- 08/08/2019 at 10:29 pm #1623445EduGorillaKeymasterSelect Question Language :
Direction: Read the given passage carefully and answer the questions that follow. Certain words are printed in bold to help you locate them while answering some of these.
Though “the end of history” has not yet been reached, “the end of geography” has surely been a fallout of globalisation. The squeezing of time and space prompted by the Third Industrial Revolution —roughly, since 1980 — has altered our synergies with the international environment. For many, globalisation — the aggravated cross-border exchange of goods, services, capital, technology, ideas, information, legal systems, and people — is gratifying as well as irreversible, having underwritten a rising standard of living throughout the world. Others recoil from globalisation as they feel it is the soft underbelly of corporate imperialism that ravages and profiteers on the back of rampant consumerism.
Globalisation is not uncontrolled. The movement of people remains tightly restricted. The flow of capital is highly asymmetrical. Over the last two decades, overseas development assistance from the rich to poor countries has totalled $50-80 billion per year. In the same period, every year, $500-800 billions of illegal funds have been sent from the poor to rich countries. That is, for every one dollar of aid money over the table, the West gets back $10 under the table and, for good measure, lectures the rest on corruption.
The benefits and costs of linking and delinking are unequally distributed. Industrialised countries are mutually interdependent; developing countries are largely independent in economic relations with one another; and developing countries are highly dependent on industrialised countries. Brazil, China and India are starting to change this equation.
There is a growing divergence in income levels between countries and people, with widening inequality among and within nations. Assets and incomes are more concentrated. Wage shares have fallen. Profit shares have risen. Capital mobility alongside labour immobility has reduced the bargaining power of organised labour.
The deepening of poverty and inequality — prosperity for a few countries and people, marginalisation and exclusion for the many — has implications for social and political stability among and within states. The rapid growth of global markets has not seen the parallel development of social and economic institutions to ensure balanced, inclusive and sustainable growth. Labour rights have been less sedulously protected than capital and property rights, and global rules on trade and finance are inequitable. This has asymmetric effects on rich and poor countries.
Even before the global financial crisis (GFC), many developing countries were worried that globalisation would impinge adversely on economic sovereignty, cultural integrity and social stability. “Interdependence” among unequals translates into the dependence of some on international markets that function under the dominance of others. The GFC confirmed that absent effective regulatory institutions, markets, states and civil society can be overwhelmed by rampant transnational forces.
Globalisation has also let loose the forces of “uncivil society” and accelerated the transnational flows of terrorism, human and drug trafficking, organised crime, piracy, and pandemic diseases. The growth of these transnational networks threatens state institutions and civil society in many countries.
So, what can developing nations do to manage the challenges of globalisation?
The outright rejection of globalisation and a retreat into autarky is neither practical nor desirable: who wants to be the next Myanmar or North Korea? As one wag has put it, opposing globalisation is like opposing the sun coming up every morning, and about as fruitful. Equally, though, who wants to be the next Iceland, Greece or Ireland? The notion that endless liberalisation, deregulation and relaxation of capital and all border controls (except labour) will assure perpetual self-sustaining growth and prosperity has proven to be delusional. The three Baltic nations that embarked on this course (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) — to which, for good measure, they added the flat tax — all had double-digit negative growth in 2009.
For developing countries, lowering all barriers to the tides of the global economy may end up drowning much of local production. Raising barriers that are too high may be counterproductive, if not futile. Countries that find the golden middle, like Chile and Singapore, tend to thrive, channelling the enormous opportunities offered by an expanding world economy for the benefit of their citizens. Those that do not, like many in Central and Western Africa, are marginalised and left behind.
Which of the following statement is/are true with reference to the passage?
I. Globalisation, unlike its original intention, has been more beneficial for the richer countries.
II. The relationship between a developing country and an industrialized country is lopsided with respect to economic relations.
III. Globalisation has the potential to make this world a better place to live in and solve some of the deep-seated problems like unemployment and poverty.
Post your Training /Course EnquiryAre You looking institutes / coaching center for
- Only I is true
- Only II is true
- Only III is true
- Both I and II are true
- Both I and III are true
- IIT-JEE, NEET, CAT
- Bank PO, SSC, Railways
- Study Abroad