Im doin an essay on globalisation and want to know what do developing countries need to participate in globalisation? Is it a secure financial and legal system, slow privitisation and secure property rights?
199250
Honestly if you are a developing country, you are probalby leery at best of Globalizaton. It offers very little protection for your local industry and very often leads all the way to a loss of gov. sovergnity. One of the features of the globalization system is that debt ridden industrialzing countries recieve short term aid packages from the IMF/World Bank. The problem is the way the packages work, countries are required to adjust the structure of their economy to recieve aid. These used to be called structural adjustment programs (SAP's) but the name has been changed as a result of many riots resulting from sap actions. Part of the problem is everything is privatized very quickly but there is little done to ensure any kind of safety net for the locals or the local businesses. What results is transnational companys swoop in, take what they can essentially, and leave with their investments which cripple a country. Likewise, countries are often told what to produce, but the influx of a certain good hurts prices, and at a competitve disadvantage to developed countries this can be a killer.\n\nTo answer the last questions.... it is not a secure financial system as many NIC (newly industrializing countries) are more debt ridden and have higher unemployment than before. Likewise, legally a country has less say over its gov. because of the debt they have incurred of high interest short term loans. \n\nAnother problem is the transnationals dont get taxed very much by the gov. (as a rule of the saps) so the privitization process can occur very rapidly at a high cost to the country. Also property rights are secure for the new investors and their companies because of sap rule, but not for the country.\n\nAs i think it shows, for developing countries, neoliberal economics (globalization) is not a very user friendly system. The spoils all go the global elite while the countries being used to create that wealth often end up in worse shape than before.
90013
You're question is very interesting.  As you know we are in a globalized world.  This is not the first wave of globalization--it's the third.  The other waves happened centuries ago.  Anyway, because something is sold to someone living outside the borders of the US, doesn't necessarily mean that you will lose your freedoms.  They still have to operate under American law & standards here in the US.
391898
In the third world capitalism's benefits go to the rich.  There is no middle class, or at least it's very small.  There are the rich and the poor and there are way more poor than rich.  Politicians know what side of the toast the butter is on.  Poor people vote too.
104898
Our number one focus and priority should be on gaining control of financial security with equal access to wealth for all legal citizens plus putting on hold any immigration and removal of the illegal current ones! Our voting system is not legitimate,honest or trustworthy in its current chaotic form! We need grassroots honest election process!Total Government Reform etc! Taking the money "power" control from the current structure would reverse the control by a minority and giving it to the Majority for equal access! The environment is a big issue however you have to remove the oil corporations strangle hold from switching to hydrogen gas/fuel cell Water is the answer cause it is the one natural source that recycles itself and does not leave or endanger the earths atmosphere but control of money by the majority is of the nations best interest and ultimate priority!
49479
International trade or commonly called global trade is a trading activity that involves several people in different countries. This is one of the influences from globalization. People start think and do everthing globally, internationally. Actually people have been doing export import many years ago and that can be considered as international trade too. But recently, as the effect of globalization, people getting more active about it as they more aware that global market can give more profit to their business than if they just do the business locally.
566352
Globalization began with the Achaemenid dynasty in ancient Persia.\n\nAt its height, there were 70 million people in the empire, they affected all world trade and the Abrahamic and Dharmic religions.  \n\nThis is where economic, military and religious linkages begin to occur.\n\nFor a later starting point, try the conquest of the Americas, when Aztec and Inkan gold fund the expansion of several Western Asian maritime powers (Europe in common speak).\n\nWorld War 1, or the European Civil War as it should be known, opened up the possibilities that horrors and more horrors were to come.\n\nThe present phase of globalization, known as neoliberalism, began in the US with the defeat of Barry Goldwater, was exported to Chile in 1973 (by force), drew momentum from the oil and fiscal crises of the 1970's, the Latin American debt crises of the 1980's and the fall of the wall in the 1990's.
41018
Sounds like you need the CIA World Factbook. Talks about every country's economy, population, government, import/exports, gdp, etc. 2005 being their latest edition...
189177
The problem is the same with all investment.  There is the risk that you will lose some or all of your money.  Developing countries are especially high-risk in this regard because they frequently have political turmoil which could lead to the government (or pseudo-government) seizing/stealing your property.  Also, developing countries tend to have higher poverty and weak law enforcement, so your property is at risk for vandalism, destruction, or theft by criminals.\n\nThe solutions depend on how you actually plan to invest.  If you will be lending money to locals to establish a business, charge an appropriately high rate and do not put all of your money into one venture.  The rate must be high enough to offset your risk, but low enough to be affordable to your debtors.\n\nIf you intend to actually go into the country and establish a business, you must pay close attention to the security of your assets.  Do not expect the government to protect your property, and do not expect them to keep their word - even if it's in writing.  You must have adequate security to defend your property, and secrecy to hide as much as you can in case your defenses fail.\n\nIt is NOT easy to overcome those problems, which is why there is not more investment in developing countries.  It's really a bummer because investment and economic growth are precisely what are needed to stabilize the systems.
245334
Cause all countries are not equal... And I'm not talking just language. Economic opportunities, the cost of living, wealth distribution, and much more would never allow this to work in the current state of the world. I guess what I'm saying there really isn't a globalized world yet, cause in reality none of that is being exchanged perfectly. If free movement was allowed it'd be chaos, whole economies would be brought down. A lot of people would move in search better life, higher incomes, education, heck even visit, I'm sure a larger part of countries in Africa, countries of India, China, multitudes of other would experience a huge loss of population as they are still working on their economies and appropriately not everyone is content. \nAnd, to those who object to this, because they say everyone would move to US, that is not true. Many if they had the choice would not choose to live here. As long as an individual can make a decent living in his own country he is not uprooting his whole family to move to a country whose lifestyle he often resents just to make money. Money is not all that matter. Many would choose to come here and work, yes, but most of them would also go back and use that money in their country instead and live comfortably. Which is yet another flaw in free movement, as you proposed, we don't even have a currency that is equalized, and tons of people would be taking advantage of that...
360088
Quick answer - no special requirements needed.\n\nLong answer - Usually, the General Secretary is either a government worker in the diplomatic field from a neutral 3rd country (one where 90% of the other nations have no objection to), or a prominent activist. The only requirement for the General Secretary's position is 1) You have to be among the region that is selected for that chair (In order to prevent bias, the chair is usually moved from region to region every election. Kofi Annan came from the African region, the next General Secretary will come from the Asian region), and 2) you have to be elected by the General Assembly of the UN.
248178
Buying?..lol, than why didn't they use that money and get industrialized, rather called "developing world"? It is stealing, and these countries happened to be poor and unable to defend their resources, because puppet regimes allowed this to happen.
375287
The reality is that globalization is a positive for all players involved.  Right now, the rich countries are enjoying all the benefits without taking any of the risks and globablization does not benefit every single person anyway.  The concept is that if country A can make everything cheaper than country B, both countries can benefit by letting each do what it does best.  A may pay more to B for some things than they could make it themselves for, but A will make more money by selling other products to B.  B makes money, both by selling its goods and by purchasing A's products.  The down side is that each country must focus on its specialty and re-deploy resources from industries where it doesn't have a significant advantage.  That means that you really shouldn't be making clothes or growing wheat in N. America or Europe.  That is something that can be done better in S. America and Africa, freeing up American and European capital and labor to focus on industries where it has an overwhelming advantage.  But if you are a farmer or work in a clothing factory, you probably see if differently.
357945
globalized they deal with china also. as well as many others. they take advantage of every opportunity. they have to. a lot of people are starving. but on a whole we are all globalized, since the Internet. more so everyday.
286034
Well, there's two ways of looking at it.\nFirstly, as you say, in an increasingly globalized world no nation--no matter how powerful or wealthy--can afford to be selfish or motivated by narrow, self-centered interests. Thus, the USA too must adapt to the new realities and requirements of this age. It must strive to be more friendly and sympathetic towards other nations and generally develop a more positive attitude in its dealings with the rest of the world.\nThe other aspect is, that all nations have their own interests at stake, ultimately. And the USA also has its interests to watch and protect. But even if this is the case, it doesnt mean that it can ride rough-shod over other nations and interfere indiscriminately in their affairs.\n There is a dire need for it to strike the right balance between (a) national self-interest and (b) global needs, concerns and relations.\nIf the US wants to play a greater, more responsible role in world politics, it should do so with legitimacy i.e., by being a part of international organizations and acting in concord with them not by trying to usurp the role of the UN or other, similar agencies.
220871
To borrow from President Clinton here, it depends on what the meaning of "globalization" is. I have seen a number of definitions, ranging from social-cultural to economic.  Usually "globalization" conjures up ideas of some sort of global inter-connectedness wherein previous barriers are no longer as salient, and the free flow of tangible and intangible goods serves to change the entire system- arguably for the better.  If we assume that we're talking about globalization on all fronts, such that we mean the free flow of all tangible and intangible goods, then at first glance we might be tempted to say that this is a good thing.  But I would rather ask another question. Rather than assuming that globalization is an end unto itself, I would rather pose the question in terms of how globalization might be used as a tool to accomplish a specific goal. For example, on the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)- an often cited example of economic globalization in North America- we might ask how workers have fared in terms of their wages, rights, workplace safety.  Or, we might look at China's accession to the WTO and its consequences.  I personally do not believe that the answer to your question lies in "globalization" itself, but how it is used.  With any radical change, there are bound to be costs and benefits. But the costs and benefits arise largely because new opportunities are created. Those opportunities do not necessarily indicate a fixed directionality or path. Rather, it is how people use those opportunities to achieve certain results. Globalization is neither inherently "good" nor inherently "bad". It does not demean rights, or wages, or the safety of others, no more so than a car can cause a highway accident or a gun can kill a person.  It matters more how globalization is used as a tool to achieve specific ends.
122628
True. Put the following facts in your paper:\n\n1. Emergence of the World Trade Organization (WTO), something like a United Nations Under Trade. All countries participate in it, recently China has been admitted, and once a country gets in it is bound to free trade relations with the other countries.\n\n2. emergence of new technologies of communication, huge and effective transportation networks (think of airplanes and airports almost everywhere, when you fedex a letter from the US to Denmark it reaches the recepient the next day, how do you think that letter got there?)  ... all these networks make world trade easier. Since there is always a profitable opportunity in every transaction that is made, trade is good, and hence world trade is even better.\n\n3. National markets are clearly hard to define anymore. Surely, borders exists between USA and Mexico and USA and Canada, but they are considered as one market nowadays. Think also of the European Union: 25 countries, all different languages and stuff, and still they are one market. A box of cookies in the supermarket has ingredient analysis in 10 languages in Europe.\n\nSo, True. Hard to find a 'national' market anymore.\n\nI hope it helps.
283439
it doesn't. Its not suppose to overcome it. It's at this point where all different cultures should be open to diversity and respect differences...and actually embrace it. We could learn so much from each other. And the answer to your other question...yes, i think it does contribute to the rise, because globalisation threatens diversity. globalisation is trying to make the world smaller and identical. When our identity's as different cultures, different religions are threatened, we would fight harder to keep it