Globalization is only for Developed Countries Essay

In the 1990s, the term globalization gained the popularity. At that time, globalization had become phenomena with an aura of an elemental force, almost similar to that of time and gravity. In simple words Globalization means that the same products will be available in all the countries of the world. It also means economic integration and a world united by the web. This glorious ideal made us think that if globalization would stay on with all its perks with falling trade barriers, leaving countries batter off economically and that it will reduce the widening gap between the rich and the poor. It was believed that the removal of the barriers to trade and foreign investment would result in a dynamic change in the way a company anywhere in the world would do business. It was hoped that the integration would prove beneficial to all. In the 1990s the iron curtain disappeared and trade barriers started falling, the gifts of several rounds of WTO, the Western and Japanese entrepreneurs started looking far beyond there borders for highly beneficial deals, cheap labor new markets and a very big lot of new customers. Nobel Laureate, Stiglitz (2002) rightly interpreted the situations of developing countries in his illustrative work Globalization and Its Discontents. He says; â€Å"Small developing countries are like small boats. Rapid capital market liberalization, in the manner pushed by the IMF, amounted to setting them off on a voyage on a rough sea, before the holes in their hulls have been repaired, before the captain has received training, before life vests have been put on board. Even in the best of circumstances, there was a high likelihood that they would be overturned when they were hit broadside by a big wave (p. 17). † With the end of World War II globalization started taking shape in a big way. In 1975, there were still only 7000 MNCs compared to more than 60000 today. A maddening race for going global began from opening up a two-man sales office to chalking out a countrywide network. Companies had to be big and they had to be universal. By the 1990s no one was alien to the charms of the phenomenon called globalization. The intellects of the world-entrepreneurs, economists, celebrities and politicians traveled around the world to tell us how small the world was getting. We were told to think globally and act locally. However, soon the reality dawned. The developed nations have discarded the moth-eaten policy and adopted an open-shutter strategy in coping with the developing nations. In the past they donned an apologetic camouflage and devised subtle and under-the-counter means to bring the developing countries round to their point of view, they at least acknowledged their sensitivities and treated them as members, no matter how low-grade, of the homo sapiens species. But now they have thrown all pretence to the winds and, without mincing words, dictated their terms to the developing world. Even Kipling had the decency to spell out the Western concern for the ‘uncivilized’ people of the third world by treating them as ‘the white man’s burden’. He was deeply committed to their improvement and had probably hatched some fantastic schemes to pull them out of their ‘savage’ state. But the present day reformers make no bones about it. They shamelessly believe that the condition of the third world countries is simply irretrievable and no amount of logic and persuasion can help them out of their ugly predicament. Therefore they now rely on dictation as a prescription for their conversation and have imposed their brand of progress and prosperity spineless people of the third world. And they are least bothered about their preferences and priorities.