Talk:Globalization

Archive 1

Delisted as GA

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, Signature^brendel 20:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Clarify the Math Please

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.

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...?

Quoted text below:

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]

Suggested rewrite:

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]

enigma_foundry 19:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The world population has rapdidly increased at the same time, will clarify.Ultramarine 19:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks enigma_foundry 04:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The source for '7 0ut of 8' and the lower 10% incomes falling in absolute terms

I have extracted the sections of the source document. (Note: Deciles are units of 10%)

"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.

But incomes in the lower deciles of world income distribution have probably fallen absolutely since the 1980s;"

04:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

A note about deletion

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."

Therefore, I like things like:

"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]"

and

"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."

enigma_foundry 04:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I Agree. The wording in the quotes section is best-suited for a WP article. Regards, Signature^brendel 05:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

rearranged page

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. 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.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. 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...."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." Calliopejen1 09:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

What would your proposed sections be? 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...enigma_foundry 23:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

KFC again

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. ALTON .ıl 08:21, 31 July 2007 (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 ;-) Signature^brendel 09:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

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...? enigma_foundry 23:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)