The Phenomenon Of Globalization, De-Globalisation And Anti-Globalisation

“It was only a few decades ago that globalisation was held by many, even by some critics, to be an inevitable, unstoppable force. ” (The Guardian, 2017). In this essay will be characterised the phenomenon of globalisation, as well as its opposite movements: de-globalisation and anti-globalisation, the effects of each of the movements, the arguments of their supporters, as well as the history of their creation.

First of all, the beginnings of globalisation are associated with geographical discoveries, as well as their impact on the development of trade, which shaped merchant or mercantile capitalism. Globalisation is a complex phenomenon encompassing various areas of life, including the economy, politics, society and culture. According to BBC (2007), the undoubted advantages affecting business are the ease of transport, communication and the diversity of human resources. Globalisation affects both on markets (customer needs are compared in many aspects, various products and services, companies must also pay attention to disproportions in the needs of their buyers) and sectors (predispositions of companies and forms of production). According to Forbes (2018), one of the biggest perspectives is economic freedom, resource allocation (better use of scarce resources and production based on a combination of their factors), free trade, and the ability to increase productivity and living standards. Easy emigration gives investors opportunities to employ foreign specialists, thereby increasing the market value of their company. The impact on the availability and prices of goods, technological advancement and living standards makes globalisation one of the most important facets affecting societies in the modern world. According to The Economist (2017), the process of globalisation has likewise influenced the emergence of international corporations and the economic development of newly industrialised countries. According to Harvard Business Review (2019), another advantage is the creation of capital companies operating in many regions, and thus the establishment of multinational corporations, such as General Electric, Royal Dutch Shell or Hyundai Motor Company. This advancement not only allowed global cooperation between enterprises, but also defined new consumer needs. Open borders between nations allow reaching more buyers, as well as setting global trends. Branding is not limited by the country of origin, but the ability to invest on international market. Moreover, business phenomena such as 'outsourcing' (separation of certain functions from the company structure and transfer them to other entities to reduce costs) and 'offshoring' (the process of producing services in the territory of another state than the one from which the enterprise originates). This allows for opportunities that were not previously available. One of the most important examples of how globalisation is developing the world is the acceleration of political integration and setting up organisations such as the United Nations, The International Monetary Fund and UNESCO. It is also worthwhile to mention about institutions dealing with the ecological dimension of globalisation such as Greenpeace or a social dimension such as Amnesty International.

There is no doubt that globalisation has a decisive impact on global financial markets. Among the negative effects in the economic aspect are also currency and financial crises, one of the most important is the crisis in Mexico in 1994-1995 (withdrawal of foreign investors, decline in GDP, inflation), the countries of Southeast Asia 1997-1998, Russia in 1998 (direct the reason was the non-payment of foreign debt), Brazil in 1999 and Argentina in 1999-2002. All of these crises were characterised by currency depreciation, economic instability and a fall in bonds. Regardless of the fact that globalisation has changed the business market for better, for most companies profit is more important than acting in accordance with ethical values. According to The Washington Post (2016), underdeveloped regions are increasingly being used as a cheap labour force by big companies. Poor technological improvement in these countries not only does not give the opportunity to work in proper working conditions, but forces employees to work above their capabilities for a low rate too. According to The Guardian (2016) there is no doubt that these actions not only do not improve the development of least developed countries, but above all increase the gap between those developed. As a result of this process was formed anti-globalisation movement, which criticises not entirely the problems of the modern developed world, but still considers globalisation as the cause of social stratification in an international aspect. Anti-globalisation is based on the criticism of the emergence of mass culture, thereby losing national culture and identity, as well as economic colonialism, privatisation of enterprises and the monopolistic policy of world corporations. Supporters of anti-globalisation created free trade policy, which support respect for workers, their payment and work conditions. Therefore according to BBC (2016), proponents of this movement believe the actions of globalisation bring the most damage to countries used as cheap workers. From the perspective of supporters of anti-globalisation, problems such as illiteracy, poverty, and slavery are still mainly caused by globalisation. “Shouting slogans about greedy corporations and damage to the environment, protesters from all over the country – and many foreign nations – locked arms to block access to a convention center and theater where the WTO conference was to begin four days of talks aimed at opening another round of global trade negotiations” (The Washington Post,1999). Anti-globalists focus primarily on eliminating supranational institutions, mainly International Monetary Fund, World Bank and World Trade Organisation, G8 against which they protested in Seattle in 1999 and in Genoa in 2001. However, according to The Guardia (1999) it needs to be added that these were not the only protests, one of the most memorable in the United Kingdom was Carnival Against Capital in 1999 - a march taking place in London against the development of capitalism. Proponents of this movement believe that only supporting local products is valuable and important, because it directly affects the development of the local economy, thus eliminating profit for subcontractors. Their next main argument against is the fact that only the elites are enriched through globalisation and the economic situation of the poorest and middle classes remains unchanged. This mainly leads to the split between social classes, protests in undeveloped countries and social stratification.

The last described process is de-globalisation, which by definition excludes foreign cooperation and trade. According to The New York Times (2011), the last period of the occurrence of de-globalisation was the period 1914-1945, caused by historical aspects such as wars and economic depression. Opponents of de-globalisation point out that this process hampers the economic development of the country, devaluation, insufficient goods, lack of global trade, expensive transport costs and a reduction of capital. Moreover, according to BBC (2015), this process is associated not only with the high cost for the country but also of the necessity of improvement areas such as agriculture or industry, so that the state was completely self-sufficient. According to The Economist (2019), excluding foreign capital markets would also increase unemployment, and this would lower the country's GDP. Thus, they draw attention to the growing economic inequality between states. However, it needs to be added that supporters of this process point out that de-globalisation is inevitable by global financial crises, which, due to their enormous extent caused by globalisation, affects more and more countries in the world. Proponents of the idea of de-globalisation are mainly people who do not think that current global partnership is effective for all countries. One of the latest examples of establishing a de-globalisation policy is the idea of Brexit, which according to The Guardian (2018), is supposed to leave the European Union. Brexit is expected to reduce the costs incurred by the United Kingdom, which it currently incurs as a member of the European Union. According to New York Times (2018), existence of international agreements such as the Free Trade Area and the North American Free Trade Agreement makes de-globalisation even more difficult. These agreements not only provide income to the member states, but also protects the interests of those countries, which in the case of de-globalisation would be precluded. Furthermore, according to The Independent (2009), de-globalisation affects businesses, investors, technological advancement and excludes political arrangements with other nations. In the modern world, applying this process would be economically inefficient and would reduce the importance of the country on the global area. Despite these arguments, supporters of this movement claim that this would allow the independence of the country's economy to be restored and this would help to promote local products.

Taking everything into consideration, each of these methods has an impact on other business, political and social aspects. There is no agreement between them but it can not be clearly stated that one is more or less harmful than the others. Each of them characterised by different ideas of business development, political and economic. Regardless of the fact that the modern world is primarily focused on globalisation, its opponents will continue to look for alternatives. Globalisation, although it provides exceptional business opportunities, opens borders between countries, allows international cooperation and develops industry, it also facilitates universal trade, ease of movement and reduction of transport costs. On the other hand from a social perspective, however, it completely marginalises local culture, replacing it with mass culture, which is mainly meant to entertain rather than provide valuable content, in addition to makes contacts easier, but at the same time, it separates people from each other through technologies. In this movement, small entrepreneurs have no chance with global concerns. Ethical business values are marginalised and replaced by fast and cheap production. Moreover, consumers of products are treated as if each of them had the same needs. Globalisation does not value the quality but quantity of sales of goods only. One of the biggest disadvantages is the fact that the rapid globalisation process also leads to the division between developed rich countries and underdeveloped countries. This leads to global crises and an increase in financial debt. However, after all, a complete withdrawal would hinder domestic development. Overall, retreated from globalisation now, at the current technological development, would bring more disadvantages and would be very costly. Anti-globalisation, in turn, despite promoting local culture, popularise local entrepreneurs and paying attention to the resulting social stratification, closes itself to everything foreign. The aspect of anti-globalisation thus excludes international dialogue, putting country interests as more important. In the world of developed technology, which owes its success mainly to the cooperation of specialists from different countries, that movement would result in a lack of specialised human resources, as well as a lack of dynamic expansion. Another negative aspect would be closing companies working on the international market, which in turn contribute to the growth of unemployment.

Although the values of this process are precious, introducing it would not be economically viable. The last process, which is de-globalisation, helps to rebuild the country's independence and protects against global financial crises. As de-globalization was experiencing its development in the 20th century, it would now be much more difficult to apply it in the current technological progress. However, it closes the way to the improvement of investment and leads to a decline in the value of the currency. Especially currency inflation is one of the most important factors that affect the quality of life in the country. In addition, it also deprives entrepreneurs of the possibility of advancement, limiting them only to local markets. It also excludes beneficial global financial and production cooperation, which means lagging behind in comparison with developing countries. Lack of support from neighbouring countries and lack of international agreements would result in a low number of exported products and their high costs, because of the transport. Only regions with high social expansion and large financial resources would be able to afford total de-globalisation. It cannot be clearly stated which of these moves is the best because each one develops and destroys another aspect of life to some extent. Summarising, none of the described processes is foolproof and each has its pros and cons, but it is also not possible that all three coexisted.