Globalization

Role of Globalisation in

enhancing job

opportunities in India

CONTENTS

S. No Topic Page No.

1. Introduction 1

2. The Global Impactof Globalization 6

3. Globalization in job Generation 17

4. Research Methodology 28

5. Data Analysis And Findings 30

6. Conclusion 38

1

Introduction: Globalization is a process of interaction and integration among the people, companies,

and governments of different nations, a process driven by international trade and

investment and aided by information technology. This process has effects on the

environment, on culture, on political systems, on economic development and prosperity,

and on human physical well-being in societies around the world

The term first appeared in the late 1980s in articles by Japanese economists in the Harvard Business

Review. According to the sociologist Roland Robertson, who is credited with popularizing the term,

glocalization describes the tempering effects of local conditions on global pressures. At a 1997

conference on "Globalization and Indigenous Culture," Robertson said that glocalization "means the

simultaneity --- the co-presence ---

of both universalizing and particularizing tendencies.

Definition: “Globalization is a term that was invented in order to emphasize that the

globalization of a product is more likely to succeed when the product or service is

adapted specifically to each locality or culture it is marketed in. The term

combines the word globalization with localization. (An earlier term for

globalization in terms of product preparedness for international marketing … is

internationalization.)

Jan AartScholte has argued that at least five broad definitions of 'globalization' can be found in the literature.

Globalization as internationalization. Here globalization is viewed 'as simply another adjective to describe cross-border

relations between countries'. It describes the growth in international exchange and

interdependence. With growing flows of trade and capital investment there is the

possibility of moving beyond an inter-national economy, to a 'stronger' version - the

globalize economy in which, 'distinct national economies are subsumed and

rearticulated into the system by international processes and transactions'.

Globalization as liberalization. In this broad set of definitions, 'globalization' refers to 'a process of removing

government-imposed restrictions on movements between countries in order to create an

"open", "borderless"

world economy’. Those who have argued with some success for the abolition of

2

regulatory trade barriers and capital controls have sometimes clothed this in the mantle of 'globalization'.

Globalization as universalization. In this use, 'global' is used in the sense of being 'worldwide' and 'globalization' is 'the

process of spreading various objects and experiences to people at all corners of the earth'.

A classic example of this would be the spread of computing, television etc. Globalization as westernization or modernization Here 'globalization' is understood as a dynamic, 'whereby the social structures of

modernity (capitalism, rationalism, industrialism, bureaucratism, etc.) are spread the

world over, normally destroying pre-existent cultures and local self-determination in

the process.

Globalization as deterritorialization Here 'globalization' entails a 'reconfiguration of geography, so that social space is no

longer wholly mapped in terms of territorial places, territorial distances and territorial

borders. Anthony Giddens' has thus defined globalization as ' the intensification of

worldwide social relations which link distant localities in such a way that local

3

happenings are shaped by events occurring many miles away and vice versa. . David

Held et al define globalization as a ' process which embodies a transformation in the

spatial organization of social relations and transactions - assessed in terms of their

extensity, intensity, velocity and impact - generating transcontinental or inter-regional flows and networks of activity'.

History: The word "globalization" can be traced back to 1944. The term has been used by

economists since 1981; however, its concepts did not permeate popular consciousness

until the later half of the 1990s. The earliest concepts and predictions of globalization

were penned by an American entrepreneur-turned-minister Charles Taze Russell who

first coined the term 'corporate giants' in 1897. Various social scientists have tried to

demonstrate continuity between contemporary trends of globalization and earlier

periods. The first era of globalization during the 19th century was the rapid growth of

international trade between the European imperial powers, the European colonies, and

the United States. After World War II, globalization was restarted and was driven by

major advances in technology, which led to lower trading costs.

Globalization is viewed as a century’s long process, tracking the expansion of human

population and the growth of civilization that has accelerated dramatically in the past

50 years. Early forms of globalization existed during the Roman Empire, the Parthian

empire, and the Han Dynasty, when the Silk Road started in China, reached the

boundaries of the Parthian empire, and continued onwards towards Rome. The Islamic

Golden Age is also an example, when Muslim traders and explorers established an

early global economy across the Old World resulting in a globalization of crops, trade,

knowledge and technology; and later during the Mongol Empire, when there was

greater integration along the Silk Road. Global integration continued through the

expansion of

European trade, as in the 16th and 17th centuries, when the Portuguese and Spanish Empires reached to all corners of the world after expanding to the Americas. Globalization became a business phenomenon in the 17th century when the Dutch East

India Company, which is often described as the first multinational corporation, was

established. Because of the high risks involved with international trade, the Dutch East

India Company became the first company in the world to share risk and enable joint

ownership through the issuing of shares: an important driver for globalization.

Liberalization in the 19th century is sometimes called "The First Era of Globalization",

a period characterized by rapid growth in international trade and investment, between

the European imperial powers, their colonies, and, later, the United States. It was in this

period that areas of sub-Saharan Africa and the Island Pacific were incorporated into

4

the world system. The "First Era of Globalization" began to break down at the

beginning with the First World War, and later collapsed during the gold standard crisis

in the late 1920s and early 1930s.

5

The Global Impactof

Globalization

6

The Global Impactof Globalization The term ‘globalization’ has taken on a life of its own. It has become a sort of mystical,

romantic term. Globalization is seen as a beneficial thing, even a cosmopolitan thing, and

a ‘hip’ thing. It is seen as cutting edge to "go global". Many people feel that globalization

is a great force bringing the world closer together. There are even new cuddly phrases

like ‘global village’ which make us feel good about globalization bringing us all closer

together. But when we think about what globalization really is - when we look beneath

this surface glamour - we can see the true meaning of the word and the true proponents of

this phenomenon.

Unfortunately, globalization is not brought about by elementary school children writing

to internet pen-pals (as cozy as that sounds). The real agents of globalization are our

friends the multinational corporations - the ‘super-companies’. Globalization is nothing

more than the product of the multinational corporation’s search for profit. So, rather than

being driven by positive things like a wish to bring the world closer together,

globalization is driven by corporations seeking to maximize profits, and part of that

7

search for profits involves the search for cheaper labor. Many companies move into less

developed countries to take advantage of the lack of organization of labor there which

allows these companies to pay below subsistence-level wages.

Globalization and Culture

Globalization has economic roots and political consequences, but it also has brought into

focus the power of culture in this global environment - the power to bind and to divide in

a time when the tensions between integration and separation tug at every issue that is

relevant to international relations. The impact of globalization on culture and the impact

of culture on globalization merit discussion. The homogenizing influences of

globalization that are most often condemned by the new nationalists and by cultural

romanticists are actually positive; globalization promotes integration and the removal not

only of cultural barriers but of many of the negative dimensions of culture. Globalization

is a vital step toward both a more stable world and better lives for the people in it.

Furthermore, these issues have serious implications for American foreign policy. For the

United States, a central objective of an Information Age foreign policy must be to win

the battle of the world's information flows, dominating the airwaves as Great Britain once

ruled the seas.

Culture and Conflict Culture is not static; it grows out of a systematically encouraged reverence for selected

customs and habits. Indeed, Webster's Third New International Dictionary defines culture

as the "total pattern of human behavior and its products embodied in speech, action, and

artifacts and dependent upon man's capacity for learning and transmitting knowledge to

succeeding generations." Language, religion, political and legal systems, and social

customs are the legacies of victors and marketers and reflect the judgment of the

marketplace of ideas throughout popular history. They might also rightly be seen as

living artifacts, bits and pieces carried forward through the years on currents of

indoctrination, popular acceptance, and unthinking adherence to old ways. Culture is used

by the organizers of society - politicians, theologians, academics, and families - to impose

and ensure order, the rudiments of which change over time as need dictates. It is less

often acknowledged as the means of justifying inhumanity and warfare. Nonetheless,

even a casual examination of the history of conflict explains well why Samuel

Huntington, in his The Clash of Civilizations, expects conflict along cultural fault lines,

which is precisely where conflict so often erupts. Even worse is that cultural differences

are often sanctified by their links to the mystical roots of culture, be they spiritual or

historical. Consequently, a threat to one's culture becomes a threat to one's God or one's

8

ancestors and, therefore, to one's core identity. This inflammatory formula has been used to justify many of humanity's worst acts. Cultural conflicts can be placed into three broad categories: religious warfare, ethnic

conflict, and conflict between "cultural cousins," which amounts to historical animosity

between cultures that may be similar in some respects but still have significant

differences that have been used to justify conflict over issues of proximity, such as

resource demands or simple greed.

Religion-based conflicts occur between Christians and Muslims, Christians and Jews,

Muslims and Jews, Hindus and Muslims, Sufis and Sunis, Protestants and Catholics, and

so forth. Cultural conflicts that spring from ethnic (and in some cases religious)

differences include those between Chinese and Vietnamese, Chinese and Japanese,

Chinese and Malays, Normans and Saxons, Slavs and Turks, Armenians and

Azerbaijanis, Armenians and Turks, Turks and Greeks, Russians and Chechens, Serbs

and Bosnians, Hutus and Tutsis, blacks and Afrikaners, blacks and whites, and Persians

and Arabs. Conflicts between "cultural cousins" over resources or territory have occurred

between Britain and France, France and Germany, Libya and Egypt, and many others.

Another category that might be included in our taxonomy is quasi-cultural conflict. This

conflict is primarily ideological and is not deeply enough rooted in tradition to fit within

standard definitions of culture, yet it still exhibits most if not all of the characteristics of

other cultural clashes. The best example here is the Cold War itself, a conflict between

political cultures that was portrayed by its combatants in broader cultural terms: "godless

communists" versus "corrupt capitalists." During this conflict, differences regarding the

role of the individual within the state and over the distribution of income produced a

"clash of civilizations" that had a relatively recent origin.

Finally, as a reminder of the toll that such conflicts take, one need only look at the 20th

century's genocides. In each one, leaders used culture to fuel the passions of their armies

and other minions and to justify their actions among their people. One million

Armenians; tens of millions of Russians; 10 million Jews, Gypsies, and homosexuals; 3

million Cambodians; and hundreds of thousands of Bosnians, Rwandans, and Timorese

all were the victims of "culture" - whether it was ethnic, religious, ideological, tribal, or

nationalistic in its origins. To be sure, they fell victim to other agendas as well. But the

provocative elements of culture were to these accompanying agendas as Joseph Goebbels

was to Adolf Hitler - an enabler and perhaps the most insidious accomplice. Historians

can, of course, find examples from across the ages of "superior" cultures eradicating

"inferior" opponents - in the American West, among the native tribes of the Americas

9

and Africa, during the Inquisition, and during the expansion of virtually every empire. Social structures, laws, and institutions that transcend culture. Furthermore, the history of

a number of ongoing experiments in multiculturalism, such as in the European Union,

India, South Africa, and the United States, suggests that workable, if not perfected,

integrative models exist. Each is built on the idea that tolerance is crucial to social well-

being, and each at times has been threatened by both intolerance and a heightened

emphasis on cultural distinctions. The greater public good warrants eliminating those

cultural characteristics that promote conflict or prevent harmony, even as less-divisive,

more personally observed cultural distinctions are celebrated and preserved.

The realization of such integrative models on a global scale is impossible in the near

term. It will take centuries. Nor can it be achieved purely through rational decisions

geared toward implementing carefully considered policies and programs. Rather, current

trends that fall under the broad definitional umbrella of "globalization" are accelerating a

process that has taken place throughout history as discrete groups have become familiar

with one another, allied, and commingled - ultimately becoming more alike. Inevitably,

the United States has taken the lead in this transformation; it is the "indispensable nation"

in the management of global affairs and the leading producer of information products

and services in these, the early years of the Information Age.

The drivers of today's rapid globalization are improving methods and systems of

international transportation, devising revolutionary and innovative information

technologies and services, and dominating the international commerce in services and

ideas. Their impact affects lifestyles, religion, language, and every other component of

culture. Much has been written about the role of information technologies and services in

this process. Today, 15 major U.S. telecommunications companies, including giants like

Motorola, Loral Space & Communications, and Teledesic (a joint project of Microsoft's

Bill Gates and cellular pioneer Craig McCaw), offer competing plans that will encircle

the globe with a constellation of satellites and will enable anyone anywhere to

communicate instantly with anyone elsewhere without an established telecommunications

infrastructure on the ground near either the sender or the recipient. (Loral puts the cost of

such a call at around $ 3 per minute.) Technology is not only transforming the world; it is

creating its own metaphors as well. Satellites carrying television signals now enable

people on opposite sides of the globe to be exposed regularly to a wide range of cultural

stimuli. Russian viewers are hooked on Latin soap operas, and Middle Eastern leaders

have cited CNN as a prime source for even local news. The Internet is an increasingly

global phenomenon with active development under way on every continent.

The United States dominates this global traffic in information and ideas. American

10

music, American movies, American television, and American software are so dominant,

so sought after, and so visible that they are now available literally everywhere on the

Earth. They influence the tastes, lives, and aspirations of virtually every nation. In some,

they are viewed as corrupting. France and Canada have both passed laws to prohibit the

satellite dissemination of foreign - meaning American - content across their borders and

into the homes of their citizens. Not surprisingly, in many other countries fundamentalist

Iran, communist China, and the closely managed society of Singapore - central

governments have aggressively sought to restrict the software and programming that

reach their citizens. Their explicit objective is to keep out American and other alien

political views, mores, and, as it is called in some parts of the Middle East, "news

pollution." In these countries, the control of new media that give previously closed or

controlled societies virtually unlimited access to the outside world is a high priority.

Singapore has sought to filter out certain things that are available over the Internet -

essentially processing all information to eliminate pornography. China has set up a

"Central Leading Group" under the State Planning Commission and the direct

supervision of a vice premier to establish a similar system that will exclude more than

just what might be considered obscene.

These governments are the heirs of King Canute, the infamous monarch who set his

throne at the sea's edge and commanded the waves to go backward. The Soviet Union fell

in part because a closed society cannot compete in the Information Age. These countries

will fare no better. They need look no further than their own elites to know this. In China,

while satellite dishes are technically against the law, approximately one in five citizens of

Beijing have access to television programming via a dish, and almost half of the people

of Guangzhou have access to satellite- delivered programming. Singapore, the leading

entrepot of Southeast Asia, is a hub in a global network of business centers in which the

lives of the elites are virtually identical. Business leaders in Buenos Aires, Frankfurt,

Hong Kong, Johannesburg, Istanbul, Los Angeles, Mexico City, Moscow, New Delhi,

New York, Paris, Rome, Santiago, Seoul, Singapore, Tel Aviv, and Tokyo all read the

same newspapers, wear the same suits, drive the same cars, eat the same food, fly the

same airlines, stay in the same hotels, and listen to the same music. While the people of

their countries remain divided by culture, they have realized that to compete in the global

marketplace they must conform to the culture of that marketplace. The global

marketplace is being institutionalized through the creation of a series of multilateral

entities that establish common rules for international commerce. If capital is to flow

freely, disclosure rules must be the same, settlement procedures consistent, and redress

transparent. If goods are also to move unimpeded, tariff laws must be consistent, customs

standards harmonized, and product safety and labeling standards brought into line. And if

people are to move easily from deal to deal, air transport agreements need to be

established, immigration controls standardized, and commercial laws harmonized. In

11

many ways, business is the primary engine driving globalization, but it would be a

mistake to conclude that the implications of globalization will be limited primarily to the

commercial arena. In politics, for example, as international organizations arise to coordinate policy among

many nations on global issues such as trade, the environment, health, development, and

crisis management, a community of international bureaucrats is emerging. These players

are as comfortable operating in the international environment as they would be at home,

and the organizations that they represent in effect establish global standards and

expectations - facilitating the progress of globalization. The community of nations

increasingly accepts that such supranational entities are demanded by the exigencies of

the times; with that acceptance also comes a recognition that the principal symbol of

national identity - namely sovereignty - must beceded to those entities. The United States

in particular seems to have problems with this trend. For example, the United States was

involved in creating the World Trade Organization and now undermines its effectiveness

by arbitrarily withdrawing from its efforts to blunt the effects of the Helms- Burton act.

Still, the recognition that sometimes there are interests greater than national interests is a

crucial step on the path to a more peaceful, prosperous world encryption of data that will

impact not only the security of information markets but the free flow of ideas and the

rights of individuals in the Information Age? Will governments allow the democratizing

promise of the Internet to enable virtually anyone with a computer to contact anyone

else?

The establishment of the Global Information Infrastructure is not just an enormous

commercial opportunity for the world's information leader. The development of the rules

governing that infrastructure will shape the nature of global politics decisively, either

enhancing or undermining freedoms, thereby either speeding or slowing the pace of

integration, understanding, and tolerance worldwide. The nature of individual and

national relations will be transformed. Those wires and constellations of satellites and

invisible beams of electronic signals crisscrossing the globe will literally form the fabric

of future civilization.

Consequently, it could not be more strategically crucial that the United States do

whatever is in its power to shape the development of that infrastructure, the rules

governing it, and the information traversing it. Moreover, even if much of this process of

developing what we might call the "info sphere" is left to the marketplace (as it should

be), governments will control crucial elements of it. Governments will award many of the

biggest infrastructure development contracts offered in the next decade: Some will assist

their national companies in trying to win those contracts, and state officials will meet to

decide the trade rules that will govern international traffic in the world's

12

telecommunications markets, the global regulatory environment, encryption standards,

privacy standards, intellectual property protections, and basic equipment standards.

Governments will determine whether these are open or closed markets and what portion

of development dollars will be targeted at bringing the benefits of these technologies to

the poor to help counteract information inequities. Already some government

intercessions into this marketplace have failed. Notably, Japan's efforts to shape the

development of high-definition television standards sent that nation down an analog path

in what turned out to be a digital race. Yet there are many places where there is an

important role for governments and where the United States should have a carefully

considered overarching policy and an aggressive stance to match.

Toward a Global Culture It is in the general interest of the United States to encourage the development of a world

in which the fault lines separating nations are bridged by shared interests. And it is in the

economic and political interests of the United States to ensure that if the world is moving

toward a common language, it be English; that if the world is moving toward common

telecommunications, safety, and quality standards, they be American; that if the world is

becoming linked by television, radio, and music, the programming be American; and

that if common values are being developed, they be values with which Americans are

comfortable. These are not simply idle aspirations. English is linking the world.

American information technologies and services are at the cutting edge of those that are

enabling globalization. Access to the largest economy in the world - America's - is the

primary carrot leading other nations to open their markets. Indeed, just as the United States is the world's sole remaining military superpower, so is it

the world's only information superpower. While Japan has become quite competitive in

the manufacture of components integral to information systems, it has had a negligible

impact as a manufacturer of software or as a force behind the technological revolution.

Europe has failed on both fronts. Consequently, the United States holds a position of

advantage at the moment and for the foreseeable future. Some find the idea that

Americans would systematically seek to promote their culture to be unattractive. They

are concerned that it implies a sense of superiority on Americans' part or that it makes an

uncomfortable value judgment. But the realpolitik of the Information Age is that setting

technological standards, defining software standards, producing the most popular

information products, and leading in the related development of the global trade in

services are as essential to the well- being of any would-be leader as once were the

resources needed to support empire or industry.

13

The economic stakes are immense considering the enormous investments that will be

made over the next 10 years in the world's information infrastructure. The U.S.

government estimates that telecommunications investment in Latin America alone

during this period will top $ 150 billion. China will spend a similar amount, as will the

member states of the Association of South East Asian Nations. In fact, the market for

telecommunications services is expected to top $ 1 trillion by the turn of the century.

During the decade ahead, not only will enormous sums be directed toward the

establishment of the global network of networks that the Clinton administration has

dubbed the "Global Information Infrastructure," but those sums will pay for the

foundations of a system that will dictate decades of future choices about upgrades,

systems standards, software purchases, and services. At the same time, new national and

international laws will be written, and they will determine how smoothly information

products and services may flow from one market to another. Will steps be taken to

ensure that Internet commerce remains truly free? What decisions will be made about the

14

Advantages and Disadvantages of Globalization

Advantages

Increased free trade between nations

Increased liquidity of capital allowing investors in developed nations to invest in developing nations

Corporations have greater flexibility to operate across borders Global mass media ties the world together

Increased flow of communications allows vital information to be shared between individuals and corporations around the world

Greater ease and speed of transportation for goods and people Reduction

of cultural barriers increases the global village effect Spread of

democratic ideals to developed nations

Greater interdependence of nation-states

Reduction of likelihood of war between developed nations Increases in environmental protection in developed nations

Increased flow of skilled and non-skilled jobs from developed to developing nations as corporations seek out the cheapest labor

Increased likelihood of economic disruptions in one nation effecting all nations Corporate influence of nation-states far exceeds that of civil society organizations and average individuals

Disadvantages:

Threat that control of world media by a handful of corporations will limit cultural expression

Greater chance of reactions for globalization being violent in an attempt to preserve cultural heritage

Greater risk of diseases being transported unintentionally between nations

15

Spread of a materialistic lifestyle and attitude that sees consumption as the path to prosperity International bodies like the World Trade Organization infringe on national and individual sovereignty Increase in the chances of civil war within developing countries and open war between developing countries as they vie for resources Decreases in environmental integrity as polluting corporations take advantage of weak regulatory rules in developing countries

16

Globalization in job Generation

17

Globalization in job Generation

The goal of generating more decent jobs in the global economy is largely overlooked in

international policies. While there is general acknowledgement of the importance of the

issue in the mandates of international organizations, there is, at the same time, no

concerted effort to address the issue. The Policy Coherence Initiative on Growth,

Investment and Employment is an attempt to improve upon the status quo. The basic rationale is as follows. If the objective of employment creation is given more

serious attention in the policy formulation process, there are reasons to presume that

significant improvements can be achieved over the current situation. The current implicit

assumption is that if we get macroeconomic, financial, trade and aid policies right good

employment outcomes would follow automatically. There is insufficient evidence to support such a benign neglect of the employment

objective. High unemployment and underemployment remain serious problems in many

parts of the world and the current process of globalization has given rise to new stresses

in labour markets. There is no discernible improvement in the global employment

situation during the last two decades of globalization. Compared to the fifties and sixties,

open unemployment in the industrialized countries is significantly higher. Data for

developing countries is patchy and less reliable, but taken as a whole, they do provide

serious grounds for concern. Open unemployment rates are surprisingly high in a

number of these countries, contradicting the conventional wisdom that unemployment is

not an option in developing countries without systems of unemployment insurance. At

the same time there is evidence that precarious and low-productivity employment in the

informal sector has expanded as a share of total employment. This reflects the slow

growth of employment in the modern sector. We cannot prove in advance that better outcomes can indeed be achieved through

making employment generation a key goal of international policies. But it is incumbent

upon us to test this hypothesis given the seriousness of the employment problem and the

importance of employment generation as a means of distributing the benefits of

globalization more widely. Employment problems are not explicitly acknowledged in the current agenda for

international policy. Employment is not the central goal that it should be in the

Millennium Development Goals or the PRSP process. Yet expanding opportunities for

the poor to obtain more productive and better-remunerated jobs in either wage or self-

employment is a powerful means of pulling the poor out of poverty. This process not

only raises their incomes but, accompanied by the right complementary policies, can

18

also contribute to reducing important non-income aspects of poverty. Specifically, if job-

creation occurs in a context where fundamental rights at work are universally respected

then the process will also contribute significantly to the social inclusion and the

economic and political empowerment of the poor. This is by virtue of the fact that

fundamental worker rights ensure freedom from non-economic restraints holding down

the poor such as labour market discrimination, forced and bonded labour, and child

labour. These rights also include freedom of association and the right to collective

bargaining that are basic enabling conditions for giving voice and political influence to

all workers, including the poor among them. It is true that there is implicit recognition of the employment issue in poverty reduction

strategies since they typically do deal with programmes such as micro-finance, the

development of rural infrastructure, increasing agricultural productivity, and support to

micro-enterprises. These are all programmes that are aimed at raising the incomes of,

and employment opportunities for, the poor. To this extent it might be argued that the

problem is indeed being addressed in practice if not in name. What this overlooks,

however, are the wider potential benefits of making employment an explicit and central

objective. Doing this would provide an analytical and policy framework for addressing

the employment creation in a comprehensive rather than in the current piecemeal

fashion. With such a framework complementarities between individual programmes can

be identified and exploited. At the same time, it will properly direct attention to meso

and macro level factors that can potentially contribute to better overall employment

outcomes. Hence making employment a central goal in poverty reduction strategies is

more than a semantic quibble; it can potentially make a substantive difference. By extension, we can also regret the fact that employment is largely no longer a central

objective of national policies. The prevailing focus is on macroeconomic stability and

economic liberalization with a view to enhancing international competitiveness in a

rapidly globalizing world economy. This is seen as the route to maximizing the national

benefits from globalization. This would also naturally deliver collateral benefits such as

higher growth and more employment creation. But there is little evidence to date to

validate this viewpoint insofar as employment is concerned. As is the case with

international policies, there is a high potential pay-off to testing the opposite hypothesis,

namely, that making employment a central objective of national policies could result in

better employment outcome without compromising the objectives of growth and

macroeconomic stability. At the same time the attention that the employment issue does receive is largely on

negatives such as anxieties in the industrialized countries over the transfer of jobs to the

developing world and the potential ‘race to the bottom’ in employment conditions and

19

labour standards in global production systems. While these issues do indeed have to be

dealt with in order to maintain support for globalization, they should not deflect attention

from the more important positive agenda of what can be done to enhance the overall

employment impact of globalization. The latter point can be elaborated as follows. On the issue of the North-South transfer of

jobs, the fundamental anxieties of Northern workers are understandable notwithstanding

the evidence so far that the magnitude of job losses from trade, the outflow of foreign

direct investment, and outsourcing of services has been small. Taken together with the

compensating benefits derived by the industrialized countries, the situation does not call

for a reversal of the process of globalization. The better alternative lies in finding means

to achieve a higher overall rate of employment creation, strengthening the adjustment

assistance given to workers affected by dislocation, and adapting to the new competitive

pressures from developing countries. More generally, it is also in the interest of the

industrialized countries to support policies for contributing to higher and more stable

rates of growth in the global economy. This is likely to boost growth and domestic

employment creation in developing countries and hence attenuate some of the pressures

of a global competition for jobs. Similarly, on the issue of the quality of jobs in global production systems the solution

does not lie in impeding the growth of these systems but in strengthening the array of

initiatives that are on the policy agenda for eliminating abuse and ensuring steady

improvements in productivity and the quality of jobs. This requires action on several

fronts. If the root problem is excessive market power enjoyed by TNCs and major

buyers in these global production systems then issues of anti-competitive behaviour will

have to be dealt with. At the same time, cooperative solutions need to be found to

mitigate any ‘race-to-the-bottom’ pressures arising from the competition for foreign

investment and jobs among developing countries. This needs also to be supplemented by

action to strengthen compliance with core labour standards and to promote collective

bargaining within global production systems. It is important to note in this context that boosting the overall rate of productive

employment creation in developing countries will also contribute significantly to a

solution to this problem of the quality of employment in global production systems. This

will eventually raise the supply price of labour and reduce the need for workers to accept

low quality jobs. There is thus a basic commonality rather than a conflict between industrialized and

developing countries in looking at the two currently most contentious issues with respect

to the employment impact of globalization. If the industrialized countries can do more to

20

achieve higher and more stable rates of growth in the global economy there will be

multiple benefits for all. The North would benefit from higher growth and employment

creation that would diffuse tensions over the perceived export of jobs and reduce

protectionist pressures. The South would benefit from this in several ways. A significant

source of jobs from the participation in global production system would be preserved

and, more significantly, the potential gains from increased access to Northern markets

and investment would remain open. At the same time higher growth in the global

economy would provide a more supporting environment for them to boost growth and

productive employment creation. This would in turn enable them to cope better with the

adjustment costs of integration into the global economy and to share the benefits of

globalization more widely through the rapid creation of more and better jobs. It is doubtful whether there can be serious disagreement with the above vision of how

important it is to achieve a higher rate of growth of output and employment in the global

economy. Differences are more likely to revolve over whether it is feasible to improve

over the current situation or over what needs to be done. The best we can do in the

circumstances is to highlight a few areas that we believe to be worth examining in the

search for policies to achieve better employment outcomes.

(i) Global Growth Global economic growth could be higher and more stable if adjustments to current

account deficits and exchange rate movements could be handled more smoothly and

effectively. The problem lies mainly with the systemically important countries. A

persistent misalignment and gyrations of exchange rates among the major reserve

currencies is one aspect of the problem. This has its counterpart in a failure of balance of

payments to adjust smoothly that in turn results in frictions over the fair sharing of

responsibilities for maintaining effective demand in the global economy. If these

problems could be resolved growth in the global economy could be higher and more

stable. Apart from the obvious impact on developing countries through the growth and trade

linkages, there are increasingly important impacts through boom-bust cycles in capital

flows to these countries.

(ii) The External Environment for Developing Country Growth The above problems deriving from the global impact of industrialized country policies creates an unstable environment for developing countries seeking to attain higher

21

growth. The situation has become more difficult with the increasing globalization of

financial markets. As more and more developing countries undertake financial

liberalization, including of their capital accounts, they become increasingly exposed to

exchange rate instability. This raises the risk premium faced by investors and therefore

reduces the inducement to invest. At the same time the cost of borrowing often increases

because the domestic interest rate has to be increased to maintain the exchange rate and

the confidence of financial markets. The supply of savings is also volatile because of the

significant presence of short-term flows in total foreign capital inflows. These short-term

flows also often fuel asset bubbles in stock and real estate markets and other

unproductive investments. In addition, liberalized capital accounts have also created

pressures to hold large international reserves that have a high opportunity cost in terms

of foregone domestic investments that could have yielded a higher rate of return. While financial globalization holds out the potential of bringing about a greater flow of

funds from capital-rich to capital-scarce countries, that potential has yet to be fully

realized. Flows have been too unstable and the system has generated problems such as

those raised above that have constrained the ability of developing countries to achieve

higher rates of investment, growth, and employment creation.

(iii) Constraints on Macroeconomic Policies in Developing Countries With increasing financial liberalization, developing countries also face new challenges

to macroeconomic policy. A basic one is that of minimising fluctuations in real output. It

is increasingly difficult to use counter-cyclical macroeconomic policy, to achieve this

key objective. Firstly, it is extremely difficult to manage volatile short-term flows of

foreign capital. They drive boom-bust cycles in the domestic economy that have

particularly detrimental effects on the stability and potential growth of employment.

Secondly, the use of counter-cyclical monetary and fiscal policy is heavily constrained

in such a context. In the face of an outflow of funds interest rates have to be raised to

stem this and to defend the exchange rate, hence having a pro-cyclical effect on the real

domestic economy. Conversely, it is difficult to raise interest rates during a boom caused

by a surge of capital inflows. The use of counter-cyclical fiscal policy during a downturn

is also heavily constrained by the indiscriminate disapproval by financial markets of

fiscal deficits. Consideration should therefore be given to the use of a full range of

regulatory tools such as rules governing provisions, capital requirements, and other

measures affecting conditions in credit and asset markets, including circuit breakers in

stock markets, in order to limit the cyclicality of the financial system. These inherent systemic problems are compounded by the prevailing orthodoxy in macroeconomic policy. This places the highest priority on maintaining price stability

22

and sound public finances. Achieving higher and more stable levels of growth in real

output and employment are at best secondary objectives, if at all. The implicit

assumption is that achieving macroeconomic stability in the narrow sense of price

stability and fiscal balance is the best available means of attaining these broader

objectives. This view often pre-empts the serious consideration of promising alternative approaches.

For example, a narrow and rigid view on the limits to fiscal deficits rules out

consideration of the argument that in a situation of excess capacity it would make sense

to run a fiscal deficit to boost aggregate demand and employment. Similarly, the notion

that there may be circumstances where, in the face of low investment, the only way to

kick-start growth would be to raise public investment through running a fiscal deficit.

Such a strategy could be justified if these investments are growth enhancing through

mechanisms such the crowding-in of private investment or expanding the productive

capacity of the economy. Put more starkly, the current policy orthodoxy indiscriminately

rules out the possibility of a more pro-active role of the state in stimulating a process of

private sector-led process of capital accumulation and growth. The point could be extended to one of whether the current external orientation of

economic policies is resulting in the relative neglect of domestic demand as a source of

growth and employment creation. Not all cases of trade and related liberalization have

led to successful export-led growth. In the less successful cases, trade liberalization has

led to the loss of domestic productive capacity without compensating gains in the

expansion of export industries. While there are obvious questions of domestic and policy

reforms that need to be addressed in such cases, it may also be necessary at the same

time to consider whether enough is being done to tap domestic demand. The latter

question arises because from a global perspective not all countries can successfully

pursue export-led strategies at the same time. The same question arises even when

initially successful export-led growth runs into the limits of international market

competition as is the case of some East Asian economies after the financial crisis. This

concern arises out of the possibility that an exclusive focus on achieving export-led

growth could result in the neglect of potential sources of domestic growth. For example,

the drive to increase international competitiveness through cutting wage costs may result

in a net reduction of aggregate demand that impacts negatively on overall output and

employment. At the same time there may well be untapped opportunities for raising

productivity and growth in the domestic economy through supporting policies and the

stimulation of domestic demand.

23

This is part of the more general point that liberalization and structural reform need to be

pursued as part of a coherent overall development strategy and not seen as panaceas to

be always implemented as broadly and as quickly as possible.

(iv) The Informal and Rural Economy A coherent development strategy has to deal with the important issue of how the

informal economy can be integrated into the economic mainstream. A major part of the

answer lies with the implementation of a successful poverty reduction strategy. A large

part of the activities in the informal economy in low-income countries are simply a

manifestation of deep-seated poverty. They are there because the poor have no better

alternative means of survival; they do not have the assets, skills, and employment

opportunities to do any better. This implies that meeting these deficits has to be part of

the basic strategy for dealing with the problem of the informal sector. A key element of

this strategy has to be a higher overall rate of growth of productive employment driven

by a successful growth strategy. This is likely to have the most powerful effect in

progressively eliminating the misery of the informal economy. Within this framework, it will be important to pursue policies to raise productivity in the

informal economy. This includes demand-side policies such as promoting linkages

between informal and informal sector enterprises through sub-contracting and providing

marketing support to informal sector firms. Supply-side policies such as small enterprise

promotion, the increased provision of public services such as education and training, and

micro-finance schemes are also important. The successful application of such policies

will accelerate the integration of the informal economy into the economic mainstream

while also raising aggregate demand and employment creation. Over and above this, legal and regulatory systems will also need to be reformed to

remove obstacles to the movement economic activity from the informal to the formal

economy. Levels of taxation and business start-up costs will obviously need to be

reviewed from this standpoint. It is also important to find ways of provide informal

sector producers with secure property rights since without this they are denied access to

credit and capital and their activities are insecure. The basic social injustice faced by workers in the informal economy where national laws

either do not apply or are not enforced will also need to be addressed. A key aspect of

this is that fundamental worker rights such as freedom of association and the right to

bargain collectively are rarely enjoyed in the informal economy. This deprives workers

in the informal economy a basic means of self-protection against exploitation and of

24

influencing local and national policies that affect them. Similarly, it will also be important to extend basic social protection to workers in the informal economy. Enhancing the employment impact of globalization in the rural economy poses a serious

challenge both in a national and in an international context (as the various discussions

around the Doha development round, especially those on agriculture, have

demonstrated). In a national context, the rural and agriculture sector still provides the

framework for many countries to confront poverty and substandard employment, as the

majority of the poor are living or working in this sector. However in order to develop

and be competitive at the world market, the policy agenda is focused on the non-rural

sectors. This poses an important challenge for designing coherent national economic and

social policies in terms of how the rural sector can provide employment and adequate

incomes for often the majority of the population, while at the same time contributing to

structural changes required for a faster industrial development. Such questions need to

be pursued further.

(v) Labour Market Policies Labour market policies have the dual function of protecting the interests of workers

while supporting the goal of achieving higher growth and employment creation. Finding

the optimal balance between these two functions is a constant challenge that has become

more difficult with globalization. However, where that balance should lie is ultimately a

political decision and not a technocratic one. There is a global consensus on fundamental worker rights and a basic role of labour

market policies is therefore to ensure that these rights are protected and advanced.

Among these rights are freedom of association and the right to bargain collectively.

They are intended to give workers voice and participation on issues affecting their

conditions of work and welfare. By extension they also imply that workers and

employers organizations should have voice and participation in the determination of, at

the very least, labour market policies. Social dialogue should thus be an indispensable

feature of the institutions governing the labour market. In the current context of globalization labour market reform is a topical and contentious

issue. It needs to be addressed but through social dialogue rather than through unilateral

decision and implementation by governments based solely on the advice of technocrats.

A reform programme based on a consensus arrived at through dialogue with the social

partners is likely to superior on several counts. There will be the support necessary for

their successful implementation thus avoiding wasteful conflict and resistance. The

outcome will also be fairer, since it represents the best possible compromise between

25

competing interests. It is also likely to be more effective in overall terms since it is the

outcome of a process that allows all the relevant information, on the economic as well as

non-economic aspects, on the reform issues to be taken into account. A key challenge for labour market policies is to facilitate adjustments in the structure of

economic activity necessitated by increasing globalization. A basic stance in responding

to this challenge should be to strengthen active labour market policies that enhance the

capacity of workers to move from declining to emerging economic sectors. These

policies should include a wide range of interventions such as i) anticipating and

overcoming labour and skill shortages in particular sectors ii) remedying market failures

such as those relating to labour market information, the provision of on-the-job training,

and the inability of workers to borrow to invest in their own training iii) and iv)

measures to facilitate redeployment such as retraining and job-search assistance. Such

policies all make significant contributions to raising productivity and growth and should

be more widely adopted in developing countries, especially middle-income ones. The above policies are, however, unlikely to be able to take care of the needs of all

displaced and other unemployed workers. They will therefore need to be supplemented

by measures to support the labour market reintegration and provide relief to unemployed

workers. These measures include various training programmes and direct employment

creation through public works, enterprises creation, and the provision of hiring subsidies. Another important set of issues relate to the problem employment security. Globalization

is eroding employment security through a higher rate of job creation and destruction as

well as through the increasing incidence of informal and precarious employment. The

former aspect of the problem has been dealt with in the preceding discussion of active

labour market policies. These policies, supported by macroeconomic policies that ensure

higher overall rates of output and employment growth in the economy, are the best

means of counteracting the problem. The problem of informal and precarious jobs would

also be attenuated in such a context. However, this latter problem is also related to key

aspects of protective labour legislation such as employment security provisions and the

level and mode of financing of non-wage benefits. The growth of precarious

employment could be interpreted as an indication that these policies are being

increasingly evaded by enterprises facing increasing competitive pressures because they

impose excessive rigidity and high fixed costs. Equally, however, they could simply

reflect increasing market power of employers and a drive for higher returns in the

context of lax enforcement of the legislation. The reform agenda needs to examine both

possibilities and bear in mind that if existing provisions are indeed found to be

inappropriate simple deregulation is unlikely to be the best solution. This would leave

legitimate needs for employment security unmet. The difficult challenge of finding a

26

better way of meeting these needs has to be faced as an integral part of the reform process.

(vi) Social Security and Social Protection

In order to enhance the employment impact of globalization key issues relating to social

protection and social security policies also need to be addressed. There seems to be

ample consensus in the international community that in many circumstances a reliance

on growth and its trickle down effects is often a process that is too slow to fulfil the

current international demand for a sharp reduction on poverty by the year 2015. The

challenges to the current Millennium goals are indeed that re-distributive policies,

especially social transfers through some basic social protection systems are required if

the goals are to be attained. Moreover, the effect of such social policies can be greatly

enhanced if these were also to facilitate adjustment, smooth final demand to enable

stable growth, and contribute to increased productivity and productive capacity. There

are encouraging signs that social protection systems can indeed play such a role. Better social protection systems makes workers more mobile and can hence enhance

adjustment. Furthermore increased expenditure on social security in times of an

economic slowdown allows for a more stable level of final demand, needed to stimulate

growth as indicated in paragraph 4 iii above. Moreover if social security systems

complement the labour market policies described above in paragraph 4 v, especially in

contributing to skill enhancement and re-entry in the labour market of various categories

of workers, productivity and production can increase.

Hence one can make a strong claim to include a dynamic social protection system and

redistributive measures as an integral part of a set of policies to enhance the

employment impact of globalization. The specific elements of such a system need of

course to be worked in a national context as part of a coherent set of policie

27

Research Methodology

28

Research Methodology

Primary Data

The research study is based on primary database and primary data is collected Throughstructured questionnaire with open and closed ended questions.

Sample size The research & survey is done through questionnaire on 100 samples

Sample area Area covered in sampling survey, is Jodhpur city.

Sampling technique Survey done through questionnaires on random sampling

Statistical analysis The collected data will be analysed with the help of statistical tool.Techniques and will be presented in the form of percentage, tables and pie. .Charts

29

Data Analysis And

Findings

30

Data Analysis And Findings

Q.1 Is it correct to say Globalization leads into global development of economy?

Table -

Particulars Number of Respondents

Strongly Agree 51

Agree 24

Strongly Disagree 15

Disagree 10

*

Global Development

10

15

51

24

Strongly Agree 2nd Qtr Strongly Disagree Disagree

31

Q.2 Employment opporunities has been increased because of globalization? Table -


Strongly Agree 39

Agree 34


Disagree 15

*

Employment oportunity

15

12 39

34

Strongly Agree Agree Strongly Disagree Disagree

32

Q3. Introduction of Internatinal institutes leads into betterment of education system? Table -


Strongly Agree 38

Agree 27


Disagree 19

*

International institute

19

38

16

27

Strongly Agree Agree Strongly Disagree Disagree

33

Q.4 Life was not as luxzurious as it is today before globalization?

Table -


Agree 58

Disagree 20

Can’t say 8

Don’t Kmow 14

*

Life was not as luxzurious

14

8

20

58

Agree Disagree Can't say Don’t know

34

Q.5 Job oporutunity in abrode is introduced because of globalozation?

Table -


Strongly Agree 38

Agree 35


Disagree 15

*

Job oportunity in abrode

15

12 38

35

Strongly Agree Agree Strongly disagree Disagree

35

Q .6 Overall, do you think international trade is good or bad?

Table -


Good 58

Bad 33

Can’t say 9

*

International trade is good or bad

9 0

33

58

Good Bad Can't Say

36

Q.7 Why do people gets attrected towards job in abrode?

Table -


Financial benifits 40

Better facalities 12

Self prestige 35

Self setisfaction 13

*

People gets attracted

13

40

35

12

Financial benifits Better facalities Self prestige Self setisfaction

37

38

Conclusion

The ministerial level meeting about the Doha round on further liberalisation of world trade,

ended the previous week-end. The final agreement was obviously a compromise -- optimists

would describe it as a glass half full, while pessimists will doubtless see it as half empty. As has become customary lately, the meeting was accompanied by more than its fair share of the anti-globalisation protesters and demonstrators. In India, the Left often opposes freer trade. On the other hand, the Left stands for egalitarianism,

a greater economic equality amongst people. If it favours this across nations, and not just within

India, it should be supporting, rather than opposing, globalisation of trade, freer movement of

goods, services and capital.

The point struck me forcefully while reading a book, China Inc., by Ted C Fishman, a journalist

rather than an economist. He argues, without any ifs and buts, that "If the 20th was the American

century, then the 21st belongs to China." Leaving the general thesis aside, at one place, while describing how jobs are migrating to China,

not only from American workers, but also from Mexicans, he states that "Mexican maquiladora

(factories on the American border, supplying to the United States) workers, on average, earn

about four times what Chinese workers do, but they earn only about one-seventh of what

American factory workers do."

For doing similar and equally productive work, does the American worker have a God-given

right to earn 30 times more than a Chinese worker? For any normal person, other than the

Christian right in the US (and, indeed, President Bush himself), which believes that it is God's

chosen country, the answer will have to be negative: for a given level of productivity and similar

work, the Chinese worker has every right to earn as much as his European or American

counterpart.

And, globalisation of trade in goods and services, helps narrow the gap in the wage levels. More

work will shift from American factories to the Chinese ones to the extent the Chinese output is

cost and quality competitive. In the process, this shift would tend to depress the wages of the

low-skilled workers in the US at the same time that it improves the living standards of the

Chinese workers.

And, this is not true only of goods: the logic is equally applicable to services. The fast-growing services exports from India will keep pricing pressure on suppliers of similar services in the

39

American and European markets. Wages of workers in such service providers will remain under pressure while those of the Indian

workers in services exports will rise rapidly, as indeed they have, narrowing the earnings gap.

Hence the argument that globalisation is an egalitarian influence. By no means is this a purely conceptual argument: if the per capita incomes in Hong Kong and

Singapore exceed those in many European countries, if countries like Korea, Taiwan and, some

distance behind, Malaysia and Thailand, have witnessed a sharp increase in per capita incomes,

the underlying cause has been the globalilsation of trade in recent years.

And, China is following in their footsteps. Hundreds of millions of people have graduated from

poor to middle class status in a couple of generations -- it is difficult to see how this could have

occurred without their being open to foreign trade and investment. Globalisation does push relatively low-skilled jobs in the rich countries to the poorer countries --

and one can understand the US worker protesting globalisation. So, if we are concerned more

with retaining the jobs of American workers earning $30 per hour, and not about creating jobs in

India, then we too should oppose globalisation.

Incidentally, would the American low-skilled worker himself benefit from a closed economy?

Perhaps some would, at least temporarily, but at the cost of the consumer. Unfortunately, the

consumer rarely has time to come out in the streets demonstrating in favour of globalisation. Trade apart, the Left does seem to be looking more kindly towards FDI: its high priests recently

advised Kerala to follow Bengal on the subject. The opposition to FDI is rooted in the

perspective that the rich foreign investor is taking money away from a poor country like India. The underlying assumption is that growth is a zero sum game, that if the foreign investor is

profiting, we must be losing. The fact is that if the foreign investor takes away some profit, he

can do so only by creating jobs in this country -- much of FDI in China is in exporting factories,

which make profits only by creating more domestic employment and content.

It is a case of capital indulging in wage arbitrage. But, there are significant qualitative benefits as

well -- supply chain management, best practice in distribution, design ideas, and so on -- if only

we wish to learn!

40

Questionnaire Dear Sir/Madam,

I am a student of DMS, JAI NARAIN VYAS UNIVERSITY, JODHPUR and I am

conducting a survey relating to my term paper on

“CONSUMER BUYING BEHAVIOUR REGARDING BRANDED AND NON- BRANDED READYMADE GARMENTS” The following questionnaire has been drafted to make me understand the behavior of people

regarding buying branded and non-branded goods. Therefore I request you to kindly spare

some time and give me the following information. I assure you that the results of the study

will be kept confidential.

Name: _________________

Gender: Male Female

Age:

20-30

30-40

40-50

50 and Above

1. Is it correct to say Globalization leads into global development of economy?

Strongly Agree Agree

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

2. Employment opporunities has been increased because of globalization?


Strongly Disagree

Disagree

3. Introduction of Internatinal institutes leads into betterment of education system?


Strongly Disagree

Disagree

4. Life was not as luxzurious as it is today before globalization?

Agree Disagree

Can’t say

Don’t know

5. Job oporutunity in abrode is introduced because of globalozation?


Strongly Disagree

Disagree

6. Overall, do you think international trade is good or bad?

Good Bad Can’t say

7. Why do people gets attrected towards job in abrode?

Financial benefits Better facalities

Self prestige

Self setisfaction

8. What are the benifit of spread culture and technology?

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

Documents

Globalization