When it comes to use the term "globalization", we usually refer to a complex economic phenomenon for which the world as a whole could be a just one market, in which there is an exchange of goods (meant as financial estates, real goods and services) following the rules of the mechanism of demand and supply and fixation of prices wherever those variables meet (liberism and neo-liberism).
It's the economic model that has come to dominate global policy making since end of the Second World War; it includes policies of free trade, capital market liberalization, privatizationand delocalization of work.
Globalization, which, with its multinational enterprises and joint ventures, can be seen as an internationalization of capitalism, and needs, and in the meantime gives rise to, an increasing omologation on a world-wide level of the demand of real goods, a standardization of anthropological-cultural behaviours, a crises of the Nation and its sovereignity.
But globalization, is it a good or an evil? Does it represent the promise of greater liberty and wealth for all the citizien of the world , or is it a danger because it favors the end of the identity of each people and it contributes to increase poverty?
The favorable ones, including for example B.Berne, think that globalization is good for poor countries. That's because trade helps the economy to grow and this tended also to show a more rapid reduction in poverty. It do it in two different ways, like B.B. sais: "First it encourages business to specialize and to produce.this helps them to employ more people. Second, tade increases the size of the marketfor local producers. It also brings in new technologies that can help to increas productivity." He sustain that the argument that foreign companies exploit employees in poor countris it's not true.
Contrarily, the critical ones sustain that it's deal with a concept invented by the economical power, to hide a new uncontested multinational dominion founded on the oppression of the poor countries of the world. For example A. Juhasz sustains that globalization, a "unrestricted accumulation of human, natural and capital resources by global corporations", does not have to happen! With the successfull process of globalization "the rich have certainly bcome richer, but the poor have either remained as poor or become poorer"., as A.J. sais. Globalization is worsening the conditions od the severe poverty of poor countries.
The discrepancy among rich and poor is widening, and this isn't a good thing! Unifiation of the world, by the tendencial point of view of a unic market, does not delete disparities among its areas or those in the single entities: it happens because economic mechanisms in a liberalistic point of view do not depend on social re-balance or no resources. Just think of actual crisis of Welfare State, caused by the economic internationalization and neo-liberism that distinguishes it.
