More than ever, globalization and international travel affect universities and companies. What are the benefits and problems caused by either globalization or internationalization? How has it affected your job, your school, or your home town?
Globalization is
a process that refers to the constantly growing interconnection between states
so that political, economical, and/or social events taking place in one country
may have effects in the most remote areas on the globe (e.g. the global
economic crisis, the COVID pandemic, etc.). The relationships between states
and their economies are traditionally analyzed under three main paradigms: realism (that is centered on the state,
its sovereignty, alliances, and diplomacy), liberalism
(for which the state is not the main actor, but just a bureaucracy, the people
are perfectible, but mainly in a democracy; it does not reject the concept of
state sovereignty, but the balance of power between states is reached through
interdependence between them), and the structural
paradigm (which is the least influential of all and that focuses on classes
rather than on states).
Globalization is not a new paradigm.
It remains a process that in its turn is analyzed from the perspective of the
three main paradigms. From my point of view, globalization is not a process,
but a step in a process that started long ago. And this can go as far back
as the 18th century when I. Kant wrote on the ‘perpetual peace’ expressing
the observation that among democracies war is less possible. Furthermore, in
the ‘60s and in the ‘70s there were political and economical scientists that
spoke about ‘modernization’ and its different aspects. In this sense, we can
come across concepts such as the ‘global village’ that addresses the Internet connectivity
of all societies and this may imply the development of a more homogeneous society in which identities, time, and space diminish. Another concept is that
of ‘global polity’ that has supporters who promote the idea of a transfer of
sovereignty from state to transnational actors.
As a step in an
ongoing process or as the process itself, globalization has its defenders and
its opponents. I suppose that measurements and analysis have been undertaken by
specialists and those whose measurements resulted in qualitative and
quantitative life improvement position themselves on the defenders’ side of
globalization. Those whose measurements resulted in the negative impact of
globalization position themselves as opponents of it. I have never come across
such measurements, I have never read such analysis, and I do not position myself
either as a defendant or an opponent of it.
There are pundits who claim that the
improvements were more qualitative than quantitative. Others argue that it
destroys the local economy and identity. And there are also voices commenting that
it is only about national companies trading globally – which, obviously, it is true, too. In which concerns universities, most people argue that it affected
them in a positive way. And they mainly refer to international travel that facilitated
student exchanges, and multiculturalism in a class that has its benefits to learning
about different cultures or the learn a point of view on a topic from a person
raised and educated in a different culture. I cannot agree more that these are
interesting, fascinating, and culturally enriching.
However,
I do not see a strong link between international travel and universities,
because when it was about education, people motivated by learning traveled from
poor regions and countries by horse and carriage to get to cities that had
a university (e.g. Berlin, Oxford, Paris, Vienna, etc.). Furthermore, if a
university considers the potential of a candidate relevant for its team, it
made that person part of its team with or without international travel, with or
without globalization. I am doubtful that it is international travel or
globalization that made a university competitive or less competitive.
But I think it is possible for globalization to negatively impact universities. It is about universities that are not competitive enough. And one of the main reasons they may not be competitive enough is not the technology that they can purchase at different prices – due to economic competition during globalization – but the staff they employ (letting aside that sometimes it is about nepotism and other forms of corruption). In the www-global era in which we are living, potential students can ‘search’, ‘find’, and ‘apply’ and some get accepted to competitive universities, while the least competitive get closed, meaning that staff gets unemployed. It is supporters of globalization that come with the solution: to make other courses and learn a new job. Competitive universities benefit culturally, academically, and financially from the increasing number of students. Globally speaking, we all benefit from having good and seriously educated people.
In which
concerns private companies during globalization, there are many voices
stressing the negative impact of them on people. Here, opponents of globalization
speak about ‘exploitation’, ‘cheap labor’, ‘child labor’, and even ‘enslavement’
during modern times. Theoretically, it is about the argument that globalization
is another phase or a late phase of capitalism in which private companies make
the rules and the state is powerless.
In this sense, I have seen a
documentary on jeans manufacturing. It showed that one pair of jeans is sold
for $100 dollars in the Western world and women working for them in Asian
countries are paid $20 a month. I still have in my mind the image of one of the
women, her disappointment, her tears that this money is not enough to live with.
And she was showing the way she lived. Basically, a private company selling a
certain good looks for cheap labor anywhere in the world to manufacture that
product as cheaply as possible and sell it afterward as expensive as possible to
maximize its profit.
I understand that profit is
essential for a business. The way it is made is debatable. I am doubtful that
globalization is responsible because globalization – as a process – only allows
private owners (with more or less human values) to search for cheap labor. To
my mind, the state is more responsible for the situation than an abstract term
called ‘globalization’. And I disagree that the state and the national governments
are powerless in front of such private owners running only after profit and to
whom the individual has no other value but to trade their skills for as little
money as possible. But national governments are made of people. A significant ‘financial
attention’ from a private company to government officials and the government
will not regulate ‘exploitation’ or ‘child labor’.
The recent trade
agreement between the United States-Canada and Mexico (USMCA replacing NAFTA)
signed into law by former US President Donald Trump stresses that in terms
of car manufacturing, 75 percent of its parts must be done in these three
countries with workers paid at least $16 an hour. Such a governmental agreement
is beneficial, particularly for Mexican workers. It will be translated into the
car's price but it is the evidence that it is not globalization that is stronger
than states and governments.
To summarize,
globalization is not a new paradigm in which we are living. It is a process
that refers to the constantly increasing political, economical, and/or social interconnection among people and states. To me, it is more like a phase in a process that
started in the 18th century and that was retaken in the ‘60s and the
‘70s. There are different opinions on globalization, some claiming its benefits and others claiming its negative consequences.
In which concerns universities, the interconnection among people allows students to choose competitive
universities and those less competitive get closed. I do not support the
argument that international traffic favored universities, because people
motivated by education use horse and carriage to get to universities in
different countries. I also do not support the argument that globalization made
some universities more competitive than others, but the staff it has and the orthodox
way it was selected and employed. This process may have started long before the
www-global times we are living.
In which concerns private companies, they are all interested in making a profit, and some of them make this profit by paying their remote employees so little that they themselves cannot live with that money. That is the reason why people speak of globalization as being about ‘modern enslavement.' My argument is that it is not about an abstract concept like ‘globalization’ that does that but concrete private owners, who do not value the life of people, but only the skills they have that they try to acquire at the lowest price possible to maximize profit. The argument that globalization is strong and state/national government is weak is not sustainable to me. The recent regional trade agreement between US, Canada, and Mexico that former US President Trump signed into law stresses that 75 percent of cars’ components, for example, to be manufactured in these three states by workers paid at least $16 an hour. Through such an initiative that is signed into law, these three governments proved stronger than some possible private owners using globalization to maximize their profits.
#cwp2x #globalization #writing #amblogging
No comments:
Post a Comment