Globalization has had inauspicious effects and deductions and this paper examines as it affects developing states. It ‘s a comparative reappraisal of two articles ; “ The development of development economic sciences and globalization ” by Piasecki and Wolnicki ( 2004 ) and “ Could developing states take the benefit of globalization? ” by Hartungi ( 2006 ) . Attempt was made to besides place points of congruity between the two articles every bit good as different positions on globalization tendencies experienced in developing states. The general consensus is that globalization theories reflecting economic growing and development are non a true representation of economic worlds in developing states. It is besides clear that the articles do non place the positive effects of globalization. A holistic indifferent attack is therefore encouraged in the apprehension of globalization as there is the inclination to acquire carried off with theoretical attacks while disregarding practical deductions.
Hartungi ( 2006 ) describes the assorted constructs of globalization and how it has affected developing states. The article is focused on the argument on whether developing states can profit from globalization and the engagement of the domestic nation-state in maximizing these benefits. It identifies the dependence of economic development non merely on domestic policies but on market forces and planetary influences of international trade. The possible positives of globalization to developing states are briefly highlighted in the article but the writer focused on the negative effects on developing states. The benefits of globalization to developing states are examined under the undermentioned categorization ;
Trade and industry
Labour and employment
Intellectual belongings right
In each of the above listed cases, the writer cited under-development, encephalon drain, indifferent favor of industrialized states and multi-national corporations by international administrations such as the World Trade Organisation ( WTO ) at the disbursal of the domestic economic systems of the developing states as farther impeding the ability to derive from globalization. The writer systematically used Indonesia as a mention point in analyzing the effects of globalization on developing states. This is n’t wholly representative of the bing scenario of globalization in developing states. Hartungi ( 2006 ) argues that globalization should favor both developing and developed states but this is n’t the instance.
The article goes on to place the construct of protectionism as a Panacea for developing states in their command to command and pull off globalization and the influence of transnational corporations and industrialized states on their domestic economic systems. Hartungi ( 2006 ) encourages protection of domestic economic systems matched with the state ‘s development degree as the key to harvesting the built-in benefits of globalization. The writer concludes by accepting the inevitableness of globalization, beging for developing states to synchronise their domestic economic policies in line with the globalization procedure so as to do the best usage of it.
Piasecki and Wolnicki ( 2004 ) on the other manus, focuses on the development of development economic sciences and its failures, the intercession of globalization as a solution and the experience of economic and societal growing for developing states. A cardinal point identified in the article is the demand for development economic sciences to suit “ socio-cultural complexnesss ” important in planing and developing theoretical accounts of economic growing. Development economic sciences failed to turn to the growing demands of developing states ensuing in high poorness degrees and inequality.
Piasecki and Wolnicki ( 2004 ) goes on to set up the paradigm displacement to deregulated trade and the function of planetary corporations and influx of foreign direct investing in developing states to ease the development procedure. Inflow of foreign capital and western ingestion of domestic resources merely served to decline the job of hapless development. The article attributes the failure of globalization in developing states to their inordinate openness to the universe economic system and their inability to pull off this openness. In decision, Piasecki and Wolnicki ( 2004 ) insist on globalization being the solution to economic development despite its negatives. They advocate the intercession of the province in economic development in limited proportion and merely when market imperfectnesss exist.
An of import characteristic in critical literature reappraisal harmonizing to Dr Kabilan involves the constitution of relationships between different surveies on a peculiar subject. As stated earlier, both articles examine globalization and its function in the economic growing and development in developing states. The tendency of globalization favoring industrialized states at the disbursal of developing states is highlighted in both articles, placing the World Trade Organisation ( WTO ) as formulating and implementing international trade policies which marginalise developing states in international trade activities and their attempts at economic development. It becomes obvious that some signifier of protectionism is necessary for developing states to tackle the built-in benefits of globalization.
Both articles acknowledge the outgrowth of transnational companies ( MNCs ) with considerable power over nation-states and their control of their economic systems. An of import point which Hartungi ( 2006 ) fails to turn to but which is stated clearly by Piasecki and Wolnicki ( 2004 ) is that the misdirection of the globalization procedure by politicians and leaders could be the ground for hapless economic development in developing states. Hartungi ( 2006 ) blames globalization for under-development without researching how the procedure evolved in these states and its execution.
Hartungi ( 2006 ) quotes Stiglitz ( 200 ) in reasoning that “ The impact of trade liberalization caused trade liberalization caused inefficient industries, which are largely found in infant industry to shut down as a consequence of force per unit area from international completion. Piasecki and Wolnicki ( 2004 ) besides agrees with this by mentioning “ inordinate openness to the universe economic system and the inability to pull off this openness ” as responsible for the ripple effects of under-development in developing states.
This therefore informs the sentiment that globalization is necessary and inevitable, but needs to be managed and implemented carefully to accomplish its aims of economic development. Ability to profit from globalization by developing states is dependent on how they adjust their policies to foster the procedure domestically. The demand to besides see globalization executing every bit country-specific as stated by Piasecki and Wolnicki ( 2004 ) is imperative with economic development theoretical accounts and protection attempts implemented with a witting consideration of the adulthood degrees of single economic systems.