Globalization

Introduction

Globalization is advised of as outsourcing and has numerous distinct purposes, for example connection between nations, report, lower work and free trade. Globalization is often considered synonymous with prosperity and progress. However, recent developments in the world have raised serious doubts on the feasibility and logic of globalization. While many countries progress because of the globalization trends, many others suffer extreme pressures and turmoil. The mixed statements about globalization from all around the world have made it a confused and doubtful topic that needs serious discussions and debates (Juris, 2). The effects have to be analyzed before regarding it as all good. Some have termed globalization a stage of capitalism and late modernity without studying specific evidences available in its favor. In the context of globalization, the concepts of universalization, westernization, liberalization and internationalization have to be especially important.

There are many people who have come up with different definitions for globalization, yet a specific description of the real essence of globalization has still been missing. In a nutshell, “globalization is a multifaceted interface of drivers that produce assistance or argument, incorporation or degeneration, order or confusion with the evolution of technology, new concepts and philosophy surround globalization. In this paper, we are going to discuss different view points from Thomas Friedman, Amy chua views on the world on fire and idea of globalization.

Discussion

Ms Chua's argument is that countries in the developing world (with a few exceptions) are characterized by: 1) large indigenous populations that are poor and 2) market-dominant minorities. In many countries, a small subset of the population controls the vast majority of the country's wealth. This small subset - the market-dominant minority - also happens to be a distinct racial or ethnic group. Most countries in the developed world are not characterized by such a relationship - they do not have a market-dominant minority (rather they have a market-dominant majority) (Zuquete, 145). Ms Chua goes on to argue that this difference between the developing and the developed world implies that the policies that created wealth in the developed world - i.e. free markets and democracy - will not work in the developing world.

Chua's point is that there is a major tension between capitalism and democracy - especially in the multiethnic developing world. Most less-developed countries have relatively prosperous commerce-oriented minorities; Chua calls them "market-dominant minorities." The Jews in Russia, overseas Chinese in Southeast Asia, Indians in East Africa, Lebanese in West Africa, and Latin Americans of European descent all qualify. The impoverished majorities of these countries have long resented their market-dominant minorities. Given these initial conditions, both free-market reforms and democratization have negative side effects. The negative side effect of free-market reforms (Hicks, 63): The market-dominant minorities disproportionately benefit, increasing popular resentment. The negative side effect of democratization: Market-dominant minorities disproportionately suffer, because the majority finally gets a chance to legally enforce its resentment.

World on Fire is a great example of what I call "behavioral political economy." Her model of politics begins with psychologically plausible assumptions like "Unsuccessful ...