by the circumstances stop attend schooling.
Subsequently, if the privilege of worldwide commerce wasn’t regulated, the affluent nations would be more advantageous compared to the budding nations thereby enriching a handful of businesses and people and in the meantime, leaving the underprivileged in misery.
To cap it all, Mills (2007) states that as IMF (2007) detailed a giant leap of progress on the worldwide commerce, incorporation and monetary candidness. In page 4, Mills (2007) cited that the substantial scope world commerce is calculated via intercontinental commerce plus ‘North-South’ trade. Thus, commerce may verify the disparity got from creating a global village.
According to Oxfam (2004) who is quoted in Ray, 2007) international commerce methods have unevenness unfavourable for budding nations, for instance, the European Union (EU) and USA enforce lofty taxes on importation from budding nations, for instance, duty on textiles can be as much as 40% of their worth.
As cited by Hale (2005), EU got a whooping £3.4 billion as of 2005 in farm levies which exceeded their aid to Africa by £1.1 billion. Ironically, there is barred exportation of farm and products from budding nations.
To cap it all, as reported by Hu-DeHart (2003), the system depicted by creating a global village has favoured international industries as they find inexpensive man input, introduce “ liberated commerce areas” worldwide where the products got form that place are export, processed and then taken back to the area. In an instance, Hu-DeHart (2003), found that the Phil Knight, the magnate owning Nike, had put out feelers in the 70s and the 80s and 1970s that the novel computers and faxes equipment could enable him to sell abroad and moreover manage the manufacture of the sports footwear in the nations in Asia because there was low-cost input by women.
After discovering the advantage of getting input from outside, Knight started giving mini-contacts to the affluent nations in the Asia continent including and not limited to Hong Kong and Taiwan which made production industries to start industries in the underprivileged nations such as Indonesia. The affluent Asian nations given the contracts managed the input of the Nike Company and in return got returns and in the meantime the Nike magnate got lots of returns from his idea of giving yielded more profits from his idea of giving contracts. He slots into number six in the list of the wealthiest Americans. Due to the input of the countless Asian females, the Nike Company got huge returns and enriched the magnate but impoverished the already poor.
The creation of a global village has ushered in the quest for cheap input and also given green light tor wayfarer employees to seek work in to find jobs in varying nations to satisfy the input required by the affluent nations. These wayfarer job seekers, more of whom are females, are compelled poorness and are prone to prejudice, mistreatment and maltreatment as (Ray, 2007) reports. Thus implies that disparity in global village is both through monetary and its abuse so that the workers reap returns but there is poor provision of poor is not only in terms of economic but also in the abuse of the economic situation of these labourers to get more profits on the expense of not providing good environment in the workplace.
Poaching of labour from poor nations hurts the workers from affluent nations because it hurts their ability to haggle the work in the industries due to the provision of low labour and thus brings about disparity. Increase in disparity, according to the Alderson’s and Nielson’s (2002) research, has been caused by the removal of industrial activity by substituting the average compensation with inferior standard compensations.
Using another face to describe the contribution of a global village to disparity, as Gupta (1998) says, is the enrichment of the affluent nations using the natural wealth of the underprivileged nations which are used as unprocessed goods to process items that are used by the affluent nations. Anil Agarwal (1985) also opines the compared to the 40s, underprivileged nations now use large tracts of farms to satisfy the food needs of the affluent nations.
The underprivileged nations can sell their products in low prices to the nations that may not be in a position to give affluent nations their input thanks to the “General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade” move of liberating commerce in the farm products. As Gupta (1998) recommends, when the underprivileged nations practice that do not hurt the ecology, as initiated by the First World ecology lobbyists, will enhance barely obvious obligations for ecology lobbyists, for money depositories and benefactors (Philip, 2004). Also, viewing it from an ecological perspective, the strategies that are initiated benefits the affluent nations at the expense of the underprivileged nations.
The disparities in creating a global village commenced after the collaborated of International Financial Institutions, in cropping up the come up with the principle of pushing the underprivileged nations get hot on the heels of the affluent nations by going into world market free trade.
Then, there was the additions of orders to access aid that were initiated by the underprivileged nations or in some cases, the affluent nations coming up with strategies hindering commerce and relocation to underprivileged nations thus bringing in disparity. To put it blatantly, the so called global village enhances the relocation of riches from underprivileged nations to affluent nations because of the strategies brought about by the affluent nations and enforced on the underprivileged nations.
Hu-DeHart, E. (2003). ‘Globalization and Its Discontents: Exposing the Underside’, Frontiers, 24 (2&3): 244-60.
Gupta, A. (1998). ‘Peasants and Global Environmentalism’ in N. Haenn and R.R. Wilk (eds), The Environment in Anthropology: A Reader in Ecology, Culture, and Sustainable Living, New York University Press: New York.
Jotia, A. (2009). Globalization, Education and the Birth of a Democratically Active Global Citizen. Globalization, Vol. 8 Issue 1, Special Section p1-13.
Mills, M. (2009). Globalization and Inequality. European Sociological Review. Vol. 25 No. 1 p1-8.
Ray, L. (2007). Globalization inequalities and everyday life. Routledge: New York (Philip, 2004)
Philip M. (2004). Development and social change: a global perspective. California: Pine Forge Press.