Talk:Globalization/Archive 2

This article needs a complete rethink[edit]

So far I read a mish mash of economic inidicators a vague definition and a debate split into pro(globalists) vs against(anti-globalists).

I agree, globalization has far more theoretical examinations that is not well reflected in the structure as well as the elaborations in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Themechacat (talk • contribs) 02:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This does not reflect the actual theoretical debate within the study of 'globalisation' that of the hyperglobalism, transformationism and scepticism. For example most critics are actual cricits of a neoliberal strand of hyperglobalism.

Ideally the article could be structured as:

Definition + background

Differing theories(each theory actually has a different view of the 'final' globalised world which would take care of the 'efffects of globalisation section)

Measures of globalisation

Criticism(or controversy/ pro vs against etc)

History of globalisation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.158.154 (talk) 20:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Globalization[edit]

I think this article on wikipedia illustrates the extent to which people (even "experts" who feel qualified to write on Wikipedia) still don't understand how powerful and crucial globalization is.

Globalisation is the ONLY way in which the world differs from that of the 16th century. If you look around and you see new technology, medicine, the decline of religion etc., these have all come about due to globalization.

The atoms that the earth is made out of are the same now as they were hundreds of years ago. But the computer you use to read this very sentence has come about due to a plethora of activity at various layers thanks to the globalisation of information. The glass screen for instance was discovered in one part of the world and improved in another part of the world. The electricity which powers it was discovered in one part of the world, and propogated to various parts of the world. Despite one person reading this article in one country, and another person reading it in another, and both having their computers powered by different power companies - the formula for generating electricity has been globalized. The evolution of computers etc. has all come about due to globalisation. No one single person is responsible for the computer you are using right now - but the thousands upon thousands of ideas and discoveries which produced it are all a result of globalization - and this example of computers is just one example!

How does this article embrace *real* globalisation? It doesn't. It simply tries to define globalization without realising its shere importance in the scope of things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.69.86 (talk) 10:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Globalization and World War I-[edit]

The article reads "because of globalization, World war I was started." This reads as if World War I resulted from some economic thing. But we are always told (and it says so on the wwi page) that wwi was simply a result of the result of the assisination of the Austrian Emporer to be Franz Ferdinand. So these two Wikipedia pages contradict each other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.163.22.132 (talk) 04:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both pages are wrong, then. Economic and political globalization contributed to the conditions that led to WWI. If the assassination triggered WWI, it did not in any deep sense cause it. Negentropy2 22:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had always understood that the prime causes of WWI were (a) competitive imperialism in which Germany, a late entrant, sought to wrest a "place in the sun" (as the Kaiser put it) from the incumbent British and French empires, and, relatedly, (b) the naval building race between Britain and Germany. The assassination simply acted as the trigger - war could have occured at any time after 1910. --Vvmodel (talk) 19:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted as GA[edit]

This article was orginigally identified as a GA on the 21 December, 2005 but no longer meets GA standards which have risen since. There are two tagged sections, lacking sources and citations. Furthermore some citations arn't listed properly. After improved referencing and in-line citations in every paragraph the article also needs a c/e and a review of the bullet point format which is less preferable than the standard text format. Regards, Signature ^brendel 20:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify the Math Please[edit]

In the below text, it is noted that the World Bank figures show that those living on less than a dollar a day dropped from 1.5 billion to 1.1 billion, but then it goes on to says that the number dropped by 'half' in percentage terms.

But 0.4 billion (the drop) is about 26% of 1.5 billion. So it seems to me the drop should be 1/4 (one quarter, not one half.) Right...?

Quoted text below:

From 1981 to 2001, according to World Bank figures, the number of people living on $1 a day or less was halved in percentaga terms and fell from 1.5 billion to 1.1 billion in absolute terms.[10] with the greatest improvements occurring in economies rapidly reducing barriers to trade and investment; yet, some critics argue that more detailed variables measuring poverty should be studied instead.[11]

Suggested rewrite:

From 1981 to 2001, according to World Bank figures, the number of people living on $1 a day or less dropped by one quarter in percentage terms and fell from 1.5 billion to 1.1 billion in absolute terms.[10] with the greatest improvements occurring in economies rapidly reducing barriers to trade and investment; yet, some critics argue that more detailed variables measuring poverty should be studied instead.[11]

enigma_foundry 19:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The world population has rapdidly increased at the same time, will clarify.Ultramarine 19:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks enigma_foundry 04:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--ALSO - This graph fails to account for variability in the value of a dollar itself. In other words, if a person could get four loaves of bread in '81 for a dollar, but only one loaf of bread for a dollar in '01... what is this graph actually even saying? The implicit claim that quality of life is improving for the developing world is in NO WAY given any sort of merit by this pseudo scientific visual aid.

-Nice try, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.118.48.104 (talk) 02:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The source for '7 0ut of 8' and the lower 10% incomes falling in absolute terms[edit]

I have extracted the sections of the source document. (Note: Deciles are units of 10%)

"My reading of the evidence suggests that none of the eight alternative measures clearly shows that world income distribution has become more equal over the past twenty years. Seven of the eight show varying degrees of increasing inequality. The eighth—the one that uses the Gini coefficient, countries weighted by population, and purchasing power parity—shows no significant change in world income distribution. This is because the Gini coefficient gives excessive weight to changes around the middle of the distribution and insufficient weight to changes at the extremes and therefore, in this case, gives more weight (than a decile ratio) to fast-growing China; the use of countries weighted by population has the same effect; and the use of purchasing power parity tends to raise low incomes more than high incomes, compared with market exchange rates. Hence this combination generates the least rise in inequality. But a recent paper by Dowrick and Akmal (2001) suggests that the Penn World Tables, on which most calculations of purchasing power parity are based (see Heston and Summers, 1991), contain a bias that makes incomes of developing countries appear higher than they are. The tables consequently understate the degree and trend of inequality. When the bias is corrected, even the most favorable combination of measures shows rising inequality of world income distribution over the past twenty years, although the trend is less strong than the trend based on any of the other possible combinations.

But incomes in the lower deciles of world income distribution have probably fallen absolutely since the 1980s;"

04:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

A note about deletion[edit]

I had deleted a comment that said something like "Pro globalist dispute this" I think something that notes the complexity of measuring income inequality is is in order though. But if it is written "Pro globalist dispute this" next to each item that is disputed, and the same thing is done in the pro-globalist section,"Anti globalist dispute this" the article will sound odd, in the end...So I think the proglobalist and anti globalists section should describe the basic arguments of each view point, without using absolutes like "Income inequality declined" or "Income inequality increased."

Therefore, I like things like:

"Supporters of free trade claim that it increases economic prosperity as well as opportunity, especially among developing nations, enhances civil liberties and leads to a more efficient allocation of resources. Economic theories of comparative advantage suggest that free trade leads to a more efficient allocation of resources, with all countries involved in the trade benefiting. In general, this leads to lower prices, more employment, higher output and a higher standard of living for those in developing countries.[8][9]"

and

"Critiques of the current wave of economic globalization typically look at both the damage to the planet, in terms of the perceived unsustainable harm done to the biosphere, as well as the perceived human costs, such as increased poverty, inequality, injustice and the erosion of traditional culture which, the critics contend, all occur as a result of the economic transformations related to globalization. They challenge directly the metrics, such as GDP, used to measure progress promulgated by institutions such as the World Bank, and look to other measures, such as the Happy Planet Index,[24] created by the New Economics Foundation[25]. They point to a "multitude of interconnected fatal consequences--social disintegration, a breakdown of democracy, more rapid and extensive deterioration of the environment, the spread of new diseases, increasing poverty and alienation"[26] which they claim are the unintended but very real consequences of globalization."

enigma_foundry 04:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I Agree. The wording in the quotes section is best-suited for a WP article. Regards, Signature ^brendel 05:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rearranged page[edit]

I rearranged the page because readers of this page are wondering, What are the effects of globalization, and who is for and against it?, not What is globalism about? and separately What is anti-globalization about? This is a problem also seen in the anti-globalization article, where there's a huge part about how pro-globalization folks refute the claims of anti-globalization folks. It would be much better for the encyclopedia to collect all these claims and explain what all the effects are in one place, so readers can decide for themselves whether globalization is a good thing rahter than hearing all the supporters' views one place and all the detractors' views in another. Calliopejen1 08:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot easily separate claims of effects and those who are making these statements. They need to be discussed together.Ultramarine 08:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, to a certain extent. Obviously the rearranging I did before you reverted was just the start of some more revisions that also incorporated that. However, in my mind it makes more sense to describe the general contours of the pro movement and the con movement, then go into all the claimed effects, sorted by type of effect (economic, political, etc) and then attaching a description of who's making the claim along to the claim itself. As it stands, it's essentially a POV fork within the same article, where it talks as though were no costs, and then as though there were no benefits, presenting each side in a vacuum. If the claims were sorted topically, there could be more of a conversation within the article between supporters and opponents that would be easier for readers to understand. Calliopejen1 09:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A pov fork is an article only presenting the views of one side. A topical treatment may or not be good, depending on the subject. In this it case it would quickly again degenerate into pro and anti sections, like "Regarding income inequality, supporters of globaliztion points too... Critics of globaliztion instead points too...."Ultramarine 09:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of what a normal POV fork is, that's why I said "a POV fork within the same article." :) I agree that even within each section it would have a lot of pro and con, but I still think it would be better than the status quo. The current format probably worked well when it was a smaller article, but now each of the sections is getting very long, which makes it very hard for readers to compare what the pro and con camps say about each particular thing, and where the flaws of each argument are. I came to the article from Anti-globalization#Lack of evidence for claims, where all refutation of anti-globalization claims has apparently been placed, wondering where the central repository for the evidence about what globalization does to poor people was. It seems to me that it would be better to say...

Here is how globalisation hurts poor people (to pick one topic), according to group A
Here is the problem with that argument, according to group B.
Here is how globalization helps poor people, according to group B.
Here is the problem with that argument, according to group A.

Of course, providing sufficient context for people to know who group A and B are and what their motivations are (hopefully who A and B are could have been explained earlier), then moving to the next topic. And one would hope that there would also be evidence that comes from neutral sources about these effects, and it seems silly to be sorting out neutral yet favorable evidence into one section and neutral yet unfavorable evidence into another.

As it stands, there's one extremely long narrative about the world according to pro-globalists, then another extremely long narrative about the world according to anti-globalists, which (coming here with no background in this besides a passing curiosity) I found very hard to untangle.

See Capital_punishment_debate for an example of how this has worked in a similar article, and Capital_punishment_debate#Evidence_for_prevention_and_deterrence for a way they've shifted from "capital punishment supporters say "A, B, capital punishment deters crime, C, D" and "opponents say 'A, B, C, D, capital punishment doesn't deter crime, E, F" to "Here is the existing evidence about deterrence, here is where the deterrence evidence is inadequate, here is how supporters use this evidence, here is how opponents use this evidence." Calliopejen1 09:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What would your proposed sections be? Ultramarine 10:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I rather agree that some re-arranging needs to be done. In particular, looking at the anti-globalization section, I was thinking that it could be titled 'Critiques of Globalization" because many of those opposed to globalization as it presently exists are really arguing for certain aspects of it to be changed, and very few believe that all aspects of globalization are wrong. For example, much of Jeffry Sach's work at the Earth Institute would belong in the category of criticism of globalization as it now exists, but it would be misleading to place him in the 'anti-globalization' camp, certainly. However, the compilation of the the problems under each topic also has a certain amount of logic to it, and could create a more balanced article. So, I agree with Calliopejen1's proposal, but would like to see an outline before we do the re-arranging. There will be quite a lot of rework if we go this route...enigma_foundry 23:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well "anti-globalization" just means "anti-Washington Consensus." It doesn't mean "opposed to globalization" so much as "opposed to neoliberal globalization" and often involves supporting other models of globalization. Jacob Haller 01:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KFC again[edit]

I bring this up because the previous discussions never reached a conclusion on how best to represent Globalization. To me, someone who knows nothing about the topic, the lead (which is huge) preaches "connectivity, standardization, interdependence, etc.", and, save one broad bullet which vaguely references it, the spread of KFC to Kuwait is not a good representation. Further, the caption merely says "A KFC in Kuwait", which explains nothing to me if I didn't live in America where KFCs are part of everyday culture. I don't really have an alternate idea, I just hope someone who has a better idea of what this is can find a good picture for the article. ALTON .ıl 08:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only alternative to the KFC pic I can think of at the moment would a pic of a "Made in China" label... than again to someone in China that doesn't repesent globalization very well either ;-) Signature ^brendel 09:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about a picture of either a souk or of a sidewalk vendor, with several different trademark brands (such as 'Coca Cola') visible? The combination of different cultures and traditional being modified by the new seems an interesting juxtaposition, from my recent trip to Tunisia...? enigma_foundry 23:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, man, I know the sort of picture you are after but I can't find it; it was an (Indian I think) cart being pulled by an animal in front of some billboard advertising the internet. Darn, I just flicked through my 600 page text book I thought it was in and couldn't find it. I know what you mean but, and I think that would be a good opening picture for the article. Rothery 08:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, something like that would be great. The concept is hard to grasp, and I still don't get it (it's my major, unfortunately), but the word globalization concentrates so much more on the increasing connectivity of the word as a whole. Showing a company who went international is good, but not quite accurate. ALTON .ıl 09:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KFCs are everywhere man, not just in America. They are a perfect example of globalisation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.86.57 (talk) 09:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found a picture of an Asian man sitting in front of a Sarbucks logo in the article listed as citing this article at the top of the Talk page. It was on the second or third page I think. I'm new so I'm not sure how to go about getting the licsense for this image? Is that needed? Is the picture wanted? Mitchell-o-t 20:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unitary process?[edit]

There is no agreement that "globalization" is a single process. For example, the invention of the telephone has little to do with the internationalization of IP privileges. Jacob Haller 17:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend the line be excised. Quetzilla 07:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definition[edit]

Okay, a lot of editors have messed with the definition. Some haven't paid enough attention to sourcing and grammar, because the result doesn't make sense. Jacob Haller 21:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the whole article needs to be rewritten from scratch. The way it's set up now discourages actual reading and is awful to muck through if you try. Thanks to those who have actually cleaned it up since months ago, with the gigantic lead. ALTON .ıl 09:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a few minor edits to the definition part, primarily because the sentences were complete garbage. I'm actually writing a paper for college on globalization now (which is why I'm reading this article) and I'll probably come back later to actually rewrite the whole thing (I have to define it for my paper, might as well spread the wealth). Quetzilla 07:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3rd paragraph, 1st sentence: definition describes "economic integration" rather than "globalization". I'm not sure I agree with the last phrase "towards developed country norms". Economists have not had great success in proving "convergence." A definition from a more prominent authority would be much better. Tmdnc 19:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I’m puzzled by the Charles Taze Russell reference. While I'm sure it is accurate, wouldn’t it be more at home in an article about the size of companies, rather than one about globalization (the liberalized movement of goods, services, people and capital)? DOR (HK) (talk) 06:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definition and Rewrite[edit]

I have found one definition for globalisation: "The process of increased global interdependence between countries. It involves increased economic and cultural links between different parts of the globe". From ISBN 0975 19961-7 Commerce.dot.com. I also agree that the article or at least the two main sections in question should be re-written. Parts of the article are very hard to make out.

PookeyMaster 01:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The definition cited is ungrammatical - perhaps they intended "The process of increasING global interdependence ..." But, as other comments notes, there is not a unitary process - perhaps we could say that globalization is an historical trend arising from diverse economic, social, and political causes. Negentropy2 22:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who wrote the existing definition, but it is very poor grammatically and not at all encompassing what truly defines globalization. I tried to re-write it with a more scholarly definition (isn't this an encyclopedia, after all), complete with a citation to a published author. Yet, when I go back to the page it has the same old tired and poorly written definition. Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.Blueelectricstorm (talk) 22:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamics of Globalization[edit]

If I have described globalization as an historical trend rather than a process, I should note that it is a trend that has reversed itself in the past. Howard James in The Roman Predicament makes the case that the liberal international order carries within it the seeds of its own destruction in the inevitable conflicts over the legitimacy of rules, arguing from Gibbon's history and Adam Smith's analysis of economics. We might think about adding a section as we revise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Negentropy2 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biased view[edit]

"Because of the first era of globalization, World War I was started." you can smell the hippie stink on that from a mile away. Someone should proofread the article for stuff like this. 60.54.59.147 08:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Man do I agree, ax it now! 129.173.241.40 20:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we live in a more globalized world and Europe is an example of globalization then, it follows, that WWI happened because a lack of globalization and the European Union because of globalization, not the other way around. --65.182.16.84 (talk) 05:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good article[edit]

Does anyone know if the GA status labeled by the editorial team is valid, or has the GA status been removed as the banner below the rating states?--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 16:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GDP distribution chart[edit]

How the fourth quintile have more income than the fifth quintile? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.163.147 (talk) 22:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The way the world works (unfortunately), is that the richest 20% have the majority of the income while the poorest 20% have the least income out of the five groups listed. PookeyMaster 23:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How was distribution in, let's say: the year 1000? Is it really worse now or is it better than before globalization? Is it worsening in real terms or not? Are there more or less poor today because of globalization? Are people poorer because of free trade or are they poorer because of local wars?--65.182.16.84 (talk) 05:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zambia and Globalization Process[edit]

Zambia is one of the country that is lagging behind the globalisation process. This is chiefly because Zambia is a country whose government is not investing much in Research and Technology which happen to be the major factors that can enhance globalisation and consequently development in alldimensions one would think of.

The Zambian governement does not value information. Globalisation game is all about information, that is,knowing what one does not know and learning about things that are new so that you move at the same pace in terms of development with other parts of the world. Zambia is a country with no Libraries or if they are there then they are very oldand outdated and they were definately not an initiative of any leader but the coloniol masters. These wouldhave have been the libraries that they were using to widen their knowledge at that particular time. Information is key in the globalisation process and investing in provision of information is a best way of enhancing development because it is information that removes the element ofuncertainty and helps in decision making process and making sound plicies that would govern the people and in the rovision of the real needs of citizens.

PROBLEM?????[edit]

I am sorry, but I do not like the fact that globalization is counted as an "economic problem." I myself am actualy quite fond of the idea of a world government and a unified human culture. Although this may seam a little outragious, the reason for my beliefs is so that in the far, far future, say, in 5 centuries, we will be ready to confront the alien civilizations we will most certianly encounter. Anyway, for these reasons, I support cultural globilzation. This means that I think that smaller languages should be pushed out of use and then have the proccess work its way up until there is only one language of man. Globalization means that we will be ready for the time when we must unite under the United Nations and turn into a world government, the United Earth Republic. (once again, I apologize for sounding like this. I take prescription medication to regulate my behaviour, and while I do believe this even when the medicine is in effect, this was written when I was off my medication. IT IS STILL WHAT I BELIEVE) Fusion7 (talk) 03:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its kinda hard to tell what you're talking about, but if you're saying what i think you are, that the article should not be in the category "Economic Problems", i agree, it can't really be classed as a problem, and nothing in the article suggests it is one, therefore it being in the category is a POV therefore i have removed it from the cat.--Jac16888 (talk) 03:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but even some quite significant cheerleaders of globalisation, such as the World Bank, recognize it as a problematic process. It is not a win-win scenario for all, and so-called "losers" in the process that arrive at such a status because of circumstances beyond their control, do represent a "problem" of global significance. The United Nations, among others, have documented the serious problem of the growth of slums in urban centers throughout the world, and they too have raised the issue of globalization as a problematic. I would suggest that user:Fusion and user:Jac16888 should best do their homework on the subject at hand, including the reading of texts opposed to their irrational beliefs, rather than relying exclusively on those "beliefs." —Preceding unsigned comment added by BernardL (talk • contribs) 04:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please try and be civil, My beliefs have nothing to with this. All i did was look (admittedly briefly) through the article, and it was quite clear that while some people view globalization as a problem, there are also people who view it as a good thing, hence, putting it in the "economic problems" category would violate WP:NPOV--Jac16888 (talk) 04:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? When significant numbers of people, groups and institutions,etc. do recognize it as a problem, whether or not they constitute a majority, then it violates WP:NPOV not to list it as an economics problem. (It would amount to whitewashing genuinely problematic issues.) BernardL (talk) 04:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're wrong i'm afraid. Some people, like yourself, see it as a problem, other people see it as a good thing (and that does not include me, i am totally neutral on the topic, please stop trying to accuse me of being some sort of cabalistic, biased editor). Having it listed as a economic problem would be very POV, just as listing it as an economic benefit or whatever would be POV. Read the article. In no place does it place globalization in either camp, pro or con, it weighs up both sides, as articles are supposed to. --Jac16888 (talk) 04:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is a win=win situation.AlexNebraska (talk) 00:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of food for thought: without globalization, you can erase Hong Kong. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, maybe I misread the article, but I can't understand the points against globalization:

Lower food prices force poorer countries out of jobs. But if it can be done cheaper elsewhere shouldn't the inefficient people and resources be relocated to another industry?
Exploitation. If jobs don't exist or exist at a lower wage and a large "evil" corporation comes in and offers jobs the workers take in preference to existing jobs, how is this exploitation?
Shift to service work reduces middle class in a modern country, but mustn't it necessarily improve the income of people in the countries being outsourced to, creating a middle class there?

--Loodog (talk) 21:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Loondog, I agree with some of the other editors who say this article needs a lot of work, and the points you are mentioning reflect that to some degree as they are not put very well. But I think you have misread this section, at least in part.

If lower food prices result from subsidies in rich countries (i.e., the US and EU), then farmers in poorer countries cannot get the true market price. The key point the article alludes to is that the lower prices are caused by subsidies, not efficiency. That is why countries like Brazil have brought WTO complaints against US cotton export subsidies. Last I heard, the US had lost the case but was refusing to comply until the Doha Round was completed. (I am not sure if this is still correct on compliance, but I think it is.)
I'm not sure I would say "exploitation" by multinational corporations is necessarily a question of the wages they pay. The "work or starve" choice is one that is only faced by those without capital; therefore, agreements between owners and non-owners of capital are not truly voluntary. This unequal bargaining power may be considered the basis of exploitation. However, it is not exploitation by any given employer, such as a foreign multinational, but a systemic exploitation. I think this is what underlies the discussion of low wages per se as a problem, but it is not very clearly put, IMO.
From a Keynesian point of view, transferring jobs from group A to group B, where group B has a lower salary, simply reduces global consumption, because it means that income has been transferred not only to group B, but also to their employer, who with a higher income has a lower propensity to consume. So yes, you help create a middle class in India while hurting it in, say, the US, but the overall result is not a good one. This section of the article is based on a 1986 journal article, which is an ancient citation in this context, another problem I have with the section (besides being unclear).Academic38 (talk) 08:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conceded/understood.
It's still a choice over whatever they were doing before. Suppose Coca-cola comes in and starts offering "exploitive jobs" at a bottling plant. The workers always have the option of doing whatever job they had before. I fail to see how additional options to a worker qualifies as exploitation.
Don't understand this one. If tech support jobs can be outsourced to India, replacing jobs in the States, AT&T/IBM or whoever has just trimmed their overhead, resulting in lower costs to customers and higher profits to shareholders, other employees, etc... All the while, a boon to the Indian economy, and the holders of the lost jobs in the US are best put into an industry in which they can compete.

--Loodog (talk) 22:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noam Chomsky[edit]

Since a lead is supposed to be a brief summary of an article, most featured and good articles do not start by a long quotation. The quotation recently added by Theo Pardilla is not only long, but it also basically repeats what can be found elsewhere in the lead (Noam Chomsky's classification of various definitions of globalization). It also gives too much space to one of many views of globalization (Chomsky). I think it would be better to remove it from the lead. Andrzej Kmicic (talk) 04:22, 9 February 2008

Fair point.

--Theo Pardilla 10:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Branko Milanovic[edit]

The additions by BernardL regarding the research by world bank economist, Branko Milanovic are an important addition to this article. His edit removing unsourced editorializing (here:[1], was also an improvement. So I'm going to restore this well sourced addition.Giovanni33 (talk) 03:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The source makes not statements regading the rate of change in inequality as claimed. Also, criticisms should be in the criticisms section. Moved it there. Added source.Ultramarine (talk) 11:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The source did say something about the rate- "literally hundreds of scholarly papers on convergence or divergence of countries’ incomes have been published in the last decade based on what we know now were faulty numbers. With the new data, economists will revise calculations and possibly reach new conclusions" moreover noting that "implications for the estimates of global inequality and poverty are enormous." Concepts of convergence and divergence necessarily contain a temporal change factor, they are incomprehensible without such a factor.BernardL (talk) 12:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only one view. No justification for declaring this particular paper to be the truth and more important than all other papers published in this area. It has been added to the criticisms section.Ultramarine (talk) 13:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chomsky quotes and NPOV[edit]

Maybe it's just me but I feel that the fact that Chomsky is heavily quoted in this article violates NPOV. The man is far left, and that's putting it mildly. Further his quotes don't really serve to impart any information, only to voice Chomsky's unsubstantiated beliefs about globalization; and considering his previously mentioned bias I see no need to devote more than a few sentences to his views and activism on the subject.

--Chippy87 (talk) 02:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Chomsky quotes are minimal and contextual and are the voice of a prominent scholar in this subject field and are in his own words. His work is supported by voluminous citation, research and peer review. Chomsky is the worlds leading intellectual according to a recent survey. His analysis is humanist and libertarian and is conservative if you consider elemental morality and the principle of universality to be the basis of ethical behaviour.

As for your claim of bias try this quote

“

If you repeat the cliches of the propaganda system, that's not ideological. On the other hand, if you question them, that's ideological ...

”

Did you understand the inference about your claim of bias from the preceding quote or should i not have used it as someone may claim about me that "his quotes don't really serve to impart any information"

If one wants to impart information that is not cliche, hackneyed or doctrine then it requires stating several things and then weaving them together which takes "more than a few sentences".

Unfortunately its not just you but people on left and right

“

in the propaganda system -- which happens to include the media, the educated classes, etc., with rare exceptions.

”

who accept propaganda as some sort of self evident truth or impartiality or neutrality.

If you want to remove these quotes that you disagree with then you are unjustified.

If you want to include quotes from a similarly respected scholar with expertise in this area that support your viewpoint then go ahead and do so.

--Theo Pardilla 09:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Just because I asserted that Chomsky is a Leftist (which he clearly is by his own omission) does not mean I've been duped by the 'propaganda system'. Chomsky is a Libertarian Socialist who has been quoted making statements such as this one,

“

a consistent libertarian must oppose private ownership of the means of production and the wage slavery which is a component of this system, as incompatible with the principle that labor must be freely undertaken and under the control of the producer ...

”

If this isn't the statement of a man whose political views a far left I don't know what is. I'm not saying he shouldn't be mentioned, only that it seems a bit excessive to quote large chunks of his speeches/texts; particularly considering the fact that much of what is quoted from him seems to all come from the same passage. A single in line quote with an explanation of his views/activism in regard to this subject would be far more appropriate. I also think there are probably better sources out there with more expertise, maybe I'll see if I can't find something a little more neutral. --Chippy87 (talk) 19:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that having four long quotations from one author in an article about a very general and frequently studied topic is a bit excessive. Regardless of Chomsky's ideology, the article is about globalization, not about what Chomsky says about globalization. I think it would be better to replace all or at least some of the quotations with short paraphrases. Andrzej Kmicic (talk) 04:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Chippy87 when you state that you "don't know what is", at most you got that correct. Lets not exaggerate the size of these quotes.

When you state "fact that much of what is quoted from him seems to all come from the same passage." Do you mean that in your opinion it seems to all come from the same passage? Well actually no, your perception or guess is incorrect, it doesn't.

One should concentrate their efforts on adding to articles and the hard work of sourcing content rather than being fixated on removing facts and prominent respected scholars unadulterated insights that you disagree with and not trying to create or channel rationalisations for a process of creeping gradual removal through a series of paraphrasing, reduction or some other trojan techniques.

--Theo Pardilla 07:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Yup you got me Theo, I'm part of the evil propaganda machine out to censor Chomsky.

Yeesh, get a grip. The man is an admitted socialist, and there's nothing wrong with that, but it makes him far left and puts him out of the mainstream of academic and political thought. Again I don't have a problem with this per se, my problem is that his quotes total 475 words, that's over 7% of the article's word count; hence I suggested that some of his quotes could be paraphrased and maybe balanced out with the thoughts of someone from the other side of the fence.

--Chippy87 (talk) 19:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your (Chippy87) 'Chomsky quote' "a consistent libertarian" on the Google book search that i have done gives an unclear result as to whether all of this is a quote or the introduction is the book authors words and also the source (citation) is unavailable, at least in the online version. It may be correct but it hasn't been proven and doesn't prove being left wing. Its about what informs these positions of Chomsky if you want to make a broad generalization. Its also a logic error. If penguins are black and white it doesn't follow that newspapers are penguins. As for the 'mainstream of academic and political thought' here is a Chomsky that puts that in context and reveals Chomsky as a centrist

"Incidentally, in the case of Cuba about two-thirds of Americans think we ought to end the embargo and all threats and enter into diplomatic relations. And that has been true ever since polls have been taken -- for about 30 years. The figure varies, but it's roughly there. Zero effect on policy, in Iran, Cuba, and elsewhere.

So there is a problem and that problem is that the United States is just not a functioning democracy. Public opinion does not matter and among articulate and elite opinion that is a principle -- it shouldn't matter. The only principle that matters is we own the world and the rest of you shut up, you know, whether you're abroad or at home.

So, yes, there is a potential solution to the very dangerous problem, it's essentially the same solution: do something to turn our own country into a functioning democracy. But that is in radical opposition to the fundamental presupposition of all elite discussions, mainly that we own the world and that these questions don't arise and the public should have no opinion on foreign policy, or any policy."

Your left - right dichotomy is false and doctrinal. Its about power distribution.--Theo Pardilla 22:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

External links[edit]

I've had a go at trimming down the external links section which was a bit out of control. I attempted to bring it somewhat into line with our guidelines by removing dead links, duplicate links, links to subjects that were specific rather than about globalization in general, links that seemed to be more activist than informative, and links that seemed to be more about promoting an organization than providing useful further reading to our readers.

I took out links to what looked like good resource pages on the works of a couple of economists - Immanuel Wallerstein and Andre Gunder Frank - since they aren't even mentioned by name in the article. If they really are important enough to mention we ought to at least be discussing them in the article and putting their work into context.

I'm a little unsure about a few links I left:

http://globalresearch.ca/ - I'm not sure a website that's so news-y is worth keeping on an article like this - I also couldn't find any real indication of its provenance which concerns me with such a politically charged subject.
IPRD London seems much more POV than the other sites, not sure how well respected it is.
Revista Entelequia Again, not clear on provenance or how well respected this is.
A Dynamic Map of the World Cities' Growth - I love the idea of this, but don't think growth is really the same thing as globalization. Not sure this is the place for this link.

Opinions from more knowledgeable editors would be very helpful.

I think there is a little further streamlining we could do, we have a strong bias in favor of a western view of globalization in the links (hardly surprising, but worth a little effort to try and combat, especially on such a global subject). It would be great to get some links from, say, English language websites in Asian or African university departments that study globalization. I also think we could cut out a few more links that seem to have significant overlap in the general thrust of their content - for instance the two links:

Embracing the Challenge of Free Trade: Competing and Prospering in a Global Economy a speech by Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke
The Large Stake of U.S. Small Business in an Expanding Global Economy by Daniel Griswold

Both concentrate on the impact of globalization on the US economy - for an article that's about a much broader subject this would appear to be undue weight. Also the BBC article could be considered pretty much a poor version of this article in some ways. Not sure it really adds much.

Any comments or questions about my deletions, the links I left or the suggestions above are most welcome. -- SiobhanHansa 18:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good job! Thank you for this big clean-up. I would also remove the first four links you mention. Three of them do not provide much except for more-or-less generic news. The interactive map of global cities is cool, but it would be more useful in some article on urbanization. It does not address globalization per se. I think the BBC article is helpful to readers who know little about the subject. I would rather retain it here. On the other hand, there is some overlap between Bernanke and Griswold. Since Bernanke represents one of the most important economic institutions and Griswold is from a partisan think tank, I would remove Griswold. Moreover, Griswold's testimony seems to focus solely on the American economy, while Bernanke also talks about the impact of globalization on other countries. Andrzej Kmicic (talk) 22:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding. It's always encouraging to hear back from the void! I'll leave it a few more days to see if there are other opinions and if there's no dissension I'll go ahead and delete the 3 newsy links, the map and the Griswold one. -- SiobhanHansa 23:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Subject[edit]

This article needs major clean up, to many editors, are downplaying and critizing the subject. Dwilso 12:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Whilst this article has patches of good content here and there, it is mostly written and structured very sloppily. There also are quite substantial ammounts of incorrect/redundant/badly worded/incomplete information.

A big and thorough cleanup is needed.

Jason McConnell-Leech (talk) 12:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

globalization[edit]

Globalization is a process that is complex and it causes the world to shrink.... all of this i get but is there a simple straightforward meaning of globalization????????

Aq2sy7 (talk) 12:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clean-up[edit]

This article is a mess. Lots of unsourced dubious material despite that there should be no shortages of sources. In order to start the clean-up I propose deleting all the unsourced information. The unsourced material has already been tagged for a long time with no sources added.Ultramarine (talk) 19:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I basically agree that this article needs a major overhaul. Especially the pro- and against- sections either repeat or contradict each other instead of summarizing the globalization debate in one place and in a neutral way. But there are actually not so many {{cn}} templates currently used in the article. Which parts would you like to delete? Andrzej Kmicic (talk) 00:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The pro- and against- sections have sources. It is the other sections that are more problematic.Ultramarine (talk) 20:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones? Could you be more specific please? Andrzej Kmicic (talk) 00:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All the sections tagged as lacking sources. As per WP:V such material should be removed.Ultramarine (talk) 09:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't just lacking sources, its completely lacking neutrality. The Anti-Globalisation article is actually far more neutral then the effects of globalization section of this article. This needs immediate attantion Asdf96 (talk) 17:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

mundialism?[edit]

Why does the article use the term "mundialism" in a section heading, but nowhere else? If it's a significant enough term, we should use it in that section, n'est-ce pas?Academic38 (talk) 22:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello's[edit]

has anyone got any idea what the deal is with these constant "hello good site" comments that keep appearing?--Jac16888 (talk) 01:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably called vandalism. —Lowellian (reply) 14:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External link request[edit]

hello would it be possible to get an external link ? i am making a data base of articles 15 of which are already done, all are unique.

I will also be adding a translator once my coder has finished work on it. There will be another 15 articles online by the end of the week and i plan on adding the same everyweek for the near future.

Please let me know if its possible, i thought id ask here before just putting it online.

the link is

http://www.bowneglobal.com/

Thanks for reading and have a great day

Adam —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riverwire (talk • contribs) 15:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you are an expert or significant activist on any side of the issue, I can't see a justification for adding your site. There are no citations in your articles. Academic38 (talk) 04:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History section[edit]

The very first line of the history section makes no sense: the term was first used by economists in the 1980s, but by social scientists in the 1960s? Economics is one of the social sciences. The claims here need references in any event to know who supposedly used the term when. And frankly I'm not persuaded that Charles Taze Russell's referring to "global giants" is that much of a predecessor of the term "globalization." Maybe it's a precursor to the term "multinational corporation," but that is a separate issue, IMO. Academic38 (talk) 01:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I have trouble with the whole first paragraph as it is now written. The footnote gives evidence that Russell used the term in 1897, but that doesn't prove that his was "The earliest written theoretical concepts of globalization". Scartol • Tok 16:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New definition[edit]

For discussion: Globalisation means the global integration of the movement of goods, capital and jobs. -- Turning their backs on the world, The Economist, Feb 21, 2009. Personally, I would think this is a better definition of globalized, rather than globalization. My version would be Globalization is the process by which economies become more fully integrated through the reduction of barriers to the free movement of goods, capital, jobs and people. DOR (HK) (talk) 04:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Business[edit]

This section starting:

"Business Collapse of commodities market was the outcome of poor economic policies of 1980, which ultimately resulted in debt crisis, as LDCs had tried to expand commodity production and economic growth and had borrowed large sums of money. Banks then insisted on readjustment of interest rates on new and existing loans and LDCs agreed "

is the worst thing I have seen written on wikipedia (what is an LDC?). Someone please remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.82.165 (talk) 01:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LDC is a lesser developed country. You're right, those two paragraphs make little sense and are out of place. I've removed the following:

Collapse of commodities market was the outcome of poor economic policies of 1980, which ultimately resulted in debt crisis, as LDCs had tried to expand commodity production and economic growth and had borrowed large sums of money. Banks then insisted on readjustment of interest rates on new and existing loans and LDCs agreed. At that moment, globalization compelled them to decline commodity prices. Commodities were the main source of income for LDCs, so it became more and more difficult for them to reduce or pay their debts, which ultimately caused unemployment in many commodity sectors.

In order to repay their debts, LDC tried to adopt IMF’s Structural Adjustment Program (SAP) to obtain funds from IMF. The strategy behind SAP program was to export more than import and produce hard cash to pay for the imports and direct the surplus towards debts. Although SAP was imposed for the betterment of economic condition of LDCs, but it did not work as it was planned. SAP created de-industrialization in LDCs and compelled them to again rely on export of their commodities. Selling of public assets to foreign investors also created unemployment. Fences and windows (talk) 21:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bad graph under Pro-globalization (globalism)[edit]

The graph is very misleading - see the talk on the graph page. It compares the data for China concerns people living on less than $1 a day. World and Sub-Saharan Africa data concerns people living on less than $2 a day. This is not a fair comparison. There is also no label on the vertical axis. I suggest deleting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hkandy (talk • contribs) 13:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see this chart in this article, so I assume it was removed at some point. -- Beland (talk) 04:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling of "Globalization"[edit]

I think we should move this article to Globalisation—the current spelling is rather ironic. English is spoken by about 1.1 billion people (Halfway point of estimates in the English language article). Of those, maybe 450 million speak American English (That's 100 million more than the population of the United States). The rest mainly speak British English, Canadian English or Australian English. In all of those dialects "globalization" is spelt "globalisation". Of course, google searches favour the current spelling (6,580,000 hits vs 18,300,000), but google and the internet are subject to masssive systemic bias: i.e. the internet is mostly American, the World mostly isn't. What do you think?--Patton^t/c 11:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Semantic dispute. If we need to divide things so, why not have a British English wiki and an American one? Shiosai (talk) 14:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I greatly beg to differ on whether US english or UK english is more common given the baseline in native speakers[2], but that's besides the point. Wikipedia states "greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize", which Google very clearly gives, as you state, as "globalization". Also, not sure where you're getting this "the internet is American" idea from since there are three times as many Chinese or European users.--Loodog (talk) 16:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few facts. 1. Many Brits use the older "Z"-spelling. 2. All Canadians use the "Z"-spelling. 3. WP policy is to permit all dialects here, and to stick with the one under which the first substantial version of the article was written (unless the topic has a close tie to one area). PeterH2 (talk) 13:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article cleanup/re-writing[edit]

I completely agree that some of the writing on this article is grade-school essay quality. I also find it to be kind of meandering and ramshackle. Since this article is a fairly important topic and probably gets a lot of views, I decided to start rewriting it for clarity and organization. I'm also adding some information and references as I go; I'm a graduate student studying the history of globalization so I have some background in the topic, although I of course welcome corrections. Benjaminbreen (talk) 17:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed[edit]

The Third definition just refers to economic globalization, which is already mentioned above and linked, and not globalization as a whole. The book of joshi is not listed in the library of congress and seems to be less important too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.110.100.43 (talk) 15:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Global warming Effects and causes[edit]

GLOBAL warming

What is global warming?

Global warming is when the earth heats up (the temperature rises). It happens when greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, water vapor, nitrous oxide, and methane) trap heat and light from the sun in the earth’s atmosphere, which increases the temperature. This hurts many people, animals, and plants. Many cannot take the change, so they die.

Global Warming effects

Green house gases stay can stay in the atmosphere for an amount of years ranging from decades to hundreds and thousands of years. No matter what we do, global warming is going to have some effect on Earth. Here are the 5 deadliest effects of global warming.

5. Spread of disease As northern countries warm, disease carrying insects migrate north, bringing plague and disease with them. Indeed some scientists believe that in some countries thanks to global warming, malaria has not been fully eradicated.

Disease

4. Warmer waters and more hurricanes As the temperature of oceans rises, so will the probability of more frequent and stronger hurricanes. We saw in this in 2004 and 2005.

hurricanes, an effect of global warming

3. Increased probability and intensity of droughts and heat waves Although some areas of Earth will become wetter due to global warming, other areas will suffer serious droughts and heat waves. Africa will receive the worst of it, with more severe droughts also expected in Europe. Water is already a dangerously rare commodity in Africa, and according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, global warming will exacerbate the conditions and could lead to conflicts and war.

Droughts are an effect of global warming

2. Economic consequences Most of the effects of anthropogenic global warming won’t be good. And these effects spell one thing for the countries of the world: economic consequences. Hurricanes cause do billions of dollars in damage, diseases cost money to treat and control and conflicts exacerbate all of these.

Economic consequences of global warming

1. Polar ice caps melting The ice caps melting is a four-pronged danger.

First, it will raise sea levels. There are 5,773,000 cubic miles of water in ice caps, glaciers, and permanent snow. According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center, if all glaciers melted today the seas would rise about 230 feet. Luckily, that’s not going to happen all in one go! But sea levels will rise.

Second, melting ice caps will throw the global ecosystem out of balance. The ice caps are fresh water, and when they melt they will desalinate the ocean, or in plain English – make it less salty. The desalinization of the gulf current will “screw up” ocean currents, which regulate temperatures. The stream shutdown or irregularity would cool the area around north-east America and Western Europe. Luckily, that will slow some of the other effects of global warming in that area!

Third, temperature rises and changing landscapes in the artic circle will endanger several species of animals. Only the most adaptable will survive.

Fourth, global warming could snowball with the ice caps gone. Ice caps are white, and reflect sunlight, much of which is relected back into space, further cooling Earth. If the ice caps melt, the only reflector is the ocean. Darker colors absorb sunlight, further warming the Earth.

Ice caps meting, the deadliest effect of global warming?

So what is the solution? Are we just being negative? Are there any positive effects of global warming? What about all the stupid global warming solutions. We welcome your thoughts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.204.3.30 (talk) 17:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Americanization[edit]

Should be handled with care. According to J.A. Scholte, this concept is, along with liberalization, internationalization and more, not a good approximation of globalization. Nor can it be equated (at all). Should there be this delimitation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRedPoint (talk • contribs) 15:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am removing this section because it violates both W:NPOV and WP:REL. If you have comments or other responses surrounding this decision you can post here, or for more immediate response, on my talk page where a section has already been created for this issue. Jab843 (talk) 22:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]