For Beginners & Senior Students: Art & Culture by Civilsdaily
A comprehensive coverage of NCERTs, NIOS & CCRT Material. Click here & spend next 30 minutes to 10X your confidence
A comprehensive coverage of NCERTs, NIOS & CCRT Material. Click here & spend next 30 minutes to 10X your confidence
The rules of globalization were written by the West and the Empire. We have only played by it.
Instructions: Write the following essay in 1000-1200 words.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
@discuss , any plan to give feedback on essays ?
Please review this essay..
Your essay is entirely about how globalization has affected India in every sphere. It is important to tell that but IMO it should’ve ended by 3-4th page (assuming you write a 10 page essay)
the topic talks about of the rules of globalisation => as in how it operates on the world has been largely determined by the west with little or no concerns for the LDCs and developing countries. The fact that it has helped is beyond doubt but it has seemed to be working for us the west most of the time.
I feel this has not been handled head on and rather skirted upon here and there in no clear terms.
Or if you disagree with the statement (I think this is where your essay lies at the moment), then you need to spell that out more forcefully to tell that it has not been dominated by west and has worked for all.
About the conclusion, I think SL PM said that. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
All the best 🙂
appreciable attempt..seem deviated from topic.All essays went around political,economic but ur perspective and presentation on social influence is good.
Thanks Nanda Kishore
@narayanacbe @namrata-rai Great essay by both of you…..however, the latter one has written it, covering both sides of topic more comprehensively, elucidating many examples….@narayanacbe though I am no connoisseur in art of essay-writing, wouldn’t breaking your essay into more number of paragraphs help in presentation??
Very often, we see India signing fresh or enhanced bilateral pacts with many countries on a variety of areas like economy, security and so on. This is globalization, which is a process of international integration arising from the interchange of world views, products, ideas, and other aspects of culture. The rules of this process were written down by the West as well as the Empire and we have only played by it. But then, how do we justify this? Yes, the answer lies in right from the past till the present.
Firstly, let us view globalization from the trade perspective. Globalization, in its large scale was visible in 19th Century as a result of the Industrial Revolution which began in the then Great British Empire. It was shaped by the advent of advancements in transportation, telecommunication and imperialism in Africa and Asia. The products of globalisation such as railroads, machinery in textiles spread faster, especially to then colonized India. Slowly, the need to have a framework (which later imposed rules) for international influence in trade, commerce, finance and monetary policy was felt. This was achieved in the Bretton Woods Conference, organized after the World War II, the time when India was under “British Raj”. It cleared the way for “West Dominated” IMF and World Bank. This trend was followed by the adoption of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) from 1948, due to failure of US led International Trade Organization. India, as an independent nation was merely a spectator till GATT’s last round of agreements, held in Uruguay. The Marrakesh Agreement as a culmination of 12 year long Uruguay talks led to the establishment of World Trade Organization in 1995, with a stated aim to ensure that trade flows smoothly, predictably and freely as possible. WTO disallows some trade practices, a form of control. Secondly, from a strategic and political perspective, the developing countries like India have been kept at bay. For instance, the United Nations Security Council in its present form is not suitable for changing geopolitics. It divides the power among relatively fewer countries, which wield the powerful “Veto” in key decisions including imposing sanctions, declaring war and maintaining peace. By now, it is clear that the west and the empire were and are instrumental in framing the rules of globalization in the past. It is time to evaluate whether we have played by the same.
We have not played by it. Instead, we have been made to play by it. Under WTO rules, which are mostly inspired by Uruguay agreements, countries are not allowed to discriminate against imports and favour local producers. The Domestic Content Requirements (DCR) under India’s Solar Mission for solar panels was found to be in violation of above mentioned rule. This handed a victory to US in a case filed against India at WTO. This is seen as a major blow to India’s Intended Nationally Determined Contribution of huge solar power generation adopted at Paris Climate Conference. Another victory for US came in an instance, where India’s ban on import of poultry meat, eggs and live pigs from US on the grounds of “preventing Avian Influenza” was found to be in violation of WTO norms. If at all any flu spreads in US, imagine what would happen to us. These are some instances, through which India has “been” made to play by the rules advocated by developed world. Such procedures framed in bias of the west and the empire, make them the drivers of World prosperity. But how do these rules favour them?
Firstly, looking from the trade perspective, the globalization norms support the developed western powers through “unequal competition”. They are reluctant to make progress on developing nations’ friendly Doha Development Round talks. Developed countries maintain high import duties on wide ranging products like clothing, from developing countries. The non-tariff barriers like Anti Dumping Duty are permitted to be used by developed powers against developing countries. Does not it sound unfair? The agricultural agreement has led to competition between (indirectly) subsidized farm products of the west and unsubsidized agricultural products in developing countries like India. The absence of exceptions under Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) may make the essential goods expensive. TRIPS could also lead to Bio Piracy in developing countries by monopolistic organisations of west in the near future. Secondly, from the strategic and political perspective, the veto wielding members of UNSC can easily block India’s interests on key issues. A good example would be China’s blocking of sanctioning a terrorist. There have been various steps taken to tackle this. Some of them are discussed below.
India is signing multiple pacts with various countries in form of Free Trade Agreements (FTAs), Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs) to overcome the stagnated trading due to stalled Doha Development Agenda. Due to active membership in various international forums like BRICS, BIMSTEC, SAARC, G20, etc, India has been able to exert considerable pressure on international powers to alter rules or find an alternative. For example: 1). The dependence on west dominated IMF and World Bank for loans is no longer needed with the New Development Bank (NDB) established by BRICS nations. 2). The strategically west dominated North Atlantic Treaty Organization has been countered with India’s membership in Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).
To conclude, India is capable of becoming the driver of growth worldwide and bail out the world from economic crises, provided we take part in framing the rules or create our own system with regional powers like China and Russia.
1. Your essay looks very technical with number of organisations etc
2. Social and cultural aspects are not touched.
3. You have good content, but some emotional aspects help to connect the examiner, like that of Namratha’s essay
Wish you all the best…
Plz Review …
As a globe integrates all nations together, globalization has had a similar effect. Globalization has integrated the world together. Globalization is often associated with the idea of transmission “from the core to the periphery”. To understand globalization let’s break the above statement into two and analyze them.
—————- First question that immediately comes to one’s mind would be “transmission of what”. The answer is transmission of anything and everything is “globalization”. It can be transmission of inventions like INTERNET, a telescope, an idea say Capitalism, culture and so on. The second question is, where is the core, from where the transmission starts and where is the periphery, which is the destination of globalization.
—————– It is this question which has been highly contested. Recently Sri Lankan Prime Minister said – “The rules of globalization were written by the West and the Empire. We have only played by it.” To understand how far is this true let’s examine ‘globalization’.
——————- 13th Century onwards, voyagers from Europe started exploring other areas. As they did this, they came across huge material resources of the East and America. These shrewd men decided to tap these resources for their personal profits but to achieve this they had to gain unfettered control over these nations. This led to colonization. While Europe colonized nations ruthlessly, Malthusian theory was laid to justify the brutality of Europeans. Thomas Malthus stated the resources on Earth remain limited so people’s dying was the only way to reduce the pressure on resources. British used this theory to justify the deaths in initial periods of their rule in India due to famines. Here we see how the West defined rules of ‘capitalism’, ‘mercantilism’, etc.
—————– This was taken forward by Adam Smith in his ‘Wealth of nations’ where he introduced the concept of ‘Laissez Faire’. To counter the capitalistic model of Adam Smith, came a German named Karl Marx with Friedrich Engels and Robert Owen also a proponent of Socialism. All these people belonged to the West.
—————- Even today we see the West dominating the scenes of WTO, climate talks, etc. World Bank and IMF are already considered legacies of the West. All these examples point to West’s hegemony but to get deeper insights we need to understand ‘how did West write the rules?’
—————- The answer lies in the early ‘Industrialization’ of the West. They developed before the East. Most of the models like ‘proto-capitalism, capitalism, Socialism, healthcare, IT’ originated in the West. These nations had the capability to test these models and then transmit to the world economy so the world could also taste the fruits of their hard work. This is based on a simple principle – ‘If I make a game, I get to decide the rules’ – which is quite fair on the condition that I keep everyone’s goodwill in mind. Also rules should be complied fairly by all.
—————– It is here that these models have flawed. Not only are rules biased, the implementation is also biased. Best exemplified by UN’s stand on Kashmir issue. The UNSC remains West dominated and refuses to discuss the matter because it could hurt its own ‘sphere of influence -Pakistan’. This has majorly been done by US. USA’s dominating the global scenario led to the introduction of the word ‘Americanization’.
—————- Americanization is a result of US hegemony that it gained after the fall of Soviet Union. Today US forms rules in every sphere. Its attempt to globalize democracy led to creation of political vacuum in Libya making it a terrorism breeding site. USA’s attempt to popularize capitalism at the cost of Socialism and to maintain its hegemony at the cost of Soviet led to creation of terrorist outfits.
————– Alongside, today we link ‘globalization’ with ‘westernization’ and put the blame on the West, Example in hand would be breaking families, growing focus on rights and less on duties. These have been attributed to the Western concept of ‘individualism’ that is rights of an individual are more important which is in stark contrast with India’s historic focus on duties towards the society. Globalization’s failure to globalize these Indian values shows how the West dominates over the East.
————– However, this reminds me of several Americans and Europeans I have interacted with or seen heading to Indian temples and dargahs. This internationalization of Indian culture is also a result of globalization. The best example here would be Indian art forms are dying in India while they are flourishing in the West. We need to credit globalization for this.
——— I remember raising a question before – If globalization is transmission, where is the core from where the transmission begins and where is the receiving periphery?
————– The answer is, the core can be any area rich in a resource or idea. It can be the East or the West and saying rules are set by the West and others just played to these rules would be a myopic view.
————– A small question for the reader- ‘what would be a globe like if few or new countries are missing from it?’ Would not it be ‘incomplete’? The same is with globalization. Globalization guided by few nations would be ‘incomplete’ and why would any country participate in such a process where they have no say.
————– If we give the example of ‘Americanization’ we should not forget China, which is the second largest economy today and a major economic driver. Paper, silk, gunpowder, tea are few contributions of China that got globalized. The decimal system, zero, Yoga, cotton and IT are few of India’s contributions to the world. The West could not leave these two giant economies out while aiming to establish global economic stability and hence, initiated the G-20. Today undoubtedly the West dominates economic sphere but isn’t the East countering it by establishing institutions like NDB and AIIB.
————– Besides economy, the internationalization of ideas like Non-alignment and Panchsheel show how the developing nations are shaping the global agendas with their policies. Another example is that of UNSC reform advocated by India, Japan, Germany and Brazil. And many developed nations have showed their acceptance to reflect ground realities of the world.
————– This brings us back to the flawed history of globalization we studied before. It was globalization when Indus Valley people traded with Mesopotamia, it was globalization when the Aryans migrated to the Indian subcontinent, it was globalization when great religions like –Buddhism, Hinduism and Jainism took birth in India and when they were spread across the world.
————– Globalization was never a Western concept and will never be. Though West dominates but there are reasons behind it which deserve consideration. The West kept itself open to ideas of the East. There is no denying historically Indians were scientifically and technologically more advanced but their reluctance to learn further from the West deterred their growth while the West learned from the East and researched further and industrialized.
————– This lead has given globalization a westward turn and the East should be assimilative about this and learn from its past mistakes.
More importantly to counter all contemporary problems we should aim establishing a participative democratic system where even the smallest nation has an equivalent say. This can only be achieved by a united approach keeping in mind –
‘Coming together is beginning. Keeping together is progress. Working together is success.’ –Henry Ford.
First part is little complex and critical, send half of your essay is excellent. You can mention some more aspects to essay…who should set the rules now and how? What should be those new rules…
A wonderful write up..crystal clear explanation
Interesting take when you say globalization is not westernization. ^^
‘If I make a game, I get to decide the rules’ – which is quite fair on the condition that I keep everyone’s goodwill in mind. Also rules should be complied fairly by all…===> especially liked these lines @namrata-rai
@namrata-rai it is like a model essay but you can introduce more simplicity in it I think..as per exam point of view…?
“It has been said that arguing against globalisation is like arguing against the law of gravity”. These words by Kofi Annan indicate the extent and pervasiveness of globalisation in our economy, our institutions, society and polity. This deep entrenchment of globalisation is not arbitrary. It became possible only due to an elaborate network of institutions and frameworks that formulated some rules to set this process in motion. However, the rules of this process are but one aspect. It also becomes necessary to look at the rule-makers and analyse their intention behind propagation of this idea of globalisation. While many in the western world swear by the need and salubrious impact of globalisation, there does exist a contrarian view that the purpose and intent was rooted in realism and promotion of self-interests rather than the consideration of its consequences on the rest of the word.
The start of systemic changes and institutionalisation of globalisation process was initiated in the Bretton Woods system by the West, specifically the US. The idea was to set up two bodies. One to provide developmental loans to the developing and poorest of the poor countries in order to make them ready, infrastructurally and otherwise, for the process of globalisation. The other to protect the state of health of the world economy if and when a situation demanding the same arises, the assumption being growing interconnectedness resulting in greater exposure to systemic risks. This could be done by SDRs, publications of risk outlook, bailout packages, legal enforcement of austerity measures, moral suasion, diplomatic pressuring etc. With the ground work done, an attempt to evolve a system to liberalise trade by a legal and binding mechanism to reduce tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade was carried out in the form of GATT, with the lead of the Western nations. With increasing progress of globalisation, this system was replaced by WTO in 1994 by the Marrakesh Treaty. In this way, hegemony was established by the West in the controlling institutions of the process of globalisation.
Hegemony should not be thought to be restricted to only these 3 institutions, its effects can been seen in almost all the international organisations and treaties from the likes of UN,OECD, IAEA, G7, G20 to the recently concluded Climate Change Agreement. This hegemony in areas such as climate change and internet by frameworks like UNFCCC and ICANN respectively, also have an important bearing on economic aspect of globalisation. In a way, they act as agents of west in entrenching the process of globalisation further by rules and frameworks, albeit in a more subtle manner.
However, from the point of view of the West, globalisation was only necessary to share the fruits of the developed world with the developing. It was important also for upholding competition, meritocracy, obtaining better quality goods, facilitating optimum utilization of recourses and in turn promoting a better quality of life in general. It was based on the utilitarian notion of the greatest good for the greatest number of persons, even as consequences turned out to be far from it. Still, not all of them were bad. Even so, not all consequences could have been pre-empted. Some of them, especially the negative ones, were unintended and arose due to the unpredictable nature of the system itself.
Among the desirable consequences included penetration of technology, increase in world trade, better infrastructure and logistics in terms of the world economy as a whole. In the personal domain, greater economic freedom to women, greater awareness of rights in developing world, easier availability of information, better innovation, greater choice to the customer resulted in an overall improvement in quality of life and an increase in life expectancy and educational outcomes at large.
However, the fruits of development resulting from the process of globalisation were not shared equally. The West became a bigger beneficiary than the poorer nations due to its early bird advantage on account of industralisation undertaken before the process of globalisation. Even among the developing nations, the outcome was not homogenous. Certain countries like China and India used globalisation to their advantage to push for growth, by building capacities, obtaining greater FDI, generating more employment in the process. However, even within these countries, inequalities were enhanced between the haves and the have-nots. The trickle down effect clearly did not operate as planned to reduce the inequalities but instead entrenched them deeper. Closer home, measures to facilitate ease of doing business by labour reforms have hurted the interests of the workers. The conflict between preserving the concentrated producer interests and the diffused consumer interests is apparent in the Indian context. Problems of poverty, hunger, malnourishment remain, even as rich continue to get richer.
Moreover, homogenisation of cultures took place due to Westernisation or Mcdonaldization wherein elements of the hegemon culture were incorporated in each of the cultures. Blue jeans, western sit coms, fast food joints etc. flooded the world markets. This became a soft tool for the west to influence the world economies. This process of acculturation did not go unchallenged. It resulted in cultural confrontation. In some parts of the world, the cry for nationalism became stronger as can be seen in the Brexit episode. Xenophobic tendencies became more mainstream due to increase in security threats such as terrorism as well as growing unemployment of the locals posed by migrant crisis in Europe.
In the political domain, globalisation have led to crony capitalism, development of nexus between the MNCs and the government as can be seen in the Apple vs EU case where the American company, Apple was given undue tax benefits by the Irish Government. Neo-colonialism, interventionalism by West can be seen in the Syrian Crisis. The Chinese threat has resulted in polarisation of world order that was seen in the South China Sea Dispute.Base Erosion and Profit Shifting by MNCs, black money have presented themselves as a global problem now instead of being a national one demanding international cooperation.
Consumerism and Profit mentality has become rampant in the culture not even sparing media houses, educational institutions and hospitals. Even the NGOs have started using their clout to lobby for policy changes in the developing nations as per the interests of the West as was seen in case of Greenpeace international. Thus, the rules of the game continue to impose themselves upon us even in areas where a direct link with globalisation could not have even been thought of.
In such a scenario, developing world in the faced with the greatest challenge. That is whether to resist the potent forces of globalisation and deprive themselves of the benefits that it brings like North Korea or to continue to engage in it by attempting to gain the maximum from globalisation. The first has no longer remained an option due to the vast aspirations of the people, the companies and the lobbies as well as diplomatic pressures. Even a small and a valid step like Maggie ban received much attention and criticism from the public. Protectionism and anti-dumping measures in steel invited the wrath of China. Therefore, engagement is no longer only an option but it has become a necessity. Hence, ways to minimise the damage and maximise the gains from this process, within the confines of the limits posed by the system must be carried out.
A good start was done in the formation of alternative institutions such as BRICS, NDB and AIIB have exerted some amount on pressure on the institutions dominated by the West. Further, greater South-South cooperation in these organisations, WTO and Climate Change Pact will ensure that the needs of the developing countries are heard. Some amount of protectionism, government regulation and safeguards are needed to protect the domestic industries and so must not be compromised at any cost. Softer power however, is harder to counteract than economic power. Greater awareness of the dangers of mindless aping of west coupled with development of own soft power as was done by China by Confucius Institutes can go a long way in preventing the homogenisation of cultural diversity. While rules are established and the game has to be played, the wisdom to take on the terms of the game still resides with us.
Nice attempt…I got enlightened ??
Absolutely stunning essay! sharp intro and great conclusion. Only thing I disagree with is that the ICANN is an unbiased private NGO and only allocates namespaces to organisation. 😀
K thanku sir….
ignore my 1 and 2nd pic of document , start from 3rd to last, they are not in order
Very well written. The start and the end is impressive. Just one thing, I saw bullet point format somewhere in the essay. Please avoid that. 🙂
@new-pib Nicely written! I forgot about culture. Even you could write more on cultural globalisation.
your essay is a bit short and does not “really focus” on the rules of the game being decided by the western world. I liked the inclusion of Stiggets’s view : how globalization is good but countries should take it up at their own pace. @mintugupta6
ignore my 1 and 2nd pic od document , start from 3rd to last, they are not in order
Kunal sir ,could you pls clear me ,how the problem of unemployment, poverty &agricultural trade comes from globalisation?
@nitikamann12 unemployment – failing small industries and cottage industries due to high competition
agricultural trade because of reduction in subsidies or help to farmers in expanding their produce beyond a certain limit.
This leads to poverty as well
Recently, I was reading a newspaper about the United States’ special 301 report and the hanging sword on Indian government to comply by the US demand for strict intellectual property rights policies. US has been unilaterally forcing countries to enforce stricter IPR regime beyond what has been agreed under TRIPS agreement of WTO. They have been imposing sanctions on countries over time. This raised my curiosity to find out more about US’s hegemony on world.
I soon realized that the way international system has been designed, it ends up favoring the west more than others. After world war II, America and Europe emerged as strong partners in furthering their interests. The world was being decolonized. Many new developing countries were emerging and the west was losing its control. At this time, through the Bretton Woods institutions, the west through its economic might started controlling the world in different ways.
It is no coincidence that the western powers have maximum voting shares in these institutions. This hegemonic position only gets stronger with the chiefs of both World Bank and IMF being selected from US and Europe respectively ever year. Doesn’t it raise concerns over the existing rules? Do developing countries really get the deserving space?
General agreement on trade and tariff which was later reorganized to Word Trade Organization in 1995 have played major role in globalizing the world. Globalization has been hailed to connect and knit the world together through more economic integration. World Trade has increased over years. However, the composition of trade and direction has not changed much. Many developing countries are facing trade deficits and are facing huge problems of unemployment, poverty and decreasing agricultural trade.
One major impact of WTO’s policies has been on agriculture. Western powers were less dependent on agricultural economy whereas developing countries were heavily dependent. Imagine India still having majority population dependent on agriculture and more than 50% workforce employed in agriculture and allied fields. In this scenario, with globalization, countries were forced to decrease subsidies and remove price supports for farmers. Who could have benefited from such provisions? It couldn’t have been developing countries for sure! It ended up with farmer suicides and poor rural growth.
Robert Cox, political thinker, has rightly pointed out that the rules of international affairs are designed for a certain time and certain situations. According to him, these rules are always designed to help the prosperous and powerful countries. This is reason that we talk about environmental problems only recently. Pollution has been going on since Industrial revolution but it was only taken on international consideration after the west had achieved their developed. This harms developing countries looking for expansion.
Globalization is not all bad. Many countries have tried to get some space with in the existing institutions. UNSC reforms and IMF quota reforms have been in discussion for long. Developing countries have tried to change some rules based on their needs. Recent conclusion of Paris climate deal in CoP-21 where differential duty principles has been accepted is an achievement. This will help balance the developing needs of east over Western powers.
Globalization has increased growth and incomes of people. People now have access to products from across the globe. They get the products cheaper due to competition in market. Countries have been able to achieve specialization in their field of expertise such as China in Manufacturing, Bangladesh in textile and India in services sector. This specialization could help these countries get market access in the west. However, this market access has not been whole hearted. While, the developing countries have been forced to lower trade tariff and remove non-tariff barriers, western countries have not completely adopted it themselves. There are reports of huge subsidies provided by US to its farmers.
Existing rules of globalization has created many problems. Let’s take another example of IPR policies. The current IPR policies enforce patents on drugs made by western companies. TRIPS agreement allows developing countries the provision of Compulsory licensing to improve health infrastructure. However, the western powers have been advocating against it. These rules that enforce IPR favors western countries and impact people of developing countries negatively.
Western companies have been demanding huge concessions from government, cheaper credits, easy acquisition of land and labor reforms. These demands are equally demanded by the western countries themselves through various reports like Competitiveness Index report, Ease of doing business report from World Bank and World Economic Outlook. These reports have often put developing countries in comparison with developed and advocated for these reforms. However, they have most often neglected the fact of abundance of labor, prevailing poverty and unemployment when advocating for these reforms. They are simply echoing the demands of the west.
Increasing hegemonic and economic power of these western countries is being countered by many countries. Regional south-south groupings like NAM, BRICS and IBSA are challenging the western hegemonic ideas. New development bank challenging the power of world bank is a commendable step. India’s policies have been strictly transformed accordingly allowing globalization over time. Allowing foreign direct policy in limited areas and opening these opportunities only with careful analysis over time are steps that have been followed by many economics. Bhutan’s following of World Happiness Index is a simple example of not following western ideas of development without careful analysis.
It would be no easy task to change these rules as seen in case of UNSC reforms. West will stand firm in giving increasing space to eastern countries. The east needs more cooperation amongst themselves. The international space is only getting complex with India and China rising in the east. Globalization is incomplete without free movement of people across borders. The policies and rules need to take into consideration the conditions of developing countries. Only with more democratic space for the east can we hope for a sustainable world development.
liked your intro \m/
Tagged: Essay Challenge