Globalization Profoundly Alters Relationship Global North South

¶ … Globalization profoundly alters relationship global North South

The international exchange and integration of economies, societies, cultures, and governing policies play host to the worldwide phenomenon known as globalization. Countries interact through transportation, trade, and communication; inherently influencing the respective realms of economy and political agenda. Traditionally, globalization is highlighted by this integration of economic and political systems across the globe, however this exchange transcends into societies, ethics, cultures, industry, ecological effects, and a myriad of other global influences. Globalization is a process perceived as "good" or "bad" depending on geography, profession, and how one relates globalization in terms of values (Rothernberg 2002). A person in Los Angeles, London, Rio de Janeiro, and Hong Kong would identify differently with the concept of globalization, just as opinions vary between business leaders, elected officials, and the unemployed. Some understand globalization to be the Americanization of world culture and a source of United States dominance. Others believe it is a source of prosperity, economic growth, and democracy; some believe globalization to be a lead contributor in the exploitation of the developing world, environmental devastation, and the suppression of human rights (Rothernberg 2002).

Despite the multitude of views on globalization, professionals agree the impacts, whether negative or positive, are profound and evident. The impacts of globalization can be exemplified by examination of the global North-South divide. This division is the social, economic, and political separation that exists between developed, wealthy countries known as the North, and developing, poorer countries - the South (Pieterse 2000). Coincidentally, most Northern countries are located in the Northern Hemisphere, however the distinction is independent of geography and is anchored on economic development. The North-South model allows for some transition in the definition -- as a country becomes more economically advanced they may be regarded as a Northern country. This divide between North and South is not considered a healthy categorization, but as a social and economical gap between these countries. The wedge between developed and least developed nations is catalyzed by globalization, and many deem globalization as a major force for global inequality (Avi-Yonah 2005).

The globalization enhanced division of the North and South perpetuates unequal relationships between countries, requiring economies and societies to rapidly acclimate to changes in global markets. The adaptation to growing economies does not occur in a balanced and equal measure, which only widens the gap between the rich and the poor. Three broad interactions that are accelerated and intensified by globalization are social, political, and economical. The social impacts affect culture, language, information transferal, technology, and religion. Political authority sways legal and ethical perceptions. Within the confines of economics, globalization influences financial, industrial, and job markets. In addition to the exchange of social, political, and economical constructs, three tensions of globalization have been identified. These tensions are defined as: individual choice vs. societal choice; the free market vs. government intervention; local authority vs. supra-local authority (Rothernberg 2002, p. 2).

Acknowledging the existing tensions is critical to understanding the reaches of globalization and its inferences into the North-South division. One of the most notable and quantifiable paradigms is the economical distance between wealthy North countries and less-developed South countries. As economies progress and less-developed nations struggle to keep-up, the infrastructure of South nations are manipulated to the point of being dependent on wealthy countries for survival. The removal of dependence gives rise to Liberalization -- releasing these countries from North assistance by the removal of government interference in financial markets. In addition to liberalization, some professionals indicate the North-South divide is diminishing (Arrighi 2003). Even with the professional support indicating blurred lines between North and South countries, globalization and the effects on economical polarization are still apparent and present in the twenty-first century. The negative implications are particularly evident in the global South as Northern practices dominate political-economic markets.

There is no precise definition for globalization, but in the simplest terms it is regarded as the intensified flow of trade, culture, investments, and governments between countries. Globalization is considered the buzzword, marked by media outlets, where perceptions vary from country to country, region to region, and person to person ('Ten Basic Questions' 2005). In the constructs of society, globalization impacts culture, language, information transferal, technology, and religion. The core of each of these elements is the projection of stereotypes, perspectives, and discrepancies between world portrayals vs. experiences. In the North, studying social sciences is a legitimate focus to understanding the collective human experience, however these studies typically depict a narrow Northern view (Pieterse 2000). In the South, attempts of understanding Northern views are made outside the full scope of historical context and cultural differences. Northern sociology scholars engage with mystical traditions from the East to gauge discrepancies without full understanding of actual disparities in philosophy. Meanwhile, Southern scholars adhere to European Enlightenment principles to rationalize modern perceptions. This cycle of using outdated ideologies to justify global experiences extends the social gap, and creates further distinction between North-South views on globalization (Pieterse 2000).

The multidimensional perspective from North and South countries further diversifies social geography. Attitudes and points-of-view change not only from pole to pole, but vary between countries, regions, and territories. For example, views and practices regarding information and technology are uninhibited by some nations, and manipulated by others. Since satellite broadcasting was established in the 1980s, and the international flourishing of the Internet during the mid-1990s, these technologies allowed for information to travel the world quickly, in abundance, and at a cost efficient rate (Therborn 2000). In the United States and other capitalist nations comprising most of the North, access to information and technology is unrestrained. The majority of these populations can retrieve unlimited information at their fingertips. In hostile governments, communist nations, and lesser-developed countries composing most of the South have unstable access to information and technology. This unreliable information portal ranges from censorship of websites and news outlets, limitation to local access information, to zero access to information or technology. This manipulation, or complete lack, of information isolates Southern nations. Forcing people to operate in the absence of global information or make opinions founded on biased opinion is not conducive to informed societies or bridging the gap between North and South perspectives.

Another social construct fueled by globalization is the Americanization of world cultures. This concept first extended into language culture after the First World War during the Versailles Conference and English was added as a language of international diplomacy (Therborn 2000). The global extension of English continued through the Second World War, the Cold War, and is now regarded as a dominate language in international relations. Americanization presents globalization as a process promoted by American consumer culture that dominates other cultures (Rothenberg 2002). Some would spin this Americanization as encouragement of cross-culture impact, indicating how cultures interact and learn from each other; however the idea of Americanization ultimately ignores global contributions made by other cultures.

In addition to the globalization of societal attitudes, the political arena also affects and contours to different values between the North-South divide. Government institutions play their role on local, state, federal, and international levels. The politics of some countries enforce censorship, strict travel and immigration restrictions, and filter information provided to their citizens. Some governments exude opposing views stemming from their society's values. Some adhere to the democratic process; some to communism, dictatorships, socialism and some are unstable to the point of collapsing. There are also international organizations and unions that attempt to provide further oversight and implement additional rules (Escobar 2004). Each force and contributing government carries their own sense of doctrine, values, and understandings; culminating into an intense environment where it is impossible to please everyone. Some demands are made, others are not, and some appear to make government manipulations to fill a political agenda.

In terms of policy, the North-South divide creates a situation where strong opinions are met and few are realized. There are governments that operate close to a religious doctrine and set of values, while others encourage religious liberty. Regional governments are expected to operate with national governments, and then abide to international organizations and understandings. Each tier of government can not only create further disconnect within their own country between policy and the people, but this disconnect carries into the global scheme (Rothenberg 2002). The divide between the North and South inevitably speaks different political languages with their own set of values; inhibiting progress and increasing polarity.

Tying close to the political helm, globalization marks its effects on economy; significantly between developed and lesser developed nations, extending its reach into financial, industrial, and job markets. Worldwide financial markets emerge with the trillions of dollars traded in national currencies daily to support international investment levels. Some countries regard capitalist views as the economic standard while others hold a socialist ideal. The variance in these values causes different views on trade and commerce. This influences treaties, imports and exports, supply and demand. Each country defines their values and each perspective is expected to operate in the global economy.

As previously mentioned, globalization is defined in multiple ways depending on culture, geography, society, and other points-of-view. In these shifting definitions, however, three tensions of globalization have been identified. Laurence Rothenberg, producer for globalization101.org, indicates the three tensions of globalization as: individual choice vs. societal choice; the free market vs. government intervention; local authority vs. supra-local authority (2002). The first tension between individual choice and societal choice is the conflict that arises when the desires of an individual person clash with what society deems as acceptable. An individual may exercise their right to pick their own lifestyle, or to buy a product, or have their own way of thinking, which can differ from what their society values for its citizens. This tension holds true in the discussion of globalization as Americanization. Some countries, such as France, object to the spreading of American culture, especially in the popular form of film and television. France has gone to the extent to form laws about the restriction of non-European content on French television and radio stations (Rothenberg 2002). An individual may very well like an American film or television show, simply because it satisfies a personal interest, but are at a loss when considering their society's values.

The globalization tension is born from a society's values, for example the French society, opposing the individual's personal preference. This tension raises the concern: when does a society have the right to override an individual's freedom of choice? In this scenario, the answer is a matter of perspective and values. There are people that hold societal choices above individual choices. Others believe that people and society have a right to preserve local culture, tradition, and heritage for future generations, and that right supersedes an individual's short-term choice (Rothenberg 2002). This conflict is bound to globalization as it struggles to find the compromise between free choice and societal priorities.

The second tension of globalization outlined by Rothenberg is between free market and government intervention (2002). The free market is a collection of individual choices, determining what goods are produced, how money is invested, and how choices are made to satisfy consumer demand. Government intervention is understood as a representation of society as a whole, and its intention is to implement choices based on societal values and practicality. The free market also plays a significant part in reacting to changes in the economy such as responding to supply and demand, investment decline, or damaging environmental conditions that require the change of supply of money or products.

The conflict between free market and government intervention is exemplified by Rothenberg by dissecting the HIV / AIDS epidemic. In this case, the free market fails to provide affordable drugs to poorer countries crippled under the weight of HIV / AIDS. In Europe and the United States, HIV / AIDS drugs are available and allow for those infected to live productive lives for around $10,000 per year. This is not an impossible sum in the developed world, but is far out of reach for those infected living in Africa and the rest of the developing world. The free market has not made these drugs affordable for the developing world, and meanwhile, governments are approached by international non-government organizations endorsing public health. During a World Trade Organization meeting in 2001, these organizations pleaded for governments to allow poor countries to make generic copies of drugs to serve this population. Here rises the tension, as the government intervention allowed the intellectual property owned by these U.S. And European companies to be accessed, the companies experienced concern this would result in a loss of revenue and they would not be able to recoup the costs of developing the drugs in the first place (Rothenberg 2002). The bottom line for any company is to make a profit, but in this case, people in Africa are still dying. It is a clash of values and ethics. International markets must find the balance to promote a free market system in order to reward new drug development and innovation, while ensuring those of lesser means are not ignored.

The third tension of globalization explained by Rothenberg exists between local authority and extra-local authority. This distinction is made between decisions made at the level most close to the individual citizens and decisions made at higher levels of authority distant from the people they may affect (Rothenberg 2002). For example, Americans view the federal government as an entity unfamiliar and detached from the daily problems and concerns of the people and special interests. In comparison, citizens feel local and state governments to be better equipped and trusted to troubleshoot everyday issues. The same sentiments are projected onto the global stage. Many feel that international organizations outside of their own country's democratic control are making global decisions without contribution from the people who are most impacted by them. These feelings are reflected in North-South attitudes as organizations such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank are viewed by Latin America and Asia as the enforcement of American-style economic policy on societies that hold separate economic values other than individualized capitalism (Rothenberg 2002).

The instance highlighted by Rothenberg to illustrate the third tension surrounds a dispute resolution panel of the World Trade Organization that declared an American law banning the import of shrimp caught with nets that killed endangered sea turtles violated world trade rules (2002). This caused people to question why a group of judges in Geneva were empowered to force the United States to change the law. Again the distinction is unclear and the globalization tension remains as the legitimacy of democratic legislation is questioned, and the remaining need to enforce international law by parties removed from the lives and values they influence.

In the wake of these tensions and the oppositions between individuals and societies, free market and government intervention, and local vs. extra-local authority, there are economic professionals who support that globalization has the potential to diminish. Some will argue globalization is currently on the decline. Jan Pieterse explains the tide has turned in the twenty-first century, changing the understanding of capitalism lead by the American financial crisis. The dotcom collapse, the September 11 attacks, and the subprime mortgage crisis have all played a part in the United States financial stage (2009). The market has not proven to be self-healing, and the assumed benefactors of globalization are now relying on Asian funds and oil exporters in the Gulf to maintain some allusion of stability.

Close observers of globalization indicate the power to decrease this global North-South globalization phenomenon resides in the process of liberalization. Joseph Stiglitz defines liberalization as the removal of government interference in financial markets, capital markets, and of barriers of trade (2003). The full extent of which can be detrimental to a small emerging country, however one aspect, trade liberalization, does have widespread support among trade powerhouses. This concept of free trade without interference from governments or international organizations would allow for companies to operate under true supply and demand without interjections from political agenda. In theory, trade liberalization would hinder many negative connotations currently associated with globalization. In practice, trade liberalization would eliminate jobs and industries would collapse under the pressure from international competition (Stiglitz 2003).