During my Global Citizenship class, we were assigned to a task where we articulate on the ten perspectives of globalisation. Here this one in particular allowed me to think about whether globalisation is in fact a negative trait in the development of economies.
Referring back to my last post on the trade and how it affected the morals of slavery, this picture with the two hands being cuffed- a white male and a black male hand, could articulate on whether the 'united colors' does benefit the society as of today. The quote here says that
' We live in a global village, where people just like us engage in production and consumption to get the things they want and need. They may use different resources , foods and listen to different music. Nevertheless from American to Zimbabwe we rely on each other in one big global market place (imagine life without tulips from Holland, Cocoa from Africa and clothing and textiles from Asia).'
The key assumptions of globalisation as of today defines that our economy is made up of globalising the trade routes, production and even knowledge shared between the developed countries. We see that to gain niche markets or use of our scarce resources are due to the globalisation through free trade.
What we do not see in the practices of free trade are the misuse of power by multinational corporations and the misuse of 'free trade.' From my previous blogs, I mentioned about the ABC report on the Bangladesh clothing manufactures. The political debate about poor working conditions and the mistreatment of the mass labors had caused a huge gap between the developed and third world countries. We see that these corporation 'don't give a damn' about the scarcity of resources or the working conditions of the labors, it is all about profiting from our pockets when we purchase the branded clothing. This leads to me thinking about the powerless Governments or 'relaxed restrictions' on labour in some developing countries- like Bangladesh. If the Government does not intervene with such powerful corporations of course, there is such unjust conditions implemented into the lives of those who are struggling to earn such living. But if the Government intervenes, there would be no money inflow to that particular economy and such welfare for those who need it cannot even afford to access the basic needs of life.
Corporations are ruling the lives of those in these societies and therefore there is no way to stop them. It is all about the resources that these corporations hold that makes Governments stand back and provide whatever resources they have in the economy to produce the dollars.
Thursday, December 19, 2013
Soft Rain penetrates the Earth better than a storm.
I was reading a news article from the World Bank about its Poverty Reduction scheme in Vietnam. Interestingly, this particular Poverty Monitoring and Policy Intervention has helped people live above the poverty line. Statistics show that almost a reduction in poverty was due to the government's changing policy interventions that address the poverty issues (almost 58% 1992 to 14.5% 2008)[1].
What is remarkable is that Vietnam has been developing its policies over time to tackle the poverty issues and efficiently allocating its resources in the economy. The positives of the World Bank and Vietnamese Government shows that there is a great awareness of poverty in the country and that to lower the poverty line, time is taken place to help those, educate and send support. Thus I think that through this sort of initiative and developing awareness can be replicated to other countries who also suffers extreme poverty. However due to the post Global Financial Crisis from 2008, I always wonder whether the World Bank has sufficient funds to help develop and invest in new policies or programs to help other countries that may suffer extreme poverty. How else would funding be implemented if first world economies and Governments are also suffering from the widespread crisis could not afford to give as much funding as they can a decade ago. Will our world that lives below $1 a day even suffer due to this financial crisis?.
From the World Bank News and Articles http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/NEWS/0,,contentMDK:23172942~menuPK:141311~pagePK:34370~piPK:34424~theSitePK:4607,00.html
References:
[1] The World Bank, 'Vietnam: Building Capacity for Poverty Monitoring and Policy Intervention for Poverty Reduction', 2013, accessed 20 December, 2013, <http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/NEWS/0,,contentMDK:23172942~menuPK:141311~pagePK:34370~piPK:34424~theSitePK:4607,00.html..
What is remarkable is that Vietnam has been developing its policies over time to tackle the poverty issues and efficiently allocating its resources in the economy. The positives of the World Bank and Vietnamese Government shows that there is a great awareness of poverty in the country and that to lower the poverty line, time is taken place to help those, educate and send support. Thus I think that through this sort of initiative and developing awareness can be replicated to other countries who also suffers extreme poverty. However due to the post Global Financial Crisis from 2008, I always wonder whether the World Bank has sufficient funds to help develop and invest in new policies or programs to help other countries that may suffer extreme poverty. How else would funding be implemented if first world economies and Governments are also suffering from the widespread crisis could not afford to give as much funding as they can a decade ago. Will our world that lives below $1 a day even suffer due to this financial crisis?.
From the World Bank News and Articles http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/NEWS/0,,contentMDK:23172942~menuPK:141311~pagePK:34370~piPK:34424~theSitePK:4607,00.html
References:
[1] The World Bank, 'Vietnam: Building Capacity for Poverty Monitoring and Policy Intervention for Poverty Reduction', 2013, accessed 20 December, 2013, <http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/NEWS/0,,contentMDK:23172942~menuPK:141311~pagePK:34370~piPK:34424~theSitePK:4607,00.html..
Wednesday, December 11, 2013
Week 2: History of Globalisation - The Negatives and Positives
We
all know about the history of how globalisation begun when Marco Polo travelled
around Asia or when Christopher Coloumbus 'accidentally' settled in America,
but what is the meaning of their journey to travel across the globe? My
understanding is that they wanted to know about the different cultures,
societies, countries and even new food?!
As
I was reading through the related articles and YouTube videos of the history of
globalisation, there are some fascinating history pieces that I believe would
have been ‘accidental’ or ‘purposely’ being triggered to develop what we have
now in the modern world like Buddhism, spices, television and animals. The
formation and interaction between the global world and local developments have
been a central driving force to develop this connecting world. The factors that
affect most of this globalisation concept started with common ideas or
exchanges of interest between the Europeans, Middle Easterners, Asians,
Americans and even the Africans. The revolutions such as the US and French
revolutions have changed the way societies think or how technologies have
changed especially in the Industrial Revolution that caused this huge wave of
expanding trade of technologies. I could not imagine how the network of trade
in the movement of people, animals, goods, money and even micro-organisms that
could populate to develop what I have seen or heard today.
Imagine
what life would be like if globalisation or trade did not exist. As for me, I
would be in China working under low labour conditions in a factory or settling
in luxury with a roof above my head if I was fortunate to grow up in a higher
class family. If globalisation did not exist, how can we survive? Surely, within
hundreds of years human being will adapt to their surrounding environment but
what if a plague casts over the country and no one would have survived without
the development of anti-biotics or even developed health care systems and
medical professionals.
We
see that globalisation has benefited many countries and are still bringing new developed
countries like Malaysia. The expansion of commercial productions and
commodities, technologies and finances has formed this world as of today.
However
I thought to myself, what is globalisation? What makes up globalisation? Is it
just one thing or several events that lead one to another that makes a global
world? What are the negatives and the positives of globalisation?
As
I was further reading into the related articles on the Moodle board, I found
this site <http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~dludden/global1.htm> that gave me an
interesting definition.
'Globalisation is a
historical process that began the first movement of people out of Africa into
other parts of the world’.
I
thought to myself, first movement of people out of Africa? Was slave trade one
of the developments that lead to globalisation of people? As I began to refresh
my memory of Russell Peter’s stand-up comedy about how the British went over to
Africa for slave labour, it all began to make sense. Movement of people to
different parts of the world like the Colonial Australian history, refugees or
when immigrants come over to develop their communities, their cultures and
traditions are still brought with them. And that is where a global world of
different nationalities come together bringing their knowledge, experiences,
food, cultural upbringing and beliefs are the benefits of globalisation.
Slave
labour is still in existence but has been converted to hard labour, especially
in countries where they have very relaxed and unrestricted labour laws and low
pay wages.
I was watching a documentary
on ABC News about this Bangladesh fashion company who mistreats their
manufacturing labours. Questions raised in my mind about what working
conditions these people had to go through and has globalisation really provide
those benefits that I have mentioned before. Such multinational corporations
that misuses their power in international trade really depicts a world of
cruelty, just like the Europeans with their misuse of power by taking in
African labour. So there is a parallel in our modern world to the history of
our world. And what globalisation does may be a disadvantage to our world such
as like the World Wars and a world of disagreement like the 9/11 tragedy.
Globalisation
is more of capitalism now. Multi-national corporations use this concept to
outsource to lower costs of resources and labour. That is why we see there are
many social issues about treatment of human beings – the negatives of
globalisation. For example, I remember watching the 1999 Seattle civil
disruption on an old 60 minutes re-run on YouTube depicting on the angry
anarchists who were against capitalism causing anger and damage to civilian
property. Another incident that was parallel to this, was a news footage of an
Islamic mob protesting against the US Stock Exchange due to the 9/11 incident.
These events in my opinion are related because of the anti-capitalism concept.
The global world is controlled by capitalists – by multi-national corporations
like McDonalds, Star Bucks and Nike.
The development of globalisation- the
exchange of wealth, labour, resources, ideas and currency due to trade has
negatively impacted on society and developing countries.
However,
if we stop multi-national corporations from trading, most resources will be
made in the origin of the corporations, increasing prices which decreases our
income levels. We then cannot afford these designer clothes or luxury items,
decreasing the flow of our economy. That will then slow down the cycle of
currency – Government will cut welfare which then triggers poverty levels to
rise for those who cannot afford to have a roof over their heads. Is
globalisation really a bad thing if we stopped exchanging goods and resources?
Or has globalisation helped us develop our knowledge through the internet and
media, our education, our wealth for being able to work and travel overseas or
being able to connect to families and friends using Skype, Facebook and
telephone calls?
Even
though globalisation has a handful of negative outcomes , but there are all
balanced by the positive aspects of being globally aware of such events like
the 9/11 or the tsunami in Japan back in 2011 and we as global citizens are
actively helping out to those who are in need.
Wednesday, December 4, 2013
Week 1 : The meaning of 'Global Citizenship'.
What is the meaning of global citizenship?
Is it an individual who has a certificate stating that they are a citizen of a country, a nation or a community?
Is it a valid ticket or passport to other countries where one dwells into cultures and cities that are significantly different from others?
Week 1 lecture starts off with the Introduction of Global Citizenship. A forum where students gather to express their ideas and interpretations of the course. My position as a student of this course was to explore the related readings posted on Moodle and on other sources such as the internet to gather ideas on my perspective as a global citizen. I personally thought about the definitions of Global Citizenship. How can I be a Global Citizen? Does it mean that I could hold two different national Citizenship certificates and state that I am a global citizen? Questions running through my head led me to search answers and other interpretations of global citizenship.
As I was reading Nationalism and Global Citizenship by April Carter, what fascinates me in her perspectives in global citizenship extends towards global economic integration (which I think she meant was globalisation) based on environmental interdependence and creating or modernising the global communications through our technology and transportation. From the reading, I see that there is a difference in between nationalism and being a global citizenship. Nationalism from my own ideas and knowledge would be an individual who is proud to be a country's citizen. More or less, someone who is proud to be that nationality - whether it being Greek, Ethiopian, Chinese, Lebanese, British and so on. A person who will defend its country through joining alliances such as defense or merely civil activists. In that sense, this is what April Carter is trying to persuade us thinking that nationalism is constituted by common remembrance of glorious past by common will to live together with shared language, culture and adapting to the common descent. I agree with the author's words and try to imagine as a patriotic character whom loved his/her country like world leaders.
On the other hand, global citizenship in my understanding is someone who would have traveled the world or hold a certificate of citizenship in two or more countries. Thus being said, I feel that I am too as I hold a Hong Kong residency and an Australian residency. Not only that piece of paper who stamps the validity of two different citizenship portrays the meaning of 'global citizenship' but in more general sense, I believe that to be one is to engage with other cultures and beliefs. Further reading into the Nationalism and Global Citizenship article, the key word 'cosmopolitan' pops up in every paragraph. At first, I thought of the alcoholic drink in a martini glass with a green olive sitting on the bottom. I was confused what the word meant because I have not heard of the word cosmopolitan in terms of global citizenship. As April Carter describes the cosmopolitan values of citizens. Cosmopolis (from the word cosmopolitan) is defined as a city of world, and of the individual who is a citizen of world or Google dictionary describes a city inhabitant of different nationalities. Furthermore, the author writes that a global citizenship is a promotion of trade in resources, economy and support of green movements as well as peace campaigns. This definition made me think about globalisation.
Globalisation is a strong movement of people, technology, economy and resources. I can see that there is a huge impact of globalisation affecting my daily life- whether it be carbon tax schemes or hanging out at a local Chinese suburban area. With rapid growth of technology, the world's knowledge is being more and more integrated with more advanced technology - especially in health, multinational corporations and communications. I pondered on the meaning of globalisation and how this can be related to the meaning of global citizen. I thought does global citizen mean someone who uses information and knowledge to grasp resources from another continent like receiving live updates on news, finance or even social life with Facebook. An interaction between yourself and the world beyond at this time, at this very minute is what we connect to the world via superior technology - which is the internet.
Overall, the concept of 'global citizenship' is somewhat interesting but has no specific meaning. How can one person be a global citizen with two or more certificates of citizenship be the same as a person who has a wide range of connections from all over the world just by logging onto the internet?
A movement of culture, politics, technologies, resources through trade and foreign agreements establishes that concept of interaction between the world and oneself also known as globalisaiton. I believe that my everyday interaction with people around the world or cultural upbringing that starts from my home makes me a global citizen.
Is it an individual who has a certificate stating that they are a citizen of a country, a nation or a community?
Is it a valid ticket or passport to other countries where one dwells into cultures and cities that are significantly different from others?
Week 1 lecture starts off with the Introduction of Global Citizenship. A forum where students gather to express their ideas and interpretations of the course. My position as a student of this course was to explore the related readings posted on Moodle and on other sources such as the internet to gather ideas on my perspective as a global citizen. I personally thought about the definitions of Global Citizenship. How can I be a Global Citizen? Does it mean that I could hold two different national Citizenship certificates and state that I am a global citizen? Questions running through my head led me to search answers and other interpretations of global citizenship.
As I was reading Nationalism and Global Citizenship by April Carter, what fascinates me in her perspectives in global citizenship extends towards global economic integration (which I think she meant was globalisation) based on environmental interdependence and creating or modernising the global communications through our technology and transportation. From the reading, I see that there is a difference in between nationalism and being a global citizenship. Nationalism from my own ideas and knowledge would be an individual who is proud to be a country's citizen. More or less, someone who is proud to be that nationality - whether it being Greek, Ethiopian, Chinese, Lebanese, British and so on. A person who will defend its country through joining alliances such as defense or merely civil activists. In that sense, this is what April Carter is trying to persuade us thinking that nationalism is constituted by common remembrance of glorious past by common will to live together with shared language, culture and adapting to the common descent. I agree with the author's words and try to imagine as a patriotic character whom loved his/her country like world leaders.
On the other hand, global citizenship in my understanding is someone who would have traveled the world or hold a certificate of citizenship in two or more countries. Thus being said, I feel that I am too as I hold a Hong Kong residency and an Australian residency. Not only that piece of paper who stamps the validity of two different citizenship portrays the meaning of 'global citizenship' but in more general sense, I believe that to be one is to engage with other cultures and beliefs. Further reading into the Nationalism and Global Citizenship article, the key word 'cosmopolitan' pops up in every paragraph. At first, I thought of the alcoholic drink in a martini glass with a green olive sitting on the bottom. I was confused what the word meant because I have not heard of the word cosmopolitan in terms of global citizenship. As April Carter describes the cosmopolitan values of citizens. Cosmopolis (from the word cosmopolitan) is defined as a city of world, and of the individual who is a citizen of world or Google dictionary describes a city inhabitant of different nationalities. Furthermore, the author writes that a global citizenship is a promotion of trade in resources, economy and support of green movements as well as peace campaigns. This definition made me think about globalisation.
Globalisation is a strong movement of people, technology, economy and resources. I can see that there is a huge impact of globalisation affecting my daily life- whether it be carbon tax schemes or hanging out at a local Chinese suburban area. With rapid growth of technology, the world's knowledge is being more and more integrated with more advanced technology - especially in health, multinational corporations and communications. I pondered on the meaning of globalisation and how this can be related to the meaning of global citizen. I thought does global citizen mean someone who uses information and knowledge to grasp resources from another continent like receiving live updates on news, finance or even social life with Facebook. An interaction between yourself and the world beyond at this time, at this very minute is what we connect to the world via superior technology - which is the internet.
Overall, the concept of 'global citizenship' is somewhat interesting but has no specific meaning. How can one person be a global citizen with two or more certificates of citizenship be the same as a person who has a wide range of connections from all over the world just by logging onto the internet?
A movement of culture, politics, technologies, resources through trade and foreign agreements establishes that concept of interaction between the world and oneself also known as globalisaiton. I believe that my everyday interaction with people around the world or cultural upbringing that starts from my home makes me a global citizen.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)