Globalization: pros and cons. Group 10 @ Raleigh


Globalization designs the world as a small village, let the information and money spread out freely, and provides more diversity in cultures, and also for goods and services. For example, an American car can be made up from a German engine, Japanese tires, and Sweden seats assembled in Morocco and sold in France by an Argentinean Manager. But globalization has many others advantages, some of them are listed below:

  • Easy access to knowledge and information through many different canals and platforms
  • Smaller distances thanks to enhanced communication and transports
  • Companies have access to a broad range of markets around the globe
  • Creation of an International supply and demand
  • International competition
    • It often leads to an economic welfare between companies and customers
    • Companies have the ability to choose the best suppliers around the world for better results
    • Easy access to resources, example the iPhone is composed by different raw suppliers around the world


  • Cultural challenges
    • Homogenizing effects of the globalization, phenomenon of Americanization
    • Cultures endangered
  • Impact of Global trade on Poverty
    Case Study and researches from Yale Center for the Study of Globalization: What are the poverty impacts of global trade reforms under a successful Doha Round for seven of the poorest countries in the world? – “Our main finding is that the Doha development round in the business as usual scenario is likely to have fairly small impacts on household welfare in Zambia.”
  • Global warming
    • Development vs. Climate Change in emerging countries, Linking Climate Change and Development Policies
    • Limitations and mixed results of Global Summits (Kyoto protocol 2005-2012: Japan, Australia, Canada, Spain and Austria did not reach their objectives)
  • Global Health
    Risk of a fast spread of communicable diseases (Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) epidemic in 2003, Ebola virus in 2014)
  • Business: Tendency to privatization and monopolization
  • Boom of a globalized black market and International criminal networks (Drugs, mafia, terrorism, counterfeiting…)


Globalization both harms and benefits the world. Therefore, control and regulation are needed to counter the negative effects of globalization. International cooperation between states, global institutions, NGOs companies is required.

Group 15 @ Sophia – From Davos, a View on the State of Globalization

Davos, Switzerland, on Jan. 13

Photograph by Gianluca Colla/Bloomberg

If globalization has a spiritual home, it’s Davos, the Swiss ski resort that will play host to a who’s who of the planet’s decision-makers from Jan. 22 to 25. The annual meeting of the World Economic Forum is devoted to “improving the state of the world,” with the ever-present subtext that more integration is better. Davos Man’s abiding belief that those two goals are compatible has taken a beating in recent years. The financial crisis that struck in 2008 raised serious questions about whether globalization had become more of a threat than a boon. We learned the hard way that the world financial system had become like an electrical grid in which a single tree falling across a high-tension line could cause blackouts of homes and businesses hundreds of miles away.

Today, even as the Great Recession recedes from memory, its ravages are visible. Prior to the crisis, global commerce was growing twice as fast as global economic output, says Bhanu Baweja, who heads emerging-market cross-asset strategy at UBS(UBS). Trade plummeted after the crisis and is only now regaining momentum. Cross-border capital flows are 60 percent of what they were before the meltdown, according to the McKinsey Global Institute. Charles Collyns, who was assistant U.S.Treasury secretary for international finance until joining the Institute of International Finance as chief economist last year, puts it bluntly: “Globalization has stalled.”

That’s not the line that the WEF’s organizers will be broadcasting. “The people in Davos are looking forward, not backward,” says Robert Greenhill,a former executive and consultant from Canada who’s now chief business officer of the forum. Still, the stresses of the wider world are sure to find their way into the forum’s meeting halls. Talk of currency war is in the air, while China and Japan are skirmishing in the East China Sea. In the U.S., trade is taking some of the blame for the hot-button issue of the year: inequality. Emerging markets such as Brazil and Turkey have swooned over the Federal Reserve’s plans to cut back bond purchases. Global banks complain that regulators are balkanizing finance by requiring each local unit to have the capital to stand on its own. Snooping by the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) has caused hard feelings among allies and rivals alike.

Without violating trade rules, countries have found ways to close borders. Australia now bans overseas storage of electronic health records. Argentina requires foreign luxury automakers to offset their imports of cars with exports of local products, such as malbec wine, all in the name of “trade balancing.” “What we’re moving toward is a system which on paper is open, but beneath the surface is increasingly distorted by all kinds of subsidies and buy-local provisions,” says Simon Evenett, professor of international trade at the University of St. Gallen in Switzerland. Investment controls and antitrust rules are sometimes “intimidating people from doing cross-border deals because of risks today that didn’t exist before,” says Thomas Vinje, chairman of the global antitrust practice in the Brussels office of Clifford Chance, a U.K. law firm.

Progress on the free movement of people and information is also being stymied. A lobbying coalition that included General Electric (GE) and Google (GOOG) failed to get Congress to ease immigration limits last year despite arguments that American companies can’t find enough tech workers. Financial hubs such as Singapore and the U.K. are making it harder for companies to hire foreigners following domestic protests. “Policies to promote more immigration into the advanced economies are going to be a hard sell until unemployment rates drop,” according to the “Depth Index of Globalization 2013,” a 276-page study by IESE, the graduate business school of the University of Navarra in Spain. Meanwhile, the NSA’s Prism spying scandal has hurt U.S. suppliers of cloud computing as countries opt to keep data in home-based clouds.

In a report to clients last year, Joachim Fels, Morgan Stanley’s (MS) chief international economist, warned that 2014 could be a repeat of 1914, which brought an abrupt end to the first golden era of globalization. Wrote Fels: “I do worry about a creeping trend towards a de-globalization of economic activity and capital flows.”

The view from Davos, though, is that all is not lost. Trade talks are the most important countertrend. With little notice from protesters, negotiators are making progress toward the Trans-Pacific Partnership on one side of the world and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership on the other, as well as a fledgling U.S.-China investment treaty. Agreement on trade-streamlining measures was reached at the World Trade Organization’s ministerial meeting in Bali on Dec. 7. A study by consulting firm Bain presented at Davos last year, which inspired the Bali pact, concluded that eliminating discriminatory regulations and other barriers to global supply chains could boost world gross domestic product six times as much as doing away with all tariffs.

Source :

Group 24@Sophia Antipolis: Globalization, the Pros and the Cons.

Globalization is nowadays part of the worldwide economy. It is clear that we must adapt to it and this generates pros and cons.




–       Globalization exists, it is difficult to escape it and it is a development opportunity for all countries. The problem is that we have a global economy and national policies, which leads to a non-mastered globalization. We need a regulated globalization with international bodies that would have more power.


–       Globalization facilitates the exchange of information, information flows

easily and instantly through Internet and new methods of communication.



–       It offers more choice to the consumer via the competitive global business. Companies can easier enter new markets.


–       Globalization promotes full employment in all countries according to the HOS model


–       It promotes education


–       Globalization promotes development which causes the installation of democracy




–       Globalization increases inequalities, especially in emerging countries. In addition, global crises tend to spread faster all over the world, and have huge impacts on people’s lives.


–       it is a powerful tool to roll back social rights, including in the most developed countries. The argument of competitiveness, submission to insatiable economic constraints translate everywhere by social regression that deals with working conditions, employee status, social protection and pensions


–       In fact, the HOS theory is not confirmed as we see that the gap between developing countries and develop countries is widening.


–       Globalization seems to be a factor of financial instability. The multiplication of crises since the 1970s tends to show (the 1987 crash, bursting of the Internet bubble in 2000…). The liberalization of capital flows has a tendency to promote their mobility, market volatility, the development of bubbles and their bursting.


–     Inequality has increased in recent decades. Inequality in wealthy countries or in emerging markets has also increased.




Groupe 15 @ Sophia : Globalization – Pros and Cons

In our group, we have debated, in terms of pros and cons, how we apprehend the globalization process.

First of all, let’s evocate pros of such a phenomenon:

* Spread and sharing knowledge and diversified goods and services

* Markets openness which creates plenty of opportunities for companies and individuals (like new jobs opportunities and new market share)

* Better communication between citizens, states and international institutions

* Improvement of transport (cost and speed) and ways of communication

* New technologies and scientific progress which permits a improvement of medicine and so an increase of life expectancy all around the world

And then, cons of globalization which of course constitute a lot of challenges for the future:

 * The immense enrichment is misallocated and the wealth gap between poor and rich countries has increased

* Globalization is from the beginning an occidental process which resulted in the disappearance of some culture and ancestral knowledge

* Increase of black market and international criminality

* The diminution of Nation States role in the democratic and social fields

* Global warming and environmental destruction

* As the interdependence increases, the systemic risk of a global collapse from financials actors (from “Too Big to Fail” banks) is more present

* Delocalisation and competition between workers without same social rights

As a conclusion, we can assert that globalization permit to enhance our way of living and personal comfort (life expectancy, immense middle class emergence, better transports and communication for sharing knowledge). However, as we mentioned earlier, big challenges are ahead and it the purpose of course existing international institutions and politics but first of all citizens and companies.

Group 5 FMI- Raleigh: Pros and Cons of Globalization

Globalization covers a wide range of topics, ranging from cultural values and information to economics and international trade, we chose to focus here on the pros and cons of globalization on economics and culture aspects.

  • Free Trade

Free trade reduced the barriers that once stood between nations and thus conducted to a significant increase in trade volumes. An example of a free trade agreement is the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which allows Mexico, Canada, and the United States to trade products and services without important import and export restrictions.

Free trade has several benefits for economies and consumers. Consumers enjoy a greater choice of goods and services, since foreign companies can easily offer their products for sale. They also benefit from lower overall prices for goods, as a greater variety of goods for sale increases competition and drives prices down.

Manufacturers in countries with free trade agreements also benefit from free trade in the form of a larger export market.

Free trade also allows nations and economies to specialize in what they do the best, producing higher quality goods at better prices.

  • Free Movement of Labor

In a globalized world, workers can more easily move from one country to another.

In many cases, free movement of labor allows economies to fix ‘gaps’ that exist in their labor markets. Companies can also hire workers in foreign countries to work for them using online tools and telecommunications.

The benefits of free movement of labor also work in the other direction. If a country has too few jobs and too many workers, people can easily move to markets in which the job market is better. An excellent example of free movement between countries can be seen in the European Union.

  •  Global Culture

Global mass media connects all the people in the world so that cultural barriers reduce.

However, each of the benefits of globalization, from free trade to the free movement of labor, can also be a downside for specific countries and economies.

  • Paradox of Free Trade

One of the biggest downsides of globalization is the harm it can cause to economies at an early stage of development. Free trade forces all countries to compete using an even playing field, which critics claim puts smaller, less developed countries behind their more developed counterparts.

Some economists believe that free trade is only possible if industries in developing countries are allowed to grow under a certain level of economic protection. This is known as the Paradox of Free Trade, and it is a core argument among economists.

  • Labor Drain

Another downside of globalization is the phenomenon known as ‘labor drain.’ Since globalization allows workers to easily move from one country to another, countries with limited job opportunities often find it difficult to encourage skilled workers to stay in their countries.

After receiving training in their home countries, many people emigrate and spend their professional career in a more lucrative economy at the expense of their home country.

  • Corporate Tax Avoidance

Globalization can also have a significant negative impact on taxation. Since many companies are able to trade with one country while being based in another, large corporations often exploit tax havens such as Luxembourg, Switzerland, and Hong Kong to avoid paying taxes in the countries where they generate their profits.

This can often hurt consumers in the form of higher taxes on consumer products and property. Since countries often have little control over where big companies register to avoid tax, they are often forced to raise other taxes in order to make up for lost revenues due to corporate tax avoidance.

  • Weakening of specific cultures in the profit of a global culture

Lastly, globalization has had a cultural impact on many countries that have been subject to large-scale immigration. Many critics of globalization feel that the free movement of labor has resulted in the weakening of specific cultures in favor of greater economic and cultural hegemony.

Group93@Sophia – Debate : Globalization, The Pros & The Cons

Globalization has a lot of definitions which tend to have the same meaning: it is “the worldwide movement toward economic, financial, trade, and communications integration”. There are also many aspects involved in this movement as it involves trade, transactions, migrations, investments, knowledge. The technological progress has changed the rules of the “game”. How could you imagine 50 years ago that we could be able to talk face to face with someone being at thousands of kilometers thanks to some inventions like Skype? How could you imagine that everyday people would cross the Atlantic in less than 10 hours? Thanks to the transport revolution, free movement and mobility have enabled openness to new cultures and countries. People now can travel easily all over the world and share knowledge.

However this share of culture and knowledge can lead to a “standardization” of the culture: in some places of the world, people are losing their identity! We could notice a global loss of local cultures, traditions, dialects, over the past years. There is an economic gap between the richest and poorest countries and the richest tend to influence the way of life of the poorest as they can export their culture more easily, bringing a “cannibalization” risk. A culture can make another disappear. Moreover it is often done in a non-sustainable way as an important part of this cultural integration is led by multinational companies trying to make profit. As an example you can find natives of remote villages of the Amazonian forest drinking Coca-Cola. Multinational companies have now more power than some nations! Their turnover is more important than the GDP of the last ones.

Policies have followed technologies as borders have been opened for instance in the Schengen area. This phenomena allows exchanges of capital, workforce and raw materials between the countries. As markets got opened, companies have experienced unlimited opportunities to grow. Globally the world has seen an improvement of its living standards. Indeed this new economic boom has led to a decrease of unemployment rates, a raise of the salaries and consequently the eruption of a new middle class in the emerging countries. The Third World countries have also developed a lot as many of them are no longer only exporters of raw materials. Emerging and poor countries are following the “Western” path. Apart of this, we could observe the better political stability that the Globalization process has brought in the world. “Westernization” drives the spread of democracy and human rights all around the world thanks to Education, NGO’s and so on.

But is really Globalization beneficial for all the countries at the same scale? The interdependence makes some of them more vulnerable to global crisis. Emerging countries have lower labor costs and this is a huge competitive advantage since Trade was made easier. Lower labor costs mean lower prices for the consumer so companies of the developed countries have to deal with this and they sometimes decide to outsource in order to avoid bankruptcy. It leads to unemployment. The benefits of Globalization are not for everyone. Actually it increased inequalities between and within the countries, cities and countryside. The wealth gap shows that the positive effects of Globalization have not been distributed equally. More than that, the economic growth has not been followed with a proportional advance of social rights in many parts of the world. Many borders got open but some remain closed. Illegal immigration has increased as people know better than before that they can have a better life with better socio-economic situation elsewhere.

Despite the positive sides of having a globalized world with people moving everywhere, it is also important to remind that Terrorism is also included in the process. We open borders not only for “good” people. So terrorists can also unify, exchange ideas and take actions easily across countries. Some extremists want to implement by brute force their doctrines not only at home but everywhere. People travel more than before, consequently there are more risks of rapes or attacks. The increase of terrorism also increases the danger for people travelling because of the instability of some regions of the world.

Finally let’s not forget the environmental damage that has come with the Globalization process over the last decades. More and more species disappear each year because of mass consumption & exploitation. The developed countries tend to protect their technological advances to remain competitive but by doing so they let emerging countries develop themselves by using a lot of polluting industry. The Tourism industry is developing faster and creates a mass Tourism which can badly affect the eco-system. The global warming is today a major concern for the entire world and the lack of rules and sanctions to fight it have been underlined. The environment being a common interest, companies and governments are taking a step together toward ecological awareness. Today we know that tackling global warming will only be possible if accompanied through the years by a sustainable development.

Globalization is already here and we cannot change the facts. However, as students in Tourism, we will be actors in the world of tomorrow. Although the globalization movement has begun many years ago, it is still a moving and growing process that can be controlled in a sustainable way. We know what are and will be the consequences of a non-sustainable development and this is why today we can say YES to a globalized world but ONLY under certain conditions.

Group85@Sophia: ‘Africa has become a playground for globalisation’

“Africa is not on autopilot to some gilded age, warns Kingsley Moghaly, deputy governor of Nigeria’s central bank and author of Emerging Africa. Waht is being faisely celebrated as Africa’s rise is simply the continent having become a playground for globalisation, he says, adding that without job creatin to accompany population growth Africa will have to cope with armies of unemployed young people in a few decades’ time.”

Link for the video:

Group 88 @ Sophia SCMP : Pros & Cons

In fact, we are divided on the issue of the Globalization. We were present for the end of the Globalization 2.0. We are actors of the Globalization 3.0, we are individually going global, and take advantage of it through our travels, studies, technologies, and consumption modes… Hence as we discussed about, Globalization offers advantages such as having access to large range of products at low prices thanks to free trade, enhancing technological innovations quickly and fairly, as well as speed, quality and quantity of information, developing international trade and companies through investment in EMCs, mixing cultures… But Globalization is the engine of some difficulties uncontrolled yet, like unemployment in OECDs because transnational firms can have best options (lower wages, les regulation…), a great dependence between countries in particular regarding the finance (when New-York sneezes, Paris blows), international companies take over governments, profits from FDI do not stay in EMCs and return to headquarters in OECDs, the increase of wealth gap, the lost of cultural identity, the global warming issue… So in the one hand we may say Globalization is needed to continue developing and increase our wealth, and in the other hand say no, Globalization is not the way to follow, it benefits to only a privileged few.

It is all the more difficult to take a stand because Globalization blinds us. According to P. Ghemawat, “the world is not flat” as opposed to what is often thought. If we look at some data that P. Ghemawat gathered, we can see that cross-border phone calls (a kind of information flow) represents only 2% of all voice calls in the world in 2011 (6% including internet telephony). Regarding immigration (flow of people), first-generation immigrants accounts for 3% of the world’s population. Concerning investment (kind of capital flow), FDI represents roughly 10% of all investment in the world in 2010: that means 90% of investments around the world is domestic. And then if we look at the export/GDP (kind of trade in products and services), this ratio should be around 20% (official statistics say 30%) if we adjust double counting (for instance an engine part bought in china, is assembled in Czech, and then the engine is sent to Germany, the Chinese engine part is counted multiple times in official statistics). So clearly we are not in a high internationalization process, and we think Globalization is overstated.

A main reason is due to all governments. Governments only look into the microscope. It means they take national and international decisions that are in line with their country’s requests (to meet their population’s requests). Instead, they should look into a telescope and think about taking decisions for the good of all, even taking national decision. Because if each country (population and government) goes well, trusts others, has no internal problem, it will be more open and let Globalization do its regulatory work naturally.

Group 87 Sophia – Why investors should bet on India


India’s prime minister is known for his pro-business policies, and his steady efforts to draw foreign investments could plant the seeds for a more prosperous India.

In a richly symbolic event, India put a spacecraft into orbit around Mars this week, beating Japan and China in the race and doing it at a fraction of what it cost NASA. The timing is propitious, as Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi landed in the U.S. on Friday for his first official visit and amid highexpectations for India’s economic growth and potential.

Since he took office in May, Modi has begun to execute on the systematic reformation of India’s inefficient and bureaucratic markets to make them friendlier and more open for investors and businesses. So far, his actions seem to be working, with GDP accelerating to 5.7% in the second quarter after a period of stagnation; inflation is trending down and foreign capital is starting to come in.

Modi has also received praise for his recent deals with Japan and China, securing $33 billion of new investments from Japan; he even garnered $20 billion in infrastructure investment from China –India’s historical geopolitical adversary. These numbers may not be staggering from a Western perspective, but they are meaningful for an emerging economy like India’s, and more to the point, a sign of confidence from Asia in India’s economic prospects – a signal that the prime minister hopes to obtain from the U.S. as well.

Underpinning all this is Modi himself, who is proving to be a pragmatic leader. In addition to his loftier ambitions of easing India’s restrictive market regulations and upgrading the nation’s infrastructure, he seems intent on building India’s economic strengths from the ground up, pushing toprovide bank accounts for every Indian household across the nation, standardize banking practices to end exploitation of the poor and illiterate, provide insurance and pension plans for those with no access to them, and to promote the use of technology for education, social innovation, and business activity even in remote areas.

There are many challenges, of course. For one, there is Modi’s past as Chief Minister of the state of Gujarat, home to a notorious incident of Hindu-Muslim riots which he has been accused of mishandling. Combined with the Hindu roots of his Bharatiya Janata Party, political analysts have questioned his moral authority to govern over India’s minority Muslim population.

Another problem is that India’s labor force is skewed toward the agriculture sector, even though itshighest growth industries like information technology, telecom, healthcare, and retail are projected to require millions of new skilled workers which they may not be able to find. While Modi has called for more foreign investments in India’s manufacturing sector, his administration will first need to revamp archaic labor laws and improve education to ensure the pool of skilled labor required for long-term growth. Finally, there is a lack of women in the workforce and rampant government corruption, which the prime minister must also tackle.

Still, solving the economic and social troubles of a country as populous and complex as India isn’t easy, and what is important is that the nation finally has a leader who is willing to take on the challenge. Modi may have a tough road ahead but his disciplined style of governing and clarity of purpose could enable him to succeed.

In this spirit, as he now begins his dialogue with another great democracy and primary role model for free markets – the U.S. – there should be plenty of affinity between the two sides and opportunity to generate mutual prosperity through trade. India can certainly benefit from America’s financial resources and state of the art industrial/technological expertise to modernize its business landscape and national infrastructure, and U.S. investors can profit handsomely in the world’s most vibrant emerging market with the right foundation in place. Bilateral trade between India and the U.S. has reached $100 billion, and by some estimates, could grow to $500 billion by the end of the decade.

Historically, the relationship has been marked by crests and valleys, partly due to a disagreement over how much freedom to allow the private sector and more recently due to the stalling of a key nuclear deal over India’s unwillingness to provide end-user verification for plants and tracking of sourced fuel. The former could change with the advent of the Modi administration’s market-friendly philosophy, and the latter may have become less urgent due to India’s newly minted civil nuclear agreement withAustralia instead. What could also help India’s relations with the U.S. is raising foreign ownership limits in its defense sector from 26% to 49%, potentially creating a windfall for U.S. investors and defense contractors.

Yet another area to watch during Modi’s visit will be the contentious topic of outsourcing, which needs to be resolved in order to maximize the value of human capital in India and bolster the competitiveness of U.S. companies. The keys to success here will be the Indian government’s ability to bring its business policies closer in line with American best business practices and legal framework, and the ability of the U.S. to recognize the benefits, and even necessity, of outsourcing in an age of globalization.

India is reaching for the stars, both figuratively and literally, with an ambitious program of modernization and free market growth that can generate wealth for itself as well as its trading partners. That is a trend worth supporting.



Group 11 IMBD Paris : Multiculturalism: Good for the Bottomline and Your Gateway to Global Markets

In today’s highly competitive, volatile global marketplace, the most recent census figures offer compelling evidence that U.S. corporations, in their aggressive pursuit of overseas markets for their products and services, may be overlooking a multicultural consumer market gold mine in their own backyards.

New population estimates were recently released by the U.S. Census Bureau showing that, for the first time, the majority of Americans under the age of one are minorities. Or more specifically that white, non-Hispanic babies now make up less than half of the population younger than one. It’s part of a demographic shift that’s expected to create a minority-majority nationwide population sometime within the next 30 or 40 years. California, Hawaii, New Mexico and Texas have already passed that threshold at the state level.

The ethnic landscape of America’s cities has also changed dramatically in the past decade. Twenty-two of the 100 largest cities are now minority-majority cities. These cities include Boston, Memphis, New York City, Las Vegas, San Diego and Washington DC. Whites were the majority in those cities just 10 years ago. Similarly, the white population has fallen even further in several cities that already had white minorities in 2004, such as San Francisco, Los Angeles and San Jose in California, as well as Miami and Houston.

Statistically, Blacks, Hispanics and Asians represent over 30 percent of the United States population. Research indicates that these ethnic groups are the fastest growing consumer groups in the country and that, contrary to popular stereotypes, they are brand loyal, have tremendous purchasing power, and are growing increasingly prosperous. Black, Hispanic and Asian consumers have a combined income of more than $4.4 trillion. And that is not chump change.

Multicultural consumers notice companies who notice them, rewarding them with their business, loyalty and support. As the American marketplace grows ever culturally and linguistically diverse, it’s clear that any company that does not actively pursue multicultural customers is leaving money on the table. Further, the economic clout of these diverse consumers will only grow: the census predicts that in less than 35 years, people of color will account for almost half of the nation’s population.

These compelling statistics make targeting culturally diverse and immigrant consumers an imperative for American companies. However, companies hoping to reach these fast growing emerging markets merely by “casting a wider net” will sell themselves short. Message exposure doesn’t necessarily mean message receptiveness, particularly in today’s disruptive digital media marketplace. Only by taking the time to understand the unique cultural sensibilities of diverse markets will companies compete effectively in the 21st century.