Map: "A globalized world"

Cf. page 71 of your textbook.

Description (what does the map show?):

This thematic (economic and political) map, dated 2005, shows the relative economic importance of the world’s countries, the principal flows of wealth and knowledge, principal oil fields, war zones, and regional integrating associations.

Features of the KEY, explained:

• The Triad: USA, Japan, Europe are the members of the Triad (aka the oligopoly); they are the most powerful regions of the world economically.
• The hyperpower: the USA, it dominates at all levels the rest of the world.
• The other two powers: Japan and Europe, major economic powers but politically weaker than the USA.
• Developed countries associated to the Triad: Canada, Australia, New Zealand are part of the “Anglosphere” and have highly developed economies closely integrated into the globalized economy.
• Emerging countries: the economies of Brazil (and other Latin American countries), India, China, South Africa are becoming powerful and challenge the dominant position of the Triad members.
• Asian dragons: Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea have had a spectacular development in the last thirty years.
• Countries in reconstruction: former Soviet Bloc countries that, since the 1990s, are trying to adapt to a free-market economy.
• Countries integrated within globalization: North America, most of South East Asia, parts of the Middle East and North Africa, Venezuela (plus, though not indicated as such: the Triad, developed countries associated to the Triad, BRICS and Asian Dragons).
• Developing countries: countries, slowly evolving economically, in Africa, Central Asia, South America and the Middle East.
• Least Developed Countries (LDCs): the poorest countries, most African countries, plus Yemen, Afghanistan, Nepal, Bangladesh, Butan, Myanmar, Laos, Cambodia, Haiti.
• Fourth World: poor people in wealthy countries (everywhere).
• Countries at war: Nepal, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Ethiopia, Sudan, Chad, DR Congo, Côte d’Voire, Columbia, these are mostly very poor countries.
• Blind spot: of no interest geopolitically or economically (few people).
• Main oil resources: the world economy depends on this natural resource, mostly controlled by powerful multinational companies from the North. Oil fields indicated: North Sea, Russia, Middle East, North and West Africa, Venezuela, Ecuador, Mexico, USA, Indonesia.
• Major flows of investments, goods and information: major flows between the members of the Triad (thick arrows), less important flows between Japan, China and South East Asia (thinner arrows).
• Global cities: Tokyo, New York, Chicago, Washington D.C., New York, Los Angeles, London, Paris, are the “motors” of globalization and are very important at all levels. They concentrate activity, people, transport hubs, decision-making organizations.
• Main megalopolises (megalopolises are chains of roughly adjacent metropolitan areas): the Boston to Washington Corridor in the USA, and the Tokaido Corridor (in Japan), are shown. These are the most powerful, wealthy and populous regions of the world. They are linked to each other, forming a world-wide network of exchange of goods, etc.
• Main integrating associations: enable regional cooperation and free trade among its members, and promote globalization whilst defending the interests of their members.
• European Union: the EU has 28 members (most of Europe), it is an economic and political association.
• NAFTA: North American Free Trade Agreement
• MERCOSUR: Southern Common Market (Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay and Venezuela, Chile, Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru)
• ASEAN: Association of Southeast Asian Nations

Explaining the map (what is the purpose of the map?):

• The map attempts to describe both the process of globalization, i.e. flows of goods, etc., and possible consequences: increasing integration, and perhaps poverty and war. The major flows of investment, capital, goods, and information take place mainly between the Triad members and there are countries (associated, integrated, emerging, in reconstruction, developing) that depend to a greater or lesser extent on this Triad. There are poor regions that are more or less excluded from globalization (even perhaps victims of it, cf. countries at war). The oil reserves in Africa do not appear to benefit the countries in which they are situated…
• The map, by showing global cities and megalopolises reminds us that they are essential in the globalization process.
• The regional integrating associations both slow down globalization by defending regional interests and enable it because the member states of these associations promote free markets.
• Note that the map does not show population flows (North-North, South-North, South-South) though they are an integral part (economic migration) and consequence of (refugees) the globalization process.

Questions the map poses:

• To what extent does globalization achieve equitable work and wealth creation/distribution? The oligopoly has been described as a “world archipelago” where the metropolises of Japan, the USA and Europe, linked by the world’s main transport routes and means of telecommunication, act as if the rest of the world were unimportant (useful only for cheap labour, natural resources, land, and potential secondary markets). Since the 1990s, this model has become less relevant as the BRICS and other countries gain economic importance. The question still remains though: does globalization reinforce divisions between the regions of the world, favouring wealthy countries at the expense of poorer ones, or does it attenuated these divisions?
• Is the map still valid in 2015? China is now the world’s second most powerful economy. There are wars and tensions and civil strife (over control of resources, of geopolitical influence,) in different places. Since 9/11 and the start of the Great Recession in 2007, the USA’s dominant position, economically and politically, is undermined and wealth disparities within countries and in the world have been accentuated.

Spreading the European model to Asia...

IKEA store in Shanghai, China

Cf. page 71 of your textbook.

The above photo illustrates the spread of the "European model" to Asia and the opening-up of China economically and culturally (though not politically); wealthier Chinese can now buy Western consumer goods and adopt Western ways of living. The result is a hybridisation (westernisation) of local culture. Chinese people, by buying Western goods, "buy into", to some extent, the Western lifestyle and the values that underpin it.

Ikea is a multinational corporation (aka MNF or multinational firm), created in 1943, with its headquarters in Sweden, its financial branch in the Netherlands, and some of its production facilities in China. It makes and sells (in over 200 stores worldwide) cheap but well-made DIY furniture and home decoration. Its brand name is famous. It is a firm which prides itself on having a strong ethical code...

What is a multinational corporation?

Definition by the Farlex Financial Dictionary: "It is corporation that maintains assets and/or operations in more than one country. A multinational corporation often has a long supply chain that may, for example, require the acquisition of raw materials in one country, a product's manufacture in a second country, and its retail sale in a third country. A multinational often globally manages its operations from a main office in its home country. Multinational corporations are controversial among groups such as environmentalists and worker advocates, who claim that multinationals exploit resources and employees. On the other hand, proponents argue that multinationals create wealth in every country where they operate, which ultimately benefits workers as well as shareholders".

Two-thirds of world trade is now controlled by the 60,000+ multinational corporations. They control the production and distribution of food, furniture, cars, luxury items, films, energy, chemicals, medical goods, electronic goods, and other consumer products, raw materials, construction, services such as telephone networks or banks and insurance, etc.

They more or less impose their goods, services, production and management methods in every region of the world, most easily within the less powerful nations. People in the emerging countries do not necessarily benefit from their presence, but their lifestyles and values are inevitably influenced by them, especially the rising middle class.

MNFs wield a strong social and cultural influence, and the bigger MNFs are also extremely powerful economically and politically. They act in the interests of their shareholders, which are not necessarily compatible with the interests of governments, people, or smaller businesses... Many MNFs it seems elaborate international strategies with less and less regard for the customs and laws of particular countries (investing in countries that present the "least resistance")...

To optimise profits, MNFs need to standardize a product (make it the same) in order to make it easier and cheaper to produce. Also, MNFs have to promote their goods to as big a market as possible. They face the problem of creating demand in foreign markets. So, in order to sell as many standardized products to as many consumers as possible, the marketing strategy of firms puts the emphasis on the "exoticism" of the product (the strange Swedish foods in Ikea stores for example) or on its perceived foreign-designed/made superior quality (like "Made in Germany" or the Apple products). Sometimes, minor concessions are made to local customs (no beef in Indian Mcdonald's hamburgers, or the different styling of a car depending on which country it is being sold to). Often, a product sells well because the product is perceived as cheap, or useful. Some MNFs have a virtual monopoly on certain products or services (Chinese toys or electronic products, or Google for example) which means that they can sell their products easily. The standardization and internationalization of products results in people (especially the young and affluent) having ever more similar lifestyles all over the world, with materialistic and individualistic values becoming the norm.

The fact that MNFs are, by definition, international (products designed in one place, produced in a number of other places, with headquarters in a "home country" but with its financial services in another, etc.) means that products and services are less and less identified with a particular country. 

Globalization, a world of difference?

Comment on the cartoon: Globalisation is shown as an oversized, dangerous-looking boxer (“BIZ” means “big business”). Localism is represented as a small, weak, surprised-looking boxer. “Localism” concerns small-scale economy and participatory democracy (i.e. it is the opposite of globalization). The referee is warning the "localism" boxer (!) that he, the referee, wants a fair fight (i.e. no cheating). Ebert is being ironic since the smaller boxer has no chance of victory; the fight (between the forces of globalisation and localism), in other words, is rigged in favour of big business. The cartoonist in fact considers that the real threat comes from globalization, not from people who oppose it. He is mocking those (i.e. the powerful) who cannot stand any criticism of globalization... The figure of the referee can be seen as embodying the various organizations that promote free trade in the world (the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the European Union, etc.); the cartoonist is saying that this "referee" is promoting globalisation at the expense of localism (the referee is corrupt).

Cf. page 70 of your textbook (Terminale, Classes Européennes, History Geography, Hatier).

"Globalization, a world of difference?" This is a great chapter title, rich in meaning! Let’s analyse it (i.e. what does this title mean and what questions does it inspire?).

We need to define the terms of the title, namely: “globalization”, “world”, and “difference”. Then we need to understand how the expression “a world of difference” is used.

First term: “globalization”. Here is a simple definition (learn it by heart!):

Globalization is the intensification of movement of people, goods, money, and information on a world scale (“intensification” means more, and more quickly). Globalization has intensified especially since the 1980s. This process has created an unprecedented world-wide economic, political and cultural space (that is far from being unified however!). It is the extension of the free-market (aka liberal or neoliberal or "laissez-faire") economic model to the whole planet. Globalization includes everybody (but, so far, to various degrees), everywhere on the planet, all the time.

The neo-liberal economic model means: competitive, profit-oriented business based on private ownership of the means of production, with minimal State intervention and the suppression of trade barriers.

Then: what is meant by “world”? That’s easy: the whole planet (its various human populations and how they interact plus the resources and ecosystems on which we depend).

Then: what is meant by “difference”? It means, simply: “not the same” (as others, as before), and it also means “significant change” (from a previous situation).

So, “a world of difference”, if read positively, implies that the situation in the world has undergone significant change for the better thanks to globalization. In other words: globalization has made “a world of difference” (from the common expression: "Oh, that makes a world of difference!"), i.e. it is a positive, constructive process which aims to improve the world (through wealth-creation for all). This is the neoliberal discourse or justification, for the process of globalization. Globalization makes a positive difference to the world...

However, “a world of difference” can also be read rather negatively: does globalization only exist because of differences in the world? I mean: do multinational companies not depend on the exploitation of poor countries to make profits (using the cheap labour in those countries and exploiting their resources)? The “difference” of the title is the difference between rich and poor regions of the world. Globalization depends on differences in the world...

Maybe world-wide capitalism even creates differences (literally creating a “world of differences”), in which case globalization is less about intensifying exchange in order to unify the world (in a common economic, political and socio-cultural system) but more about increasing the profits of the companies based in the wealthy and powerful countries at the expense of the poor... This is a world of disparities, of unfair differences, i.e. the rich and powerful against the poor and powerless. This is the anti-globalisation discourse against the globalisation process. Globalization creates differences in the world...

When trying to understand globalization, we need to find answers to the following questions:

• When and where did it start (cf. “Key question” of your textbook)?
• Why does it continue and how will it evolve (cf. "Key question")?
• Who promotes/benefits from it (cf. "Key question")?
• How does it affect the people and the planet?
• What is the ultimate aim of globalization, is it inevitable, and is it “a good thing” (should we accept it, can it be opposed)?