The era of
Globalization has brought about dramatic changes in the world, and will
continue to do so into the foreseeable future.
Countries like China and Brazil have emerged as global powerhouses as a
result of a growing interconnectedness between nations. As Foer notes in his theory of Globalization
titled How Soccer Explains the World,
Globalization is perhaps being grossly overstated as a cure for global economic
and societal ills. Arguably,
Globalization has not only failed to address these ills but has also added to
them through the creation of large, multinational corporate oligarchs. These oligarchs only serve to increase the gap between the "big guy" and the "little guy", further adding to economic ills such as income inequality and poverty.
Globalization is the growing
interconnectedness of nations throughout the world economically, socially,
politically, culturally, and so on. On
the surface, this seems great – as a citizen of the United States, I love being
able to buy goods from places other than the United States. However, upon closer inspection, it becomes
clear that this trade relationship is anything but fair and just. The US-Peru Free Trade Agreement is a prime
example of this. After its passage in
2006, indigenous groups and their rights have constantly been trampled over (literally, at
times) in order to make way for multinational corporations that wish to begin
extracting natural resources from Peru.
Now that barriers to trade have been all but eliminated between the US
and Peru, Peruvian oil, lumber, and other natural resources are the target of US
firms. In an article for The Hill, Jose
De Echave notes that after the passage of the US-Peru FTA, “the FTA’s investor
privileges allowed a US firm to pressure the Peruvian government to reopen a
smelter that had severely lead-poisoned several hundreds of children” (De
Echave). Free Trade Agreements cater to
the outside investor by lowering barriers to trade. However, once these barriers are lowered, it
is only the corporations and outside investors who prosper. The proverbial “little guys” are marginalized
and exploited because multinational corporate oligarchs become the sole
providers of employment in a given area, strangling the local economy and
syphoning power, money, and energy from local communities.
The same thing can be seen in
soccer, as Foer notes. In his
introduction, Foer argues that Globalization has lead to “rise of powerful new
oligarchs like Silvio Berlusconi, the President of Italy and the AC Milan club”
(Foer, 5). These oligarchs, much like
their real-world counterparts, suck valuable resources from less-powerful
entities. Foer points to examples seen
in the Ukraine after the fall of communism there, when “men who had seamlessly
transitioned to Capitalism from their slots in the bureaucracy turn[ed] their
insider ties into new wealth” (Foer, 142).
These men could then purchase the soccer clubs that were once
state-owned even though they had zero wherewithal in terms of the sport of
soccer. They then began to realize that
other soccer clubs in Europe had more “black faces” than those in the
Ukraine. So, they turned to Nigeria – in
terms of continuing the metaphor, Nigeria is Peru and their soccer players are
Peru’s natural resources. The Ukrainian
owners purchased Nigerian soccer players in order to boost their team’s chances
of winning and had done so by “following the rules of globalization to
perfection...the Ukrainians had tapped the global market and come back with a
bargain” (144). They successfully exploited a less powerful entity (Nigeria) for a resource (fast soccer players), which can be seen as one of globalization's most adverse effects in situations across the world.
Sources:
De Echave, Jose. "Peru's 'Bagua Massacre' Haunts the TPP." The
Hill. Web. <http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/208892-perus-bagua- massacre-haunts-the-tpp>.
Foer, Franklin. How
Soccer Explains the World: An Unlikely Theory of Globalization. New York: HarperCollins, 2004. Print.
I agree with your view on the polarization created by globalization, as it is the same view I have taken in my post. It is important to recognize that in the grand scheme of things, globalization looks like a winning situation for all. However, closer examination reveals a greater separation of power that is hurting the "little guys". I think that countries should understand the effects globalization is having and find some way to compensate these smaller countries.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with your argument, and I believe you are correct about the implications of globalization. I personally wonder whether it is possible or not to prevent (or at least mitigate) the negative aspects of a globalized society. As you noted, globalization does have many benefits that come with it, so I think it would be both unfortunate and impossible to combat globalization in its entirety. Do you believe that things like protectionism and other safeguards can help protect the "little guy"? Or do you think there is really nothing that can be done to stop this consequence?
ReplyDeleteI think you made an interesting argument that can easily apply to Snow Crash.You could argue that there are no "little guys" left in the days of future corporate America. There are no mom and pop homemade pizza places, only the mafia-run CosaNostra. The one thing I questioned was your soccer analogy. In many ways, the opportunity to participate in larger, more prominent leagues could benefit Nigerian players. They receive more global exposure and enter a stronger job market. This may in turn inspire more Nigerian players and improve the state of African soccer as a whole.
ReplyDeleteThis is a great analogy but unfortunately exploiting the little guy isn't rare that doesn't make it right. This is another example of trying to weaken your competition in this case another state to at least delay the opponents progress.
ReplyDelete