The good the bad and the ugly

McDonaldisation

Where in the world is 'globalised'?

Where in the world is 'globalised'? The first countries that would jump to the mind to answer this question would perhaps be the US, the UK, Japan, France, the list could go on but the simple rule from just these examples would be that globalised countries are, by majority, westernised countires, and by the most part, countries in the northern hemisphere. But I wanted to find a pictoral view of this if there was one; a map to show the degree of globalisation, if indeed globalisation can be ranked or quantified. This indeed proved to be a little more difficult than I anticipated. Perhaps this is because so many people have a different view as to what globalisation is. However, I did find one map which fitted my pre-conceived image and serves it's purpose rather well. Upon my search I came across notes on a conference held at Michigan State University in which the keynote speaker Professor Yong Zhao presented ideas on  ‘How to enhance teaching and learning to meet the challenges of globalisation’. His definition of globalisation was related to the free flow of goods and trade as well as money and people at a global level. The map that he used manipulates the world map to show the number of PCs in use in 2004. So while the map does not exactly fit the question posed in the title of this post, I feel it illustartes rather well the assumptions made at the start of the post.


http://www.digitalgeography.co.uk/archives/2007/11/meeting-the-challenges-of-globalization-brief-conference-report/

Acculturation: a definition and it's relation to globalisation

In a previous post I came across the term 'acculturation'. In this post it's initial appearence was listed as a negative impact of globalisation. First question in investigating this statement should be "what exactly is acculturation?" Kottak (2007) describes acculturation as the process that takes place when two groups of individuals meet and exchange, and potentially alter their cultural definitions or patterns, and that these changes are likely to take place in the minority group in response to the dominating group imposing the changes. Taking this into consideration, we can understand that where globalisation takes place, groups of people may take on the cultural definitions of another group; an example based upon this may be that individuals in LEDCs where a TNC has established itself may take on the characters and cultural definitions of those indiviuals from MEDCs. On initial reaction to this, it could be agreed that acculturation is a negative impact of globalisation. Afterall, shouldn't we all be proud of our heritage and where we come from? Berry (2008) argues that globalisation may not result in a negatively imposed homogenous society. The paper continues to conclude that while a range of results may occur in response to cultural integration, from maintence of cultural identity to a complete loss of psychological  identity, the most likely outcome is social integration. So could we not argue that this is a possible positive impact of globalisation? As the world is becoming more globalised, new cultures are hopefully being embraced and individuals from both minority and dominant groups, or those from MEDCs and LEDCs, are becoming more tolerant of indviduals from the opposite group.

So, far from being black and white, the positive and negative impacts of globalisation are perhaps, at least with the example of acculturation, are a little more difficult to assign.

Economies of scale

OK, so I remembered the term economies of scale, and similarly diseconomies of scale, but the exact meaning and how it was relevant to my blogging mission was not completely clear. So step one is to remind myself of the exact meaning - what does economies of scale mean? According to investopedia.com economies of scale are achieved when 'more units of a good or a service can be produced on a larger scale, yet with (on average) less input costs'. So it makes sense that where a company (such as a TNC) has a monopoly and he ability to achieve economies of scale, there will be a negative impact upon local businesses. My mind started to wander a little and a small case study a little closer to home came together in my head. There is a little company in the UK (and now also to be found overseas) called Tesco. In recent years there has been an explosion in the number of Tesco stores in the UK, in particular Tesco Express. The arrival of these stores on what seems like every street corner has been at the expense of the traditional corner shop. And the reason? Economies of scale. Tesco can afford to produce goods at a lower cost than their competitors. However, this comes at the expense of more than the local corner shops. Farmers are suffering and are being put at the brink of bankcruptcy (http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefings/the_tesco_takeover.pdf) as costs are being lowered and lowered. The other negative impact of this process is upon the environment, as foods are flown from across the world to satisfy the demands of the buying public, increasing it's 'carbon footprint'. As well as this, TNCs such as Tesco are having an impact upon other businesses further afield as they are trying to expand the products that they offer. It has been well documented how high street chains such as HMV, Waterstones and WH Smiths are struggling in the face of competition from supermarkets and online retailers, those companies that are benefitting from economies of scale.

So while previously I have seen the benefits that globalisation can bring, the negative impacts are rather aparent, with TNCs operating with 'unfair and unethical trading practices, leav[ing] a trail of environmental and social mayhem' (http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefings/the_tesco_takeover.pdf)

Some basics...positive and negative impacts

The positive and negative impacts of globalisation on one hand are pretty black and white; the inward investment of large global companies offers a host of benefits to the area invested in. For example, a transnational corporation (TNC) such as Ford may invest in a developing country, for example a less economically developed country (LEDC) such as India. There are benefits to both parties in this scenario. Jobs will be created offering employment within the local area. With this will come support and training offering workers new skills and possibly education and qualifications. Materials, products and services will be required bringing further wealth and investment to the area. For the TNC, the benefits include cheaper labour costs as well as the companies taking advantage of more relaxed laws (for example laws on pollution, health and safety in the workplace, etc). On the flipside of these benefits come the negative impacts of globalisation. Investment in foreign countries has a negative impact upon workers within more developed countries (MEDCs such as the UK and USA) as jobs are taken overseas resulting in fewer jobs in, for example, manufacturing. The list of negative impacts upon the LEDCs seems almost endless, but there are two which I think will need further investigation, the first being the impact of 'economies of scale'. The largest companies have at their disposal the ability to operate at lower costs (it's like bulk buying at the supermarket, the more you buy the cheaper the bill). As such these TNCs may end up driving local companies out of business. The second is a term which is new to me, but the process is familiar. It is argued that as the world becomes more globalised, in turn the cultural diversity of the world is being diluted, and this is known as acculturation.

A slight refresher on a few aspects of globalistaion has in turn pointed me in the direction of my next bit of research / reading...

Peril

I'm perhaps jumping ahead of myself here in terms of my postings and my research into refamiliarising myself with globalisation, but this online post came of particular interest when I stumbled across it. We all know that the global economy is in peril in 2011 (and I'm sure that no one wants to be in the position of Mr Cameron and Clegg or President Obama!) so it shouldn't be a shock that the phenomenon that is globalisation is itself in peril as a result. Afterall, in the few posts that I have made so far I have seen that globalisation is the integration of economies and socities on a global scale. So, if in times of recession countires tend towards a state of isolation, where does that leave globalisation? http://www.fin24.com/Economy/Globalisation-in-peril-20110812