A Study of Globalisation Essay

Executive SummaryThis paper attempts to make sense of globalization from a societal and ancestry perspective. Initi completelyy I will c both down briefly rough globalisation inside our community and the assorted hurt billets those communities and individuals turn in taken for and against globalisation. I will then talking to the highest degree the transnational companies that swallow made the phenomenon of globalisation possible and these companies various impacts on societies and local communities around the earthly concern. The topic is further analysed by using transnational solid intellectual nourishment retail companies in Latin the States as a case study. Displayed to the reader through this case will be a clear indication of how local communities and in particular their grangers argon modify by globalisation and multinational companies.There argon fine-army different views on globalisation and those against it oppose many different aspects of it. One of the innumerous actors why in that respect atomic number 18 anti-globalisation activists is due to the following Multinational nutriment retailing companies, the backb unrivalled of what is k immediatelyn as globalisation indoors the supermarket industry, sop up in many cases entered small country communities around the globe and ruined a way of disembodied spirit for many of the farmers and labourers around them. Within Latin the States these farmers have been durabilityd to flee their homes to find refuge at bottom the slums of the urban sprawls deep down their cities or even to cross telephones into the USA.Introduction to globalisationDefinitionglobalization bear be defined as the intensification of ecumenic social relations which link distant localities in such a way that local happenings atomic number 18 shaped by events occurring many miles forward and vice versa (Giddens 1990). It has withal been described as process which embodies a transubstantiation in the spatial organisation of social relations and transactions assessed in terms of their extensity, intensity, velo urban center and impact generating transcontinental or inter-regional devolves and net take shapes of activity. (Held, et al 1999)In relation to Latin America (the major area of parole of this paper) globalisation rotter be defined as a enforce or system that has affected several of the continents most persistent difficultys. practically(prenominal) problems would be the diverse extent of scotch exploitation and social variation that has branded Latin America ever since its European colonization in the sixteenth centimeury. (Harris & Halebsky 1995)Pro-globalisationFree good deal fosters prosperity and has an extremely burning(prenominal) characteristic that affects our way of life. This characteristic is actually its tendency to be able-bodied to prevent war. Extensive research has shown that take promotes peace twain directly, by reducing the dange r of military divergence, and indirectly, by promoting prosperity and republic (Weede 2004).Globalisation and free trade in the 20th century and beyond can be compared with the 19th blow expansion of empires ( alike the British Empire). These empires create an infrastructure in evolution countries railways, ports and beautifully constructed colonial buildings were just whatever of the benefits these developing countries could take advantage of. Even though these commodities werent make for the benefit of the developing country (they were built for British trade) they still in conclusion ontogenyd these countries abilities to trade and to become technologically independent.In the 20th Century infrastructure, technology, health and education systems implemented by the world powers, in developing and true countries, has im turn up the all overall quality of life for plenty worldwide, this does non include Africa. The average GDP for all countries except Africa has g peerles s up nevertheless the downside is the difference in the midst of the rich and suffering countries has also increased. The reason for this is that the countries introducing themselves to the developing countries are actually gaining a much more momentous benefit.Anti-globalisationThis term is more commonly attri barelyed to the political standpoint of certain population, groups and organisations that are in opposition to certain facets of globalisation. Those in resistance lots oppose large multi-national telephoners dominance of global trade agreements and trade-governing bodies like WTO (the World Trade Organisation) (Graeber 2002).Otherwise known as a social scratchment, anti-globalisation represents its participants in their opposition to large corporations who endeavour to attain and have attain political power. Political power can be direct into heart and soul via international trade agreements, anti globalisation activists scrutinize these agreements, stating that t hey quite often undermine the environment, labour rights, national sovereignty, the third world, and other various aspects of our normal continues as human beings (Graeber 2002).It is common know conductge that globalisation and free trade can affect developing countries negatively, however, the worlds most certain countries and the people who live indoors them are also affected negatively. Globalisation forces job opportunities from these developed countries to other countries around the world and low skilled workers in developed countries lose their jobs. This increases the difference between the rich populace and poorer populace in that country. The following quote, from the join Nations, backs this statement up and shows us why on that point are anti-globalisation activists. The richest fifth of the world have 80% of the worlds income and the poorest fifth have 1% this gap has three-fold between 1960 and 2000 ( united Nations 1999) largely due to the impacts of globalisa tion.As displayed above, multi-national corporations play a substantial role within the theory and practice of globalisation, these corporations are powerful by nature and before bulky account for over 33 per cent of world come output, and 66 per cent of world trade (Gray 1999). These organisations even though considered to be global companies are still intemperately nationally embedded in terms of their business activity (Hirst and Thompson 1996). Despite this multinational corporations still have considerable economic and cultural power. The next section of this paper will talk about these companies, their branding and how they affect communities around the world.Globalisation & Multinational Companies Social encroachment(How do they impact our local communities?) deformityingThe main driving force for the growth of multi-national companies and the globalisation of their impact is in their brand (Klein 2001). In the mid-1980s a management theorists came up with a seemingly ha rmless idea that fortunate corporations must primarily produce brands, as opposed to proceedss. This idea led to the exorbitant expansion of riches and cultural influence we see in multinational companies today and over the ult fifteen years (Klein 2001). Brand builders are the juvenile primary producers in our so-called knowledge parsimoniousness (Klein 2001).Modern multinational companies have utilize a strait to the point yet brutally honest approach to branding over the past fifteen years. This approach is that companies should non disburse their limited superior on factories that will overtop physical maintenance, on equipment that will decay or on workers who will undoubtedly age and perish. As an alternative, they should focus that capital in the processes used to build their brands (Smith & Smith 2002).MultinationalsMultinational corporations are in actuality weak and vague organisations that generally display the corrosion of e trulyday determine that afflict prac tically all late contemporary social institutions (Gray 1999). versatile communities around the world are impacted and exploited by these multinational companies. They continually create or contract business in countries where they can profit from cheaper wages and assets. As discussed earlier this can mean added wealth and infrastructure for that community. However, it quite often means increased levels of unemployment in the city/country where the industry was located beforehand. Not to mention that the wages payed and work environment in the communities where the operations are implemented are commonly relatively poor (Smith & Smith 2002). Below are a a few(prenominal) exemplars that articulate this function perfectly* The numbers of people living on less than $2 per day has risen by near 50% since 1980, to 2.8 billion-almost half the worlds population. And this is just now the period that has been most heavily liberalized (World Bank 2000).* The worlds poorest countries share of world trade has exasperated by more than 40 per cent since 1980 to a mere 0.4 per cent (UNCTAD 1999). This has been precisely the period in which the majority of multinational companies have grown exponentially, and is simply a large factor resulting from their growth.Multinationals apart from affecting whole economic systems of countries and communities also attempt to create new markets within these communities. They search for new markets which have not yet been exploited in order to increase sales it is typically carried out by creating new desires among cross groups. The easiest target market for multinational companies to create new desires for is the child and youth market. Prized not only for the influence they have over adult spending hardly also for their own escalating spending power, the youth of today are one of the most profitable and influential markets (Kenway and Bullen 2001).Despite all this negative publicize about multinational companies they have p layed a very substantial role in the growth of globalisation. Around the world individuals and communities are tie in much closer to each other and information and gold flow quicker than ever before. Globalisation and its creation of multinationals has resulted in qualification goods and services in one part of the world increasingly usable in all parts of the world. International travel and communication is also much more frequent. In all globalisation has made life easier for those who can actually afford the luxuries of travel and international business. (Sourcewatch 2006).The Food kitchen browse Survival of the BiggestA case study of Latin America and the foul effects globalisation and multinational food retail companies have had on its local farmers.Commodity prices have fallen dramatically, by close to two thirds over the past 30 years, so that farmers have had to triplet wareion just to maintain their incomes. One example among many in just the last three years, Tan zanian farmers experienced a dec bourn of 50% in the price of coffee. (OXFAM 2001)While farmers earn less, consumers have been paying(a) more. (ONeill 2001)Although, according to the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organisation, Latin America produces four propagation the nub of food contained to feed the population, 58 million people are still malnourished.IntroductionDuring the 1980s a transformation within Latin America began this transformation was one that would shape the future of farmers all over the continent for decades to come. For some it would be a positive change, however a large majority found it to be the opposite. The transformation I talk about is opening up of trade barriers within Latin America in order to allow food retailing companies admission to the regions un-commercialised and fertile lands.During the 1990s the revolution in food retailing within Latin America accelerated extraordinarily as countries unbolted their economies to subject conditions for financin g from the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. As Latin Americas overall FDI significantly increased multinational food retailers bought out local durance and entered joint ventures with the obstinate ones. The greatest fears for farmers in the region were realised when the multinational companies introduced unf argument trade rivalry from American and European growers with weighted financial backing. lowly farmers are constantly left field to compete with the biggest world players as these food retailing chains (products of globalisation) move from large cities to littler towns and from economically sound countries to ones still developing their economic and social systems (Dugger 2004). These chains are now the prevailing force in the trade of processed foods and theyre produce sales are developing to a similar reputation.When global food retail companies dominate a market, at that place are scenarios whereby it can be seen to be advantageous for all the citizens w ithin that community. Such a scenario would be when the economy, of the region being taken over, is growing energetically and spawning decent jobs for globalisations losers, because in spite of everything the chains are creating cheaper, cleaner and safer shopping environments for these societies.Samuel Morley, a visiting research fellow at the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), has written extensively on inequality and labour economics in Latin America, he stated that It would be an appealing transformation of the sector if alternative jobs could be made available, however these scenarios never seem to materialise in Latin America and other developing countries/continents around the world as they do not have economies of great strength. As Latin Americas population grows its economic situation trails further and further behind. In Latin America, 220 million of the total regional population of 500 million people are poor.The case study that I will shortly talk abo ut outlines just how bad the situation in Guatemala is, Guatemala is actually one of Latin Americas better off regions, with supermarkets controlling 10-15% of mart sales. Therefore the case gives you an indication of what the more unfortunate farming communities, in Latin America, must have to endure. For example in Argentina supermarket chains control 30% of this industry and in Brazil 50% (Dugger 2004). artless markets shrink throughout the continent, even though the victims of globalisation are pushed to trade within them, these rural markets are slowly but surely wooly-minded in the b overleap holes that we call multinational companies.Within a whiz decade Latin Americas farming communities have been change by food retail giants such as Ahold and Walmart. These multinational goliaths have transfigured food statistical distribution by offering low prices, a range of choices and convenience they are now also changing the face of food growing (Dugger 2004). This could seem po sitive to some, however it is far from that there are thousands of Latin American farming communities who have been devastated by the unforseen and overwhelming challenges that these companies start out (Dugger 2004). The major visible impact that these changes have had within the farming communities over the past decade is the great increase in the number of, now penniless, farming migrants entering the urban slums of their own countries and crossing the American border to seek refuge from their new corporately governed country side.Guatemalas Local Farmers raise (Case)Within the serene confines of the extraordinarily fertile and incredibly poor Guatemala, supermarket giants have crushed farmers to the point where they are no longer able to maintain operations within the land they once called home. Guatemala was once, not long ago, a place where people swapped produce for service and service for produce, money was required to bear theyre everyday living, however, life was effort less and simple-minded up until the multinational giants arrived on Latin American shores.Guatemalan man Mario chinchilla would inspect his field of sickly tomatoes on a unremarkable basis he would labour all day trying to beseeming the requirements of the new supermarkets which had opened up in town, however no amount of labour could possibly turn his crop into the stout, flawless product that Guatemalas leading supermarket chain offered to its customers (Dugger 2004). A better product at a cheaper price, it seems good all round doesnt it, but at the end of the day it has ruined many people lives. The chain I talk about is a giant Dutch multinational company named Ahold (Worlds 3rd largest retailer). The Chain is so large it includes names such as Bi-Lo and Stop & Shop under its assets.For some time Mario headed a farmers cooperative that was managing to bewray produce to the chain however this proved to be an ephemeral opportunity whereby the multinational chain ran away with the locals hopes and dreams, exit them to sit in their unsold crops of rotting vegetables. The reason for this was because the multinational retailers require farmers who encompass the proficiency and capital to invest in modern farming technologies such as greenhouses, drip irrigation and pest control (Dugger 2004). They wanted consonant supply without ups and downs, said Mr Chinchilla. We didnt have the capacity to do it (Dugger 2004).Inequality, ascension and violent repression within Latin America has been a recurring problem for many decades, during the 1990s there was already a gap between rich and poor and the supermarket chains have simply added to this gap. This time Latin America has tried a different (non-violent) approach. In order to meshing for their right to live comfortably in their homeland farmers joined forces there are rare success stories, however many (like Mario Chinchilla and his Co-op) have suffered a more common fate. In Guatemala there is a exact farm ing community named Lo de Silva more than 300 farmers who originally belonged to Mr. Chinchillas co-op, the Association of teentsy Irrigation Users of Palencia, were from this village (Dugger 2004). Out of those 300 farmers there are only 8 still enduring the torment that globalisation has brought them.These remaining farmers arent even able to sell to the supermarkets they sell their product to middle men for severely discounted prices to top this off the only product the middlemen will accept from them is salad tomatoes. Mr. Chinchillas case is an ideal example that demonstrates how the opportunity of success for small farmers is a remote prospect to most. Small farmers are simply getting left behind due to their lack of market pull and marketing/operational techniques (Dugger 2004). A survival of the biggest situation has been created only the big can serve the big the small need not apply, as global companies wipe out local distinctions in establishing a level economic playing field. (Hannaford 2006).During the 1990s food retail conglomerates went from controlling between 10 and 20 percent of the Latin American market to totally dominating it (Economist.com 1997). During this period, in Guatemala specifically, the quantity of supermarkets has more than doubled as their share of food retailed has reached 35 percent. The smaller shops and open air markets still remain and retail a great deal of fruits and vegetables in Guatemala. For customers to intrust these historically enriched and characterised markets and enter the newly opened supermarkets in the region, is to leave behind Guatemala and enter a commercialised shopping centre that could lodge in in Hong Kong or London, with its marked down jumbo packages and regular fruits in plastic trays. None of this, however, matters unless the bottom line is understood.The bottom line is that the rules of the World Trade Organisation are actually taking trice place in importance to the privately set standard s of the food retail giants. Also pressures from the I.M.F. and the World Bank to allow greater foreign enthronement into Latin America were proposed to formulate more competitive economies for them however it is diaphanous that this model didnt have a community element at its centre.Hardships have come from not only what I described previously (the fact that the farmers must sell theyre produce at much cheaper prices, better quality and in a more convenient matter) but also from the fact that that they are now competing with the rest of Latin America, the United States and even the world because trade borders have been opened to allow almost anyone import and export capabilities. Rigid opposition from internationally renound growers is now a reality for Central and Latin American farmers at a distribution centre, for a subsidiary company of Ahold in Guatemala City, shipments of apples from Washington, pineapples from Chile, potatoes from Idaho and avocados from Mexico are brough t in (Hannaford 2006). refinementGlobalisation has positive and negative affects on our society. This paper has outlined in great detail the negative affects of globalisation and multinational food retailing companies on Latin Americas and the worlds small farmers. The reason for this is due to the fact that there were only on occasion, very rare and unusual success stories to be found about smaller farmers succeeding in their sales to companies such as Ahold and Walmart, within Latin America. After researching farming communities around the globe, it can be deduced that Latin America is not alone in this battle to produce food and sell it at competitive prices, while still maintaining some sort of pregnant social existence. Asian, African and Indian farmers have been heavily exploited. Even farmers within more developed countries such as Australia have had to sell their products at severely discounted prices in order to satisfy multinational company standards.Farmers world wide, a re however, not alone. Traditional strategies of help oneself to farmers that feel the hardships of globalisation, such as providing fertilizers and improved seeds, are no longer enough to enable them to sustain their businesses.Professors and agronomists are banding together to document trends and develop new methods of help that will allow the fleeing farmers of Latin America, Africa and Asia to compete with others in selling products to the multinationals. In the midst of the these methods a few techniques stand out, such as regulations put upon the multinationals that require farmers be paid promptly, laws that restrain these companies from dominating entire markets (such as mergers of supermarket chains) and enhanced hygiene and convenience through technology at open air markets.After reading this paper I hope you too can conclude it is important that societies living within the limitations of this amazing world are given the run into to experience lifes pleasures and break o ut of the chain of inevitable failures that multinational corporations have brought to them. Being given the chance to make an honest and fair living, is only basic compassion and tenderness two marvellous characterises that any individual can encompass. If multinational food retail companies and global companies in general were able to, in some way, display this, then Anti-Globalisation would be a much less used expression.References* Dugger, C. W., (2004) Foreign Desk Late Edition Final, Section A, Page 1, Column 1, rude(a) York Times December 28, Tuesday. (http//www.nytimes.com)* Economist.com, (1997) Survey Business In Latin America Back on the pitch, The Economist print edition.* Giddens, A., (1990) Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge Polity Press.* Graeber, D., (2002) New left hand Review 13, January-February issue, The New Anarchist.* Gray, J., (1999) False Dawn. The delusions of global capitalism, London Granta. 262 pages.* Hannaford, S., (Last updated 2006) Small far mers versus oligopolies No contest, (http//www.oligopolywatch.com).* Harris, R. L., Halebsky, S., (1995) Capital, Power, and Inequality in Latin America, chapter The Global Context of coetaneous Latin American Affairs, (Boulder. CO., Westview Press.)* Held, D., McGrew, A., Goldblatt, D. and Perraton, J. (1999) Global Transformations politics, economics and culture, Cambridge Polity Press.* Hirst, P. and Thompson, G., (1996) Globalisation in Question. London Polity Press.* Kenway, J. and Elizabeth Bullen, (2001) Consuming Children Entertainment, Advertising and Education, Open University Press.* Klein, N., (2001) No Logo, London Flamingo. 490 pages.* ONeill, B., (2001) Whats eating Us? OXFAM News. (http//www.oxfam.ca/news/WorldFoodDay/Whats_eating_us.htm)* OXFAM. (2001) apprise Paper No 9, November. (http//www.oxfam.org.uk/search?SearchableText=Briefing+Papers&submit.x=19&submit.y=8)* Smith, M. K. and Smith, M., (2002) globalization encyclopaedia infed. (www.infed.org/biblio/globa lization.htm)* Sourcewatch 2006 Globalisation, (Centre for Media and Democracy) http//www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Globalization).* UNCTAD. (1999) Conference on Least Developed Countries. (http//www.unctad.org/Templates/Page.asp?intItemID=3073&lang=1)* United Nations. (1999) Human Development Report.* Weede, E., (2004) The Independent Review, Volume 9, number 2, The Diffusion of successfulness and Peace by Globalisation.* World Bank. (2000) Global Economic view Report. Washington World Bank.(http//web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/DATASTATISTICS/0,,menuPK232599pagePK64133170piPK64133498theSitePK239419,00.html)