The recent economic crisis both confirms and challenges differing views of globalisation

Résumé du document

Globalization is the process of making businesses, philosophies, cultures and technologies on a worldwide basis, and where the global economy is characterized as being an interconnecting market place. According to George Stonehouse and his co-writers in 'Global and Transnational Business', 'Globalization refers to the development of global or worldwide business activities, competition and markets and the increasing global interdependence of national economies.' Nowadays, there are a large number of theories concerning the term globalization, and the debate mainly concerns the implications and the nature of this highly controversial process. Does globalization have the potential to create greater opportunities for growth without inequalities and dangerous consequences?

Extraits

[...] Indeed, the cost of establishing economic barriers to foreign countries and the consequences would be so important that it does not seem to be a viable way to maintain such policies for governments. According to Naim Moises, ability of any government to shield its economy and society from outside influences and dangers has steadily evaporated in the past two decades.” Moreover, Moises claims that there is absolutely no proof that this trend will be conversed. (Moises, N (2009)) For this author, it is therefore obvious that it is not today that globalisation will disappear from our organisation, and it is not even the recent economic crash that will massively slow down its effects. [...]

[...] Indeed, the recent expansion of communication means and technology has brought people and nations closer. It seems obvious that globalisation is here to stay and has become an unavoidable reality. Moreover, it is the different views and interpretation of globalisation who will lead governments to take different policy decisions, in particular to prevent a current or future economic turmoil. (Berry, C (2008) Page 19) During the important impact of the recent economic turmoil, a large amount of states had to undermine their national economies in order to limit the damage of the crisis. [...]

[...] (Moises, N (2009)) The idea here is that people and groups are still connected to each other, and it is not the world economic crisis which will start to slow down their activities. In certain cases, it may even boost them. For example, as the economic crisis expanded the level of poverty, some global charity associations or even religious associations would face an increase of demand for their services. (Moises, N (2009)) In some particular cases, we can see that globalisation is not considered as being only about investment and international trade. [...]

[...] At a time where economic crisis is in most people's minds, it is difficult to not link globalisation to this recent global turmoil. The 2007-2009 crisis has been first characterised by a housing bubble in America, and rapidly followed by a decline in global economic activity, causing an important recession throughout the world. For Paul Hirst and Grahame Thompson, there is no doubt in claiming that globalisation has lead to the construction of a new economic structure. (Hirst, P (2009) page The debate today is whether or not the establishment of this global market place will resist to the next economic and financial turmoil, and at which point globalisation may increase the vulnerability to crisis, wherever it begins? [...]

[...] Therefore, most of them reject the idea that globalisation creates homogeneity between countries and regions. Thus, they refuse the notion that states are being increasingly powerless. Indeed, state's power has been one of the main issues during the recent turmoil for the national economies. In Globalization in Question (2009), Paul Hirst and Graeme Thompson are questioning the fact of having a unique global economy. For Craig Berry, they managed to prove that globalisation is not really a process requiring outcomes, “like a transfer of power states from states to economic actors”. [...]