Talk:Globalization: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
m Maintain {{WPBS}}: 8 WikiProject templates. The article is listed in the level 3 page: Social issues. Tag: |
||
(649 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ |
{{Talk header}} |
||
{{American English}} |
|||
{{Notice|This article was cited in a government publication,[http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itgic/0206/ijge/ijge0206.pdf The Challenges of Globalization] (Electronic Journal))|small=yes}} |
|||
{{Article history|action1=GAR |
|||
{{WikiProject Business & Economics|class=B|importance=top|small=yes}} |
|||
|action1date=18 June 2007 |
|||
{{WikiProject Sociology|class=B|importance=top|small=yes}} |
|||
|action1result=delisted |
|||
{{DelistedGA|18 June 2007|small=yes}} |
|||
|action1oldid=139055143 |
|||
{{WP1.0|v0.5=pass|class=GA|category=Socsci|VA=yes|small=yes}} |
|||
|action2=PR |
|||
[[Talk:Globalization/Archive 1|Archive 1]] |
|||
|action2date=18:12, 17 December 2012 |
|||
|action2link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Globalization/archive2 |
|||
|action2result=reviewed |
|||
|action2oldid=528500696 |
|||
|currentstatus=DGA |
|||
__TOC__ |
|||
}} |
|||
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=C|vital=yes|1= |
|||
{{WikiProject Globalization|importance=top}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Business|importance=top}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Economics|importance=high}} |
|||
{{WikiProject International development|importance=high}} |
|||
{{WikiProject International relations|importance=high|law=yes|law-importance=Mid}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=high}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Sociology|importance=top}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Trade|importance=top}} |
|||
}} |
|||
{{Annual readership}} |
|||
{{Backwardscopy |
|||
== Delisted as GA == |
|||
|author = Surhone, L. M., Surhone, L. M., Timpledon, M. T., & Marseken, S. F. |
|||
|year = 2010 |
|||
|title = Social determinants of obesity: Obesity, social class, globalization, physical fitness, undeveloped countries |
|||
|org = Betascript Publishing |
|||
|comments = {{OCLC|712973362}}, {{ISBN|9786132041050}}. |
|||
|bot=LivingBot |
|||
}} |
|||
==Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment == |
|||
This article was orginigally identified as a GA on the 21 December, 2005 but no longer meets GA standards which have risen since. There are two tagged sections, lacking sources and citations. Furthermore some citations arn't listed properly. After improved referencing and in-line citations in every paragraph the article also needs a c/e and a review of the bullet point format which is less preferable than the standard text format. Regards, <b><font face="Arial" color="1F860E">[[User:BrendelSignature|Signature]]</font><font color="20038A"><sup>[[User:BrendelSignature|brendel]]</sup></font></b> 20:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC) |
|||
[[File:Sciences humaines.svg|40px]] This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available [[Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Florida_International_University/International_Business_(Fall_2017)|on the course page]]. Student editor(s): [[User:Kevinglez|Kevinglez]]. |
|||
{{small|Above undated message substituted from [[Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment]] by [[User:PrimeBOT|PrimeBOT]] ([[User talk:PrimeBOT|talk]]) 21:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)}} |
|||
== Clarify the Math Please == |
|||
==Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment== |
|||
In the below text, it is noted that the World Bank figures show that those living on less than a dollar a day dropped from 1.5 billion to 1.1 billion, but then it goes on to says that the number dropped by 'half' in percentage terms. |
|||
[[File:Sciences humaines.svg|40px]] This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available [[Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/San_Diego_State_University/Women,_Development_and_the_Global_Economy_(Fall_2018)|on the course page]]. Student editor(s): [[User:Alcarazleo99|Alcarazleo99]]. |
|||
{{small|Above undated message substituted from [[Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment]] by [[User:PrimeBOT|PrimeBOT]] ([[User talk:PrimeBOT|talk]]) 21:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)}} |
|||
But 0.4 billion (the drop) is about 26% of 1.5 billion. So it seems to me the drop should be 1/4 (one quarter, not one half.) Right...? |
|||
==Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment== |
|||
Quoted text below: |
|||
[[File:Sciences humaines.svg|40px]] This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2019-01-14">14 January 2019</span> and <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2019-04-24">24 April 2019</span>. Further details are available [[Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Northwestern_University/_MIT_398_Intercultural_International_Communication__(Spring_2019)|on the course page]]. Peer reviewers: [[User:Maryamal-khalifa|Maryamal-khalifa]]. |
|||
{{small|Above undated message substituted from [[Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment]] by [[User:PrimeBOT|PrimeBOT]] ([[User talk:PrimeBOT|talk]]) 21:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)}} |
|||
From 1981 to 2001, according to World Bank figures, the number of people living on $1 a day or less was halved in percentaga terms and fell from 1.5 billion to 1.1 billion in absolute terms.[10] with the greatest improvements occurring in economies rapidly reducing barriers to trade and investment; yet, some critics argue that more detailed variables measuring poverty should be studied instead.[11] |
|||
==Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment== |
|||
Suggested rewrite: |
|||
[[File:Sciences humaines.svg|40px]] This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2020-07-06">6 July 2020</span> and <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2020-08-14">14 August 2020</span>. Further details are available [[Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Northeastern_University/Advanced_Writing_in_the_Business_Disciplines_(Summer_2)|on the course page]]. Student editor(s): [[User:Tong.l|Tong.l]]. |
|||
{{small|Above undated message substituted from [[Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment]] by [[User:PrimeBOT|PrimeBOT]] ([[User talk:PrimeBOT|talk]]) 21:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)}} |
|||
From 1981 to 2001, according to World Bank figures, the number of people living on $1 a day or less dropped by one quarter in percentage terms and fell from 1.5 billion to 1.1 billion in absolute terms.[10] with the greatest improvements occurring in economies rapidly reducing barriers to trade and investment; yet, some critics argue that more detailed variables measuring poverty should be studied instead.[11] |
|||
==Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment== |
|||
[[User:Enigma foundry|enigma_foundry]] 19:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
[[File:Sciences humaines.svg|40px]] This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2021-08-16">16 August 2021</span> and <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2021-12-17">17 December 2021</span>. Further details are available [[Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/North_Carolina_State_University/Culture,_Ecology,_and_Sustainable_Living_(Fall_2021)|on the course page]]. Student editor(s): [[User:Megsleg|Megsleg]]. |
|||
:The world population has rapdidly increased at the same time, will clarify.[[User:Ultramarine|Ultramarine]] 19:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
{{small|Above undated message substituted from [[Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment]] by [[User:PrimeBOT|PrimeBOT]] ([[User talk:PrimeBOT|talk]]) 21:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)}} |
|||
Thanks [[User:Enigma foundry|enigma_foundry]] 04:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment== |
|||
== The source for '7 0ut of 8' and the lower 10% incomes falling in absolute terms == |
|||
[[File:Sciences humaines.svg|40px]] This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available [[Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/UCBerkeley/Soc_127_(Fall_2016)|on the course page]]. Student editor(s): [[User:Wxu797|Wxu797]]. Peer reviewers: [[User:Zoe Mara Talamantes|Zoe Mara Talamantes]]. |
|||
{{small|Above undated message substituted from [[Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment]] by [[User:PrimeBOT|PrimeBOT]] ([[User talk:PrimeBOT|talk]]) 22:27, 16 January 2022 (UTC)}} |
|||
I have extracted the sections of the source document. (Note: Deciles are units of 10%) |
|||
== Neoliberal Hegemony and Populist Revolt == |
|||
Economist [[Robert Kuttner]] argues that since the late 1970s economic globalization has become a vehicle for the spread of [[neoliberal]] economic policies, which have systematically benefited financial elites at the expense of workers, citizens, and democracy.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Kuttner |first1=Robert |title=Can Democracy Survive Global Capitalism? |date=2018 |publisher=W. W. Norton & Company |location=New York |isbn=9780393609936 |pages=xiv-xix}}</ref> This has been enacted primarily through the weakening of governmental regulations and labor unions, including laws regulating the international movement of finance. "The orthodox view is that these shifts resulted from changes in the nature of the economy...[However] nothing in the structure of the late-twentieth-century economy compelled a reversion to an unregulated nineteenth-century market. This was a political shift." Kuttner contrasts this with the more benign rules and goals of economic globalization that were formulated at the [[Bretton Woods]] conference near the end of [[World War II]], which enabled national governments to enact policies that led to widespread growth, stability, and increasing equality throughout the developed world.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Kuttner |first1=Robert |title=Can Democracy Survive Global Capitalism? |date=2018 |publisher=W. W. Norton & Company |location=New York |pages=26-63}}</ref> |
|||
"My reading of the evidence suggests that none of the eight alternative measures clearly shows that world income distribution has become more equal over the past twenty years. Seven of the eight show varying degrees of increasing inequality. The eighth—the one that uses the Gini coefficient, countries weighted by population, and purchasing power parity—shows no significant change in world income distribution. This is because the Gini coefficient gives excessive weight to changes around the middle of the distribution and insufficient weight to changes at the extremes and therefore, in this case, gives more weight (than a decile ratio) to fast-growing China; the use of countries weighted by population has the same effect; and the use of purchasing power parity tends to raise low incomes more than high incomes, compared with market exchange rates. Hence this combination generates the least rise in inequality. But a recent paper by Dowrick and Akmal (2001) suggests that the Penn World Tables, on which most calculations of purchasing power parity are based (see Heston and Summers, 1991), contain a bias that makes incomes of developing countries appear higher than they are. The tables consequently understate the degree and trend of inequality. When the bias is corrected, even the most favorable combination of measures shows rising inequality of world income distribution over the past twenty years, although the trend is less strong than the trend based on any of the other possible combinations. |
|||
Trade agreements have been used to curtail the right of national governments to regulate their own economies, thus subordinating the sovereignty of democratically-elected governments to international bodies dominated by corporate interests. As such, "trade agreements defined a broad range of domestic financial, health, consumer, environmental, and labor regulations as infringements on free commerce. A radical reinterpretation of private property rights adopted the far-right claim that regulation was an uncompensated "taking" of property. Business leaders had failed to persuade US courts that this was a reasonable [interpretation]...but the doctrine became a part of the common structure of international law, via the back door of trade...the newly invented rights of corporations to challenge regulations as illegal restraints crowded out the ability of national democracies to manage capitalism. Agendas for these trade deals were set mainly by corporations, facilitated by allies in government; the official advisers to trade deals were mainly corporate." The panels created to enforce these trade agreements, under the rubric of [[investor-state dispute settlement]] (ISDS), were "private, and riddled with conflicts. A panel member could literally serve as a "judge" one day and a lobbyist the next. Ex parte contacts - secret undisclosed lobbying to work the referee - were permitted, and flagrant."<ref>{{cite book |last1=Kuttner |pages=184,198-199}}</ref> |
|||
But incomes in the lower deciles of world income distribution have probably fallen absolutely since the 1980s;" |
|||
Under this neoliberal version of globalization, democratic reforms and regulations have been undermined or removed in the name of competitiveness in the global economy. "With global markets and no global standards, domestic workers are thrown into direct competition with more desperate overseas workers. A century’s worth of democratic struggles to regulate labor standards are hosed away. At the other end of the spectrum, the worldwide liberation of finance creates astronomical incomes for the elite." |
|||
04:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
The deregulation of international finance is a key aspect of neoliberal globalization, and essential to understanding the trade policies of the US and UK since the 1980s. While the US and Britain long embraced the doctrine of [[free trade]], East Asian nations such as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and China flourished by adopting an informal trade policies of [[protectionism]] and [[neomercantilism]], which discouraged imports while encouraging industrialization and exports.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Kuttner |pages=180-181}}</ref> This fostered an unequal playing field, in which manufacturing industries in the US and UK declined or moved some of their activities overseas, leading to factory closings and job losses. American "manufacturing went from having a rough trade balance with the rest of the world in the early 1980s, to having a deficit of over $700 billion in 2006. The trade deficit in goods in 2016 was $347 billion with China alone." <ref>{{cite book |last1=Kuttner, |pages=191-193}}</ref> Although these policies undermined American and British manufacturing, they helped to fulfill certain diplomatic goals of the US - except in the case of China.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Kuttner |pages=180-181,201-208}}</ref> Yet while the US did little to support American manufacturing, political leaders in the 1980s and 1990s made great efforts to bring down barriers to American finance, including opening up China to American firms such as Goldman Sachs and Citigroup.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Kuttner |pages=181,195-197}}</ref> |
|||
== A note about deletion == |
|||
The systematic weakening of organized labor, controls on capital, and democratic sovereignty resulting from neoliberal globalization have led to widening inequality, greater insecurity and dislocation, and stagnating standards of living for a majority of people in both developed and developing nations.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Tolan |first1=Sandy |title=Brexit's Meaning? Globalization Sucks |url=https://www.thedailybeast.com/brexits-meaning-globalization-sucks |website=The Daily Beast |accessdate=April 13, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Frank |first1=Thomas |title=Listen, Liberal: or Whatever Happened to the Party of the People? |date=2016 |publisher=Metropolitan Books |location=New York |isbn=9781627795395 |pages=87-88,101-102}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Kuttner |first1=Robert |title=Can Democracy Survive Global Capitalism? |date=2018}}</ref> Many observers argue that this has fueled a widespread backlash against globalization throughout the West, evidenced by [[Brexit]], and the rise of populist leaders on both the political right, such as [[Donald Trump]], [[Jair Bolsonaro]], [[Marine Le Pen]], and [[Viktor Orban]], and the left, such as [[Bernie Sanders]].<ref>{{cite book |last1=Kuttner |first1=Robert |title=Can Democracy Survive Global Capitalism? |date=2018 |publisher=W. W. Norton & Company |location=New York |pages=xiiv-xix,1-14}}</ref> “The fact that the far-right backlash is occurring in nearly all Western nations at the same time is no coincidence, nor is it accidental contagion. It is a common reaction against the impact of globalization on the livelihoods of ordinary people.” |
|||
I had deleted a comment that said something like "Pro globalist dispute this" I think something that notes the complexity of measuring income inequality is is in order though. But if it is written "Pro globalist dispute this" next to each item that is disputed, and the same thing is done in the pro-globalist section,"Anti globalist dispute this" the article will sound odd, in the end...So I think the proglobalist and anti globalists section should describe the basic arguments of each view point, without using absolutes like "Income inequality declined" or "Income inequality increased." |
|||
Furthermore, the promised benefits of globalization to less-developed nations have rarely materialized, and often led to severe inequality and dislocation of the poor. For example, NAFTA (the [[North American Free Trade Agreement]]) forced Mexican farmers to compete with large, subsidized American [[agribusiness]], decimating Mexico's corn growers, and causing millions of Mexican agricultural workers to abandon their homes and migrate to the United States looking for work as undocumented, low-paid wage laborers.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Frank |first1=Thomas |title=Listen, Liberal |pages=87-88}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Tolan |first1=Sandy |title=Brexit's Meaning? Globalization Sucks |url=https://www.thedailybeast.com/brexits-meaning-globalization-sucks |website=The Daily Beast}}</ref> |
|||
Therefore, I like things like: |
|||
[[User:Mr. Malarkey|Mr. Malarkey]] ([[User talk:Mr. Malarkey|talk]]) 01:31, 16 July 2020 (UTC)Mr Malarkey |
|||
{{reflist}} |
|||
== Possible contributions to be made regarding Biological Globalization == |
|||
"Supporters of free trade claim that it increases economic prosperity as well as opportunity, especially among developing nations, enhances civil liberties and leads to a more efficient allocation of resources. Economic theories of comparative advantage suggest that free trade leads to a more efficient allocation of resources, with all countries involved in the trade benefiting. In general, this leads to lower prices, more employment, higher output and a higher standard of living for those in developing countries.[8][9]" |
|||
Hello, I have been assigned to edit this article as part of my class. Please notify me of any mistakes or lack of etiquette, I'm quite new to editing on this platform. I was looking at the article [[Biological globalization]] and found it to be quite lacking in information. Perhaps that article could simply be merged with the main globalization article, and of course improved on. |
|||
and |
|||
Looking at a few sources to include information from, let me know what you think. |
|||
"Critiques of the current wave of economic globalization typically look at both the damage to the planet, in terms of the perceived unsustainable harm done to the biosphere, as well as the perceived human costs, such as increased poverty, inequality, injustice and the erosion of traditional culture which, the critics contend, all occur as a result of the economic transformations related to globalization. They challenge directly the metrics, such as GDP, used to measure progress promulgated by institutions such as the World Bank, and look to other measures, such as the Happy Planet Index,[24] created by the New Economics Foundation[25]. They point to a "multitude of interconnected fatal consequences--social disintegration, a breakdown of democracy, more rapid and extensive deterioration of the environment, the spread of new diseases, increasing poverty and alienation"[26] which they claim are the unintended but very real consequences of globalization." |
|||
1. Olmstead, Alan L. and Rhode, Paul W., Biological Globalization: The Other Grain Invasion (May 2006). ICER Working Paper No. 9/2006, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=932056 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.932056 |
|||
[[User:Enigma foundry|enigma_foundry]] 04:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
2. https://www.britannica.com/science/cultural-globalization/Entertainment#ref225002 |
|||
:I Agree. The wording in the quotes section is best-suited for a WP article. Regards, <b><font face="Arial" color="1F860E">[[User:BrendelSignature|Signature]]</font><font color="20038A"><sup>[[User:BrendelSignature|brendel]]</sup></font></b> 05:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
3. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4371972/ |
|||
== rearranged page == |
|||
4. https://www.britannica.com/event/Columbian-exchange#ref1274353 |
|||
I rearranged the page because readers of this page are wondering, ''What are the effects of globalization, and who is for and against it?'', not ''What is globalism about?'' and separately ''What is anti-globalization about?'' This is a problem also seen in the [[anti-globalization]] article, where there's a huge part about how pro-globalization folks refute the claims of anti-globalization folks. It would be much better for the encyclopedia to collect all these claims and explain what all the effects are in one place, so readers can decide for themselves whether globalization is a good thing rahter than hearing all the supporters' views one place and all the detractors' views in another. [[User:Calliopejen1|Calliopejen1]] 08:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:You cannot easily separate claims of effects and those who are making these statements. They need to be discussed together.[[User:Ultramarine|Ultramarine]] 08:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::I agree, to a certain extent. Obviously the rearranging I did before you reverted was just the start of some more revisions that also incorporated that. However, in my mind it makes more sense to describe the general contours of the pro movement and the con movement, then go into all the claimed effects, sorted by type of effect (economic, political, etc) and then attaching a description of who's making the claim along to the claim itself. As it stands, it's essentially a POV fork within the same article, where it talks as though were no costs, and then as though there were no benefits, presenting each side in a vacuum. If the claims were sorted topically, there could be more of a conversation within the article between supporters and opponents that would be easier for readers to understand. [[User:Calliopejen1|Calliopejen1]] 09:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::A pov fork is an article only presenting the views of one side. A topical treatment may or not be good, depending on the subject. In this it case it would quickly again degenerate into pro and anti sections, like "Regarding income inequality, supporters of globaliztion points too... Critics of globaliztion instead points too...."[[User:Ultramarine|Ultramarine]] 09:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::: I am aware of what a normal POV fork is, that's why I said "a POV fork within the same article." :) I agree that even within each section it would have a lot of pro and con, but I still think it would be better than the status quo. The current format probably worked well when it was a smaller article, but now each of the sections is getting very long, which makes it very hard for readers to compare what the pro and con camps say about each particular thing, and where the flaws of each argument are. I came to the article from [[Anti-globalization#Lack of evidence for claims]], where all refutation of anti-globalization claims has apparently been placed, wondering where the central repository for the evidence about what globalization does to poor people was. It seems to me that it would be better to say... |
|||
::::* Here is how globalisation hurts poor people (to pick one topic), according to [[group A]] |
|||
::::* Here is the problem with that argument, according to [[group B]]. |
|||
::::* Here is how globalization helps poor people, according to [[group B]]. |
|||
::::* Here is the problem with that argument, according to [[group A]]. |
|||
:::: Of course, providing sufficient context for people to know who group A and B are and what their motivations are (hopefully who A and B are could have been explained earlier), then moving to the next topic. And one would hope that there would also be evidence that comes from ''neutral'' sources about these effects, and it seems silly to be sorting out neutral yet favorable evidence into one section and neutral yet unfavorable evidence into another. |
|||
:::: As it stands, there's one extremely long narrative about the world according to pro-globalists, then another extremely long narrative about the world according to anti-globalists, which (coming here with no background in this besides a passing curiosity) I found very hard to untangle. |
|||
:::: See [[Capital_punishment_debate]] for an example of how this has worked in a similar article, and [[Capital_punishment_debate#Evidence_for_prevention_and_deterrence]] for a way they've shifted from "capital punishment supporters say "A, B, capital punishment deters crime, C, D" and "opponents say 'A, B, C, D, capital punishment doesn't deter crime, E, F" to "Here is the existing evidence about deterrence, here is where the deterrence evidence is inadequate, here is how supporters use this evidence, here is how opponents use this evidence." [[User:Calliopejen1|Calliopejen1]] 09:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::What would your proposed sections be? [[User:Ultramarine|Ultramarine]] 10:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I rather agree that some re-arranging needs to be done. In particular, looking at the anti-globalization section, I was thinking that it could be titled 'Critiques of Globalization" because many of those opposed to globalization as it presently exists are really arguing for certain aspects of it to be changed, and very few believe that all aspects of globalization are wrong. For example, much of Jeffry Sach's work at the Earth Institute would belong in the category of criticism of globalization as it now exists, but it would be misleading to place him in the 'anti-globalization' camp, certainly. However, the compilation of the the problems under each topic also has a certain amount of logic to it, and could create a more balanced article. So, I agree with Calliopejen1's proposal, but would like to see an outline before we do the re-arranging. There will be quite a lot of rework if we go this route...[[User:Enigma foundry|enigma_foundry]] 23:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
[[User:Alex Oeser|Alex Oeser]] ([[User talk:Alex Oeser|talk]]) 20:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== KFC again == |
|||
:Hi Alex, welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for your interest in this article! I took a brief look at [[User:Alex Oeser/sandbox/assignment5|your sandbox]] and my first thought is that this is a very small number of sources compared to the amount of text you want to add. This would result in the sources you're using having [[WP:WEIGHT|undue emphasis]] compared to the other ~220 sources in the article, most of which are only used for 1-2 sentences each. This is especially important for an article on a topic as broad as this one, which normally contains a very high-level summary of many different topics with much of the detail spread out into subarticles (this is called [[WP:SS|summary style]]). The general rule is that the amount of emphasis given to any particular subject should reflect the amount of emphasis on that subject within the reliable sources as a whole, especially those sources that are most authoritative such as textbooks and academic review papers. [[User:Sunrise|''<b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b>'']] <i style="font-size:11px">([[User talk:Sunrise|talk]])</i> 17:29, 8 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
I bring this up because the previous discussions never reached a conclusion on how best to represent Globalization. To me, someone who knows nothing about the topic, the lead (which is huge) preaches "connectivity, standardization, interdependence, etc.", and, save one broad bullet which vaguely references it, the spread of KFC to Kuwait is not a good representation. Further, the caption merely says "A KFC in Kuwait", which explains nothing to me if I didn't live in America where KFCs are part of everyday culture. I don't really have an alternate idea, I just hope someone who has a better idea of what this is can find a good picture for the article. [[User:Alton|<font color="#808080" size="-1"><b>ALTON</b></font>]] [[User talk:Alton|<font color="#808080">.ıl</font>]] 08:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Thanks for posting here. [[Biological globalization]] certainly deserves an expansion, through I'd suggest discussing this at [[Talk:Biological globalization]] (but it is good to make a note here, as many more people follow the talk here than at the bg page which is unlikely to be on many watchlists compared to this talk page). Regarding your sandbox idea, first, we would prefer a more academic, secondary source to the tetriary (anther encyclopedia). And I'd suggest expanding the article on biological globalization first, only then summarizing any key points here. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User talk:Piotrus|<span style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> reply here</span>]]</sub> 02:45, 11 October 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:The only alternative to the KFC pic I can think of at the moment would a pic of a "Made in China" label... than again to someone in China that doesn't repesent globalization very well either ;-) <b><font face="Arial" color="1F860E">[[User:BrendelSignature|Signature]]</font><font color="20038A"><sup>[[User:BrendelSignature|brendel]]</sup></font></b> 09:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2022 - Infobox (multi-image) == |
|||
How about a picture of either a souk or of a sidewalk vendor, with several different trademark brands (such as 'Coca Cola') visible? The combination of different cultures and traditional being modified by the new seems an interesting juxtaposition, from my recent trip to Tunisia...? |
|||
{{edit semi-protected|Globalization|answered=yes}} |
|||
=== Edit 1 request === |
|||
The positions of images in the description of the topmost multiimage don't match the image positions. |
|||
Resizing the browser window, or changing between mobile (en.m) and desktop (en) version doesn't change the order. |
|||
The order of the descriptions matches the image definition order |
|||
and their positions from top to bottom, left to right, |
|||
so one just needs to change the bold text: |
|||
Top-left -> ok |
|||
Top-right -> ok |
|||
Middle-right -> Middle-left |
|||
Bottom-left -> Middle-right |
|||
Bottom-right -> Bottom |
|||
=== Edit 2 request === |
|||
Also, since image 6 is mainly around Africa (and the filename is African undersea cables v44.jpg), please change |
|||
a map of connections around Europe, Africa and Asia |
|||
to |
|||
a map of connections around Africa, Europe and Asia |
|||
or |
|||
a map of connections around Africa, Asia and Europe |
|||
Thanks --[[User:Ziom 2.0|Ziom 2.0]] ([[User talk:Ziom 2.0|talk]]) 20:08, 6 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:[[File:Pictogram voting wait blue.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''In progress:''' An editor is implementing the requested edit.<!-- Template:ESp --> [[User:Amadeus1999|<span style="color: #3D5F83">'''Amadeus<sup><small>22</small></sup>'''</span>]] [[User talk:Amadeus1999|🙋]] [[Help:Notifications|🔔]] 23:26, 8 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:{{done}}<!-- Template:ESp --> I've slightly changed the wording on your second request to better reflect what the map revolves around. I took the liberty of doing so as I thought it to be in the spirit of your request. If you disagree, feel free to let me know of course! [[User:Amadeus1999|<span style="color: #3D5F83">'''Amadeus<sup><small>22</small></sup>'''</span>]] [[User talk:Amadeus1999|🙋]] [[Help:Notifications|🔔]] 23:36, 8 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Food Security section == |
|||
With regards to this line: The political movement 'BREXIT' was considered a step back in globalisation, it has greatly disrupted food chains within the UK as they import 26% of food produce from the EU. |
|||
This seems a highly disputable statement and features no citation. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/77.101.249.254|77.101.249.254]] ([[User talk:77.101.249.254#top|talk]]) 06:51, 20 May 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
== Measurement section lacks introduction == |
|||
I think we can do a better job of introducing the measurement of globalization than the sparse "One index is x and another is y", what can be a better preface? [[User:Forich|Forich]] ([[User talk:Forich|talk]]) 03:13, 7 October 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== slobalization? == |
|||
This is a term which from 2008 - present means the slowing down of globalization. should this be included in the article? [[User:Ikipedia2|Ikipedia2]] ([[User talk:Ikipedia2|talk]]) 03:53, 24 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Because there's nothing left to globalize? Maybe Antarctica?[[Special:Contributions/213.230.87.219|213.230.87.219]] ([[User talk:213.230.87.219|talk]]) 14:21, 19 July 2024 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 03:32, 20 October 2024
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Globalization article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4 |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Globalization was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
This level-3 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Since the external publication copied Wikipedia rather than the reverse, please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
|
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
[edit]This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kevinglez.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
[edit]This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alcarazleo99.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
[edit]This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2019 and 24 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Maryamal-khalifa.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
[edit]This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 July 2020 and 14 August 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tong.l.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
[edit]This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 August 2021 and 17 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Megsleg.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
[edit]This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Wxu797. Peer reviewers: Zoe Mara Talamantes.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:27, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Neoliberal Hegemony and Populist Revolt
[edit]Economist Robert Kuttner argues that since the late 1970s economic globalization has become a vehicle for the spread of neoliberal economic policies, which have systematically benefited financial elites at the expense of workers, citizens, and democracy.[1] This has been enacted primarily through the weakening of governmental regulations and labor unions, including laws regulating the international movement of finance. "The orthodox view is that these shifts resulted from changes in the nature of the economy...[However] nothing in the structure of the late-twentieth-century economy compelled a reversion to an unregulated nineteenth-century market. This was a political shift." Kuttner contrasts this with the more benign rules and goals of economic globalization that were formulated at the Bretton Woods conference near the end of World War II, which enabled national governments to enact policies that led to widespread growth, stability, and increasing equality throughout the developed world.[2]
Trade agreements have been used to curtail the right of national governments to regulate their own economies, thus subordinating the sovereignty of democratically-elected governments to international bodies dominated by corporate interests. As such, "trade agreements defined a broad range of domestic financial, health, consumer, environmental, and labor regulations as infringements on free commerce. A radical reinterpretation of private property rights adopted the far-right claim that regulation was an uncompensated "taking" of property. Business leaders had failed to persuade US courts that this was a reasonable [interpretation]...but the doctrine became a part of the common structure of international law, via the back door of trade...the newly invented rights of corporations to challenge regulations as illegal restraints crowded out the ability of national democracies to manage capitalism. Agendas for these trade deals were set mainly by corporations, facilitated by allies in government; the official advisers to trade deals were mainly corporate." The panels created to enforce these trade agreements, under the rubric of investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS), were "private, and riddled with conflicts. A panel member could literally serve as a "judge" one day and a lobbyist the next. Ex parte contacts - secret undisclosed lobbying to work the referee - were permitted, and flagrant."[3]
Under this neoliberal version of globalization, democratic reforms and regulations have been undermined or removed in the name of competitiveness in the global economy. "With global markets and no global standards, domestic workers are thrown into direct competition with more desperate overseas workers. A century’s worth of democratic struggles to regulate labor standards are hosed away. At the other end of the spectrum, the worldwide liberation of finance creates astronomical incomes for the elite."
The deregulation of international finance is a key aspect of neoliberal globalization, and essential to understanding the trade policies of the US and UK since the 1980s. While the US and Britain long embraced the doctrine of free trade, East Asian nations such as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and China flourished by adopting an informal trade policies of protectionism and neomercantilism, which discouraged imports while encouraging industrialization and exports.[4] This fostered an unequal playing field, in which manufacturing industries in the US and UK declined or moved some of their activities overseas, leading to factory closings and job losses. American "manufacturing went from having a rough trade balance with the rest of the world in the early 1980s, to having a deficit of over $700 billion in 2006. The trade deficit in goods in 2016 was $347 billion with China alone." [5] Although these policies undermined American and British manufacturing, they helped to fulfill certain diplomatic goals of the US - except in the case of China.[6] Yet while the US did little to support American manufacturing, political leaders in the 1980s and 1990s made great efforts to bring down barriers to American finance, including opening up China to American firms such as Goldman Sachs and Citigroup.[7]
The systematic weakening of organized labor, controls on capital, and democratic sovereignty resulting from neoliberal globalization have led to widening inequality, greater insecurity and dislocation, and stagnating standards of living for a majority of people in both developed and developing nations.[8][9][10] Many observers argue that this has fueled a widespread backlash against globalization throughout the West, evidenced by Brexit, and the rise of populist leaders on both the political right, such as Donald Trump, Jair Bolsonaro, Marine Le Pen, and Viktor Orban, and the left, such as Bernie Sanders.[11] “The fact that the far-right backlash is occurring in nearly all Western nations at the same time is no coincidence, nor is it accidental contagion. It is a common reaction against the impact of globalization on the livelihoods of ordinary people.”
Furthermore, the promised benefits of globalization to less-developed nations have rarely materialized, and often led to severe inequality and dislocation of the poor. For example, NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement) forced Mexican farmers to compete with large, subsidized American agribusiness, decimating Mexico's corn growers, and causing millions of Mexican agricultural workers to abandon their homes and migrate to the United States looking for work as undocumented, low-paid wage laborers.[12][13] Mr. Malarkey (talk) 01:31, 16 July 2020 (UTC)Mr Malarkey
- ^ Kuttner, Robert (2018). Can Democracy Survive Global Capitalism?. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. pp. xiv–xix. ISBN 9780393609936.
- ^ Kuttner, Robert (2018). Can Democracy Survive Global Capitalism?. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. pp. 26–63.
- ^ Kuttner. pp. 184, 198–199.
{{cite book}}
: Missing or empty|title=
(help) - ^ Kuttner. pp. 180–181.
{{cite book}}
: Missing or empty|title=
(help) - ^ Kuttner,. pp. 191–193.
{{cite book}}
: Missing or empty|title=
(help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) - ^ Kuttner. pp. 180–181, 201–208.
{{cite book}}
: Missing or empty|title=
(help) - ^ Kuttner. pp. 181, 195–197.
{{cite book}}
: Missing or empty|title=
(help) - ^ Tolan, Sandy. "Brexit's Meaning? Globalization Sucks". The Daily Beast. Retrieved April 13, 2017.
- ^ Frank, Thomas (2016). Listen, Liberal: or Whatever Happened to the Party of the People?. New York: Metropolitan Books. pp. 87–88, 101–102. ISBN 9781627795395.
- ^ Kuttner, Robert (2018). Can Democracy Survive Global Capitalism?.
- ^ Kuttner, Robert (2018). Can Democracy Survive Global Capitalism?. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. pp. xiiv–xix, 1–14.
- ^ Frank, Thomas. Listen, Liberal. pp. 87–88.
- ^ Tolan, Sandy. "Brexit's Meaning? Globalization Sucks". The Daily Beast.
Possible contributions to be made regarding Biological Globalization
[edit]Hello, I have been assigned to edit this article as part of my class. Please notify me of any mistakes or lack of etiquette, I'm quite new to editing on this platform. I was looking at the article Biological globalization and found it to be quite lacking in information. Perhaps that article could simply be merged with the main globalization article, and of course improved on.
Looking at a few sources to include information from, let me know what you think.
1. Olmstead, Alan L. and Rhode, Paul W., Biological Globalization: The Other Grain Invasion (May 2006). ICER Working Paper No. 9/2006, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=932056 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.932056
2. https://www.britannica.com/science/cultural-globalization/Entertainment#ref225002
3. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4371972/
4. https://www.britannica.com/event/Columbian-exchange#ref1274353
Alex Oeser (talk) 20:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Alex, welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for your interest in this article! I took a brief look at your sandbox and my first thought is that this is a very small number of sources compared to the amount of text you want to add. This would result in the sources you're using having undue emphasis compared to the other ~220 sources in the article, most of which are only used for 1-2 sentences each. This is especially important for an article on a topic as broad as this one, which normally contains a very high-level summary of many different topics with much of the detail spread out into subarticles (this is called summary style). The general rule is that the amount of emphasis given to any particular subject should reflect the amount of emphasis on that subject within the reliable sources as a whole, especially those sources that are most authoritative such as textbooks and academic review papers. Sunrise (talk) 17:29, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for posting here. Biological globalization certainly deserves an expansion, through I'd suggest discussing this at Talk:Biological globalization (but it is good to make a note here, as many more people follow the talk here than at the bg page which is unlikely to be on many watchlists compared to this talk page). Regarding your sandbox idea, first, we would prefer a more academic, secondary source to the tetriary (anther encyclopedia). And I'd suggest expanding the article on biological globalization first, only then summarizing any key points here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:45, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2022 - Infobox (multi-image)
[edit]This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Edit 1 request
[edit]The positions of images in the description of the topmost multiimage don't match the image positions. Resizing the browser window, or changing between mobile (en.m) and desktop (en) version doesn't change the order. The order of the descriptions matches the image definition order and their positions from top to bottom, left to right, so one just needs to change the bold text:
Top-left -> ok Top-right -> ok Middle-right -> Middle-left Bottom-left -> Middle-right Bottom-right -> Bottom
Edit 2 request
[edit]Also, since image 6 is mainly around Africa (and the filename is African undersea cables v44.jpg), please change
a map of connections around Europe, Africa and Asia
to
a map of connections around Africa, Europe and Asia
or
a map of connections around Africa, Asia and Europe
Thanks --Ziom 2.0 (talk) 20:08, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- In progress: An editor is implementing the requested edit. Amadeus22 🙋 🔔 23:26, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- Done I've slightly changed the wording on your second request to better reflect what the map revolves around. I took the liberty of doing so as I thought it to be in the spirit of your request. If you disagree, feel free to let me know of course! Amadeus22 🙋 🔔 23:36, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Food Security section
[edit]With regards to this line: The political movement 'BREXIT' was considered a step back in globalisation, it has greatly disrupted food chains within the UK as they import 26% of food produce from the EU.
This seems a highly disputable statement and features no citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.249.254 (talk) 06:51, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Measurement section lacks introduction
[edit]I think we can do a better job of introducing the measurement of globalization than the sparse "One index is x and another is y", what can be a better preface? Forich (talk) 03:13, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
slobalization?
[edit]This is a term which from 2008 - present means the slowing down of globalization. should this be included in the article? Ikipedia2 (talk) 03:53, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Because there's nothing left to globalize? Maybe Antarctica?213.230.87.219 (talk) 14:21, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia articles that use American English
- Delisted good articles
- Old requests for peer review
- C-Class level-3 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-3 vital articles in Society and social sciences
- C-Class vital articles in Society and social sciences
- C-Class Globalization articles
- Top-importance Globalization articles
- C-Class WikiProject Business articles
- Top-importance WikiProject Business articles
- WikiProject Business articles
- C-Class Economics articles
- High-importance Economics articles
- WikiProject Economics articles
- C-Class International development articles
- High-importance International development articles
- WikiProject International development articles
- C-Class International relations articles
- High-importance International relations articles
- C-Class International law articles
- Mid-importance International law articles
- WikiProject International law articles
- WikiProject International relations articles
- C-Class politics articles
- High-importance politics articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- C-Class sociology articles
- Top-importance sociology articles
- C-Class Trade articles
- Top-importance Trade articles
- WikiProject Trade articles