Globalization and Humanitarian Development Across the Globe

Globalization and Criticism

The concept of globalization has attracted attention of many professionals, economists, and government leaders across the globe. Tortajada identifies it as the process through which actors speedup exchanges, movements, and consumption of capital, goods, cultural practices, and factors of productions across the globe.¹ O’Callaghan goes further to describe the concept as a unique approach whereby business entities, governments, and institutions develop influences that are global in nature.²

Using the lens of international trade, globalization presents specific benefits or advantages that all stakeholders need to take seriously. The outstanding one is that the process of globalizing trade makes it possible for existing and emerging companies and state agencies to intensity their innovative tendencies and produce superior goods and services. Notions of research and development (R&D) become the norm in an effort to offer items that can compete successfully at the international arena. These developments maximize revenues for the producers while transforming the experiences of the involved players through increased profits or access to foreign goods or services.

Similarly, globalization is a process that remains useful when focusing on the financial sector. Specifically, the model supports the introduction of financial institutions that maximizes the availability of financial resources to many participants at the global level. Consequently, this development results in strong financial structures that ensure that more underdeveloped countries achieve their economic goals.³ The example of many African nations shows conclusively the wave of globalization is making it possible for them to compete at the international arena.

On the other hand, globalization continues to attract unique criticisms that analysts and decision-makers should not ignore. First, the model is implemented in such a way that it only benefits companies and nations that are powerful.⁴ For instance, they will establish bilateral international trade patterns that allow them to achieve their maximum potential at the expense of smaller and upcoming economies. The second criticism that emerges from the lens of finance is that it is pursued using a top-down model.⁵ This strategy means that a sense of non-democracy emerges whereby poorer countries find it hard to achieve their social, economic, and political goals. For instance, smaller and emerging countries find it hard to compete at the international level since they lack the influence and resources. The end result is that the forces of globalization will remain imbalanced and affect their gains. These issues explain why many people continue to advocate for superior measures and approaches to ensure that all countries operate at a leveled ground if they are to achieve their potential.

International Economic Development

The global society has seen the proliferation of economic development organizations and institutions that are designed to transform the idea or meaning of globalization. May state leaders have been focusing on the humanitarian aspect by promoting various organizations, such as the United Nations Human Development project, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and USAID.⁶ Several justifications have emerged to explain why some of these international economic agencies could be studied as legitimate components of globalization. A proper understanding of such organizations and their goals could shed more light about the true intentions of their models.

The first outstanding justification is that the institutions and agencies are designed in such a way that they help emerging countries develop competitive private and public sectors. For example, USAID has been helping many emerging nations in different parts of the world commercialize and maximize their potential and become successful. The model helps the targeted beneficiaries receive the relevant guidance, support, and economic empowerment. The end result is that the targeted countries are brought to a level ground whereby they can compete directly with established economies.⁷ The second possible justification is that the functions of various international NGOs and UN human development activities are designed in such a way that they support the goals of many countries across the globe. Investments and support systems are designed and implemented in countries that are in need of more support. For example, the UN launches projects in countries affected by a wide range of challenges, such as poverty and droughts.⁸ These efforts have helped more people in South Sudan and Yemen.

On the other hand, some skeptics acknowledge that promotion of most of the international economic agencies is a pretext that attracts numerous criticisms. First, most of the countries funding these NGOs and state agencies do so with specific hidden interests.⁹ For example, USAID is one of the international organizations that operates and provides donations in emerging nations. While the intent is to improve people’s experiences and economic gains, the country is usually keen to ensure that it benefits in the long run. This happens to be the case because the expansion and involvement of the beneficiary governments will allow them to start purchasing American goods and exports. The end result is that the United States will eventually continue to dominate global power.

The second criticism associated with the promotion of various projects and NGOs within the realm of globalization is that the model does not help most of the countries pursue their goals. With the leading global powers entangled in supremacy battles, the American government has been focusing on the donor-based institutions and the concept of globalization to settle scores in countries that are threatened by the wave of communism.¹⁰ For example, the west has been introducing a wide range of NGOs in many countries across Africa and Asia to influence political discourse and ensure that friendly leaders win elections. This outcome means that the promotion of these humanitarian organizations might not be envisioned to achieve the real objectives of globalization.

Christian Worldview

The Christian worldview emerges as a powerful model for guiding believers to get closer to their God and eventually become part of His kingdom. Under this worldview, God is all knowing and purposeful. He is ordering things in the universe in such a way that the world remains sustainable as it awaits His kingdom.¹¹ It describes how people should be aware of the reason they live and transform the experiences for others. By focusing on the teachings and prophesies of Christ, believers understand what is right and the best approaches to transform their experiences.

Using the notions of the Christian worldview, it would be agreeable that a unique form of command is necessary that is capable of guiding and empowering all people to lead better lives and achieve their potential. From this understanding, it is agreeable that a consistent worldview requires human beings to support the increasing level of economic integration at the international level.¹² For instance, God confused human beings in such a way that they were unable to communicate using the same language. This Biblical message becomes the foundation for religious actions and models that can be implemented to transform the lives of more people. A coordinated approach is, therefore, necessary for promoting economic integration at the global level.

The emergent practices will make it possible for the less disadvantaged to benefits from the global forces of production and economic sustainability. They will also promote humanitarian development in such a way that emerging actions and decisions can transform the lives of the less privileged. The involvement of the global community would also be essential to ensure that the recorded goals are sustainable and capable of delivering balanced outcomes.¹³ The Christian worldview would help people to globalize and identify the existing problems affecting them. They will also consider the best ways to conserve the natural environment and prepare it for posterity.

While focusing on these aspects, it is agreeable that the validity of the Christian worldview needs to be contingent upon specific behaviors and ideas. Specifically, the promoted international economic development agencies should be fair and capable of helping countries and societies in need. Hidden agendas and motives need to be ignored because they are not in accordance with a Christian worldview. Additionally, global economic integration is essential to alleviate poverty and reduce most of the problems affecting the world today. The consideration of this worldview will help minimize the problems many people encounter today and present solutions that are sustainable in nature.¹⁴ These conditions are essential to mitigate possible challenges and unfair advantages that some populations might have over others. From this evident, it is necessary that true Christians would promote a worldview that guides global integration and humanitarian support that is fair, acceptable, and capable of fulfilling God’s intentions for the universe.

Bibliography

Chen, Fan, Sen Liu and Andea Appolloni. “Horizontal Coordination of I-LNGOs in the Humanitarian Supply Chain: An Evolutionary Game Approach.” Sustainability 12, no. 15 (2020): 5953-5972.

Cuervo-Cazurra, Alvaro, Yves Doz and Ajai Gaur. “Skepticism of Globalization and Global Strategy: Increasing Regulations and Countervailing Strategies.” Global Strategy Journal 10, no. 1 (2020): 3-31.

Heist, Dan, and Ram A. Cnaan. “Faith-Based International Development Work: A Review.” Religions 7, no. 3 (2016): 19-35.

O’Callaghan, Paul. “Cultural Challenges to Faith: A Reflection on the Dynamics of Modernity.” Church, Communication and Culture 2, no. 1 (2017): 25-40.

Petricevic, Olga, and David J. Teece. “The Structural Reshaping of Globalization: Implications for Strategic Sectors, Profiting from Innovation, and the Multinational Enterprise.” Journal of International Business Studies 50, no. 1 (2019): 1487-1512.

Randhir, Timothy O. “Globalization Impacts on Local Commons: Multiscale Strategies for Socioeconomic and Ecological Resilience.” International Journal of the Commons 10, no. 1 (2016): 387-404.

Tortajada, Cecilia. “Nongovernmental Organizations and Influence on Global Public Policy.” Asia & the Pacific Policy Studies 3, no. 2 (2016): 266-274.

Footnotes

1. Cecilia Tortajada, “Nongovernmental Organizations and Influence on Global Public Policy,” Asia & the Pacific Policy Studies 3, no. 2 (2016): 269.
2. Paul O’Callaghan, “Cultural Challenges to Faith: A Reflection on the Dynamics of Modernity,” Church, Communication and Culture 2, no. 1 (2017): 28.
3. O’Callaghan, “Cultural Challenges”, 29.
4. Fan Chen, Sen Liu and Andea Appolloni, “Horizontal Coordination of I-LNGOs in the Humanitarian Supply Chain: An Evolutionary Game Approach,” Sustainability 12, no. 15 (2020): 5959.
5. Olga Petricevic and David J. Teece, “The Structural Reshaping of Globalization: Implications for Strategic Sectors, Profiting from Innovation, and the Multinational Enterprise,” Journal of International Business Studies 50, no. 1 (2019): 1492.
6. Timothy O. Randhir, “Globalization Impacts on Local Commons: Multiscale Strategies for Socioeconomic and Ecological Resilience,” International Journal of the Commons 10, no. 1 (2016): 392.
7. Alvaro Cuervo-Cazurra, Yves Doz and Ajai Gaur, “Skepticism of Globalization and Global Strategy: Increasing Regulations and Countervailing Strategies,” Global Strategy Journal 10, no. 1 (2020): 12.
8. Dan Heist and Ram A. Cnaan, “Faith-Based International Development Work: A Review,” Religions 7, no. 3 (2016): 25.
9. Heist and Cnaan, “Faith-Based International”, 28.
10. Timothy O. Randhir, “Globalization Impacts on Local Commons: Multiscale Strategies for Socioeconomic and Ecological Resilience,” International Journal of the Commons 10, no. 1 (2016): 389.
11. Heist and Cnaan, “Faith-Based International”, 28.
12. Ibid., 29.
13. Ibid., 29.
14. O’Callaghan, “Cultural Challenges”, 28.