Globalization: pro or con

Globalization: An Advantage or a Disadvantage? Details: al Affiliation: Globalization: An Advantage or a Disadvantage?
A fundamental dynamic of our epoch driving the change processes of the 21st century, globalization is promoted and resisted in equal measure, with its management touted as the most satisfying and morally upright compromise (Osland, 2003). Gleaned from the perspective of the radical right in the West reaching other continents with mutually beneficial effects to the more adaptive strategies that has found favor in the mainstream politics of the Third World, the writing, which may seem obscure, is on the wall; there are more to the glamorous positives of the concept at hand. Indeed, as the confused ideals of globalization become more pronounced with opportunities that more than break into the hitherto insulated environments for certain ventures, the multifold risks in the enlarged business environment are increasingly taking ventures even closer to complete elimination, and the West too have started reaping the negatives of their brainchild.
On the very article, Osland (2003) dives deep into literature to give both sides of the debate. The protests on globalization notwithstanding, it is undeniable that every corner of the world now enjoys greater access to diverse, quality goods at considerable cheaper prices. To be sure, more than any other time in history, monopolies have become burdensome, with those holding them having a great deal to loose compared to sharing, particularly with regards to knowledge which is no longer static. Brought out more forcefully courtesy of globalization is the aspect of specialization of countries/regions, which in effect, allows economies and/or such particular regions to channel energies in sectors where they are best suited, thus, the voluminous production that keeps on check escalating prices the world over .
Ironically, a concept that the world is now fully accustomed to is threatening even the very gains made over the past decades; for as it continues to render yesterday’s strengths irrelevant, millions are being pushed to the margins of the world’s economy as stronger competitive forces from elsewhere, lifted by the same force, take their rightful place in another phase of the world’s history. In the open now is a world full of miseries right from the historical beneficiaries, who now blames the concept for shipping their jobs overseas for cheaper manpower, to the historical loosers who continue to witness massive exploitation of their resources at survival pay. Accordingly, “ the chasm between the haves and the have-nots — between the well-educated and the poorly educated, between the technologically skilled and the unskilled, and between those living in countries that compete successfully in the global economy and those who do not” has continues to widen unabated (Osland, 2003).
The ever burgeoning literature on the controversial effects of globalization underscores the status of a moral dilemma that has now catapulted to haunt its pioneers. That globalization is a force behind the world crises is rather obvious; a paradoxical force that has fallen behind its weight with a feasible threat of making everybody losers in the end. Competition, the basic premise that underlies the concept of globalization, has created an army of losers with only a bunch of winners who care less about the destitute. In the face of the race to the bottom through dubious deals that leave poor countries even more vulnerable, while creating havoc closer home, globalization as currently practiced leans more to the negative, and the sooner it managed for the comprise alluded to above, the better for world peace and/or the fate of mankind.
Reference
Osland, Joyce S. (2003). Broadening the debate: The pros and cons of globalization. Journal of
Management Inquiry, 12(2), 137-154.