2. 外语
  3. GLOBALISATON For many, the surprise of finding a McDonald’s outlet in Moscow or Beijing provides no greater symbol of the sp

GLOBALISATON For many, the surprise of finding a McDonald’s outlet in Moscow or Beijing provides no greater symbol of the sp

admin2011-02-08  34
问题                         GLOBALISATON
    For many, the surprise of finding a McDonald’s outlet in Moscow or Beijing provides no greater symbol of the spread of globalisation. Used to explain all manners of economic, cultural and political change that has swept over the world in recent decades, globalisation is a term that continues to cause intellectual debate. Some see it as inevitable and desirable, but it is a contentious issue with an increasing number of individual citizens around the world questioning whether or not the implications of globalisation, in terms of international distribution of income and decreasing poverty, are effective.
    The beginning of globalisation is inextricably linked to technological improvements in the field of international communications and a fall in the cost of international transport and travel. Entrepreneurs and power-brokers took advantage of these advances to invest capital into foreign countries. This became the basic mechanism for globalisation with the trading of currencies, stocks and bonds growing rapidly.
    Breaking down the barriers through the free movement of capital, free trade and political cooperation was seen as a positive move that would not only improve living standards around the world, but also raise political and environmental awareness, especially in developing countries. Predictions were that nations would become more outward-looking in their policy-making, as they searched for opportunities to increase economic growth. Roles would be assigned to various players around the globe as capital providers, exporters of technology, suppliers of services, sources of labour, etc. Consequently, countries and economies could concentrate on what they were good at and, as a result, markets would experience increased efficiency.
The process of economic globalisation was without doubt led by commercial and financial power-brokers but there were many others who supported the integration of world economies. As multinational companies searched for new work-forces and raw materials, non-government organisations and lobby groups were optimistic that in the wake of global business, indigenous cultures might be given a reprieve with an injection of foreign capital. This would, in turn, provide local employment opportunities. By spreading trade more evenly between developed and developing nations, it was touted that poverty would decrease and living standards would rise.
Governments saw the chance to attract multinational companies with tax-breaks and incentives to set up in-country, effectively buying employment opportunities for their constituents.
    By the late 1990s, some trepidation started to surface and globalisation faced its most public setback. The spectacular economic collapses in Korea, Brazil, Thailand and other countries were considered, rightly or wrongly, to be caused by the outwardly-oriented trade policies that globalisation espoused such as the growth of exports. These countries had enjoyed record growth for a relatively short time, but when faced with difficulties, the growth appeared unsustainable. The vulnerability and risk associated with reliance on exports and international markets was made clear.
    Meanwhile though, through the 1990s and early 2000s, multinational companies continued to do well financially. Profits were increasing, keeping shareholders happy, but the anticipated spin-offs were not being felt at the workers’ level or in local communities in the form of increased employment. These successful companies did not want to share the benefits of the increased efficiency they were receiving as a result of introducing their own work practices. The multinationals were setting their own agendas, with governments, in many cases, turning a blind eye fearing that they might pull out and cause more unemployment. Free trade was now accused of restricting governments, who were no longer setting the rules, and domestic markets felt increasingly threatened by the power that the multinationals had.
    The negative consequences of globalisation have now become a concern for many protest groups in different nations. If the concept of globalisation was meant to benefit all nations, they say, then it has failed. Rich countries, like America, continue to grow richer and more powerful with many of the head offices of multinationals based there. The economies of some developing countries though, especially in Africa, are making only negligible if any progress in the war against poverty. As a result, protestors are confronting the advocates of globalisation on their own doorstep as power-players meet at economic summits in already-globalised cities.
    The International Monetary Fund (IMF) maintains that globalisation has succeeded in establishing a more equitable share of world trade and remains optimistic that the gulf between rich and poorer nations, given the right conditions, will be considerably lessened in the future. They point out that no country can afford to opt out of globalisation and, indeed, would be foolish to attempt to do so. They maintain that ’non-globalising developing countries’ have made slower progress than ’globalising developing countries’ in the past two decades. Moreover, they suggest that developing countries with huge debts be assisted so that their economies can catch up with richer countries and integrate more effectively at an international level.
    Regardless of what IMF affirms, if the benefits of globalisation are to be more evenly spread, the goal of reducing world poverty needs to be re-prioritised. If this means imposing rules and standards on multinational companies that are acceptable internationally, then this will need to be done sooner rather than later. At this stage, the multinationals and their shareholders appear to be the only winners. The backlash against globalisation has already begun.
The shareholders of multinational companies are likely to contribute towards a more even distribution of wealth. ______
选项
答案NOT GIVEN
解析
转载请注明原文地址:https://jikaoti.com/ti/8MLYFFFM
本试题收录于： 雅思阅读题库雅思（IELTS）分类
0

雅思阅读

雅思（IELTS）

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)