Debates on Globalization and US Supremacy
Much has been said about the nature of globalization and its major waves. Researchers have not come to a particular conclusion on whether the phenomenon will positively or negatively affect countries and people. However, it is clear that globalization is real and it does affect people and countries.
Development of global market has led to emerging of fast growing economies in Asia, Latin America and Africa. The supremacy of the west is believed to be jeopardized.1 Many people think that globalization can lead to a new world order where the USA is not a super power any more.
Nonetheless, these assumptions are too vague. Globalization will reshape (or even has already been reshaping) the world. However, in the new world the USA will remain a super power. Though, it will not be the only super power any more. Those who assume that US supremacy will come to its end soon are mistaken. US supremacy will not cease to exist but it will be similar to the supremacy of the USA of the middle of the twentieth century when two super powers resided.
What Are Effects of Globalization?
Of course, it has been said a lot on globalization, but it is still important to outline major effects of this phenomenon. It is possible to define it as “a gradual and ongoing expansion of interaction processes, forms of organization, and forms of cooperation outside the traditional spaces defined by sovereignty”.2 It is not limited to the exchange of goods and services. It is characterized by much deeper connections.
Globalization has led to exchange of workforce and various changes in different countries which started adopting each other’s ways.3 Of course, globalization has influenced such sphere as national security as well.4 Globalization is reshaping the world in terms of international cooperation. Countries find new allies to compete with growing economies.
Some researchers argue that globalization has created the world where all countries are interdependent.5 However, globalization is not about interdependence, but it is about collaboration. Thus, people benefit due to the development of economy in their countries.6
Interestingly, critics of globalization are divided into two camps. Some researchers claim that globalization is for rich countries only.7 It is believed that the development of technology has increased disproportions and developing countries simply do not have equal opportunities to compete with developed countries. However, there are those who think that developing countries will benefit more.8 According to The Economist
[t]oday’s four most populous emerging markets—China, India, Indonesia and Brazil—will make up two-fifths of global GDP… The combined weight in the world economy of America and the European Union will shrink from more than a third to less than a quarter.9
Of course, such ideas make many people believe that globalization will create the world where the USA and China will switch their roles. However, it is highly unlikely that this can happen.
Is US Supremacy Jeopardized?
Pure Economics
As has been mentioned above, many analysts foresee decline of the USA and flourishing of China, India, Brazil and some other developing countries. Some claim that certain stagnation in the US economy is one of the results of globalization. For instance, American businesses invest into developing countries instead of strengthening the US economy.
For instance, Schell states that one of the leading multinationals Wal-Mart is eager to develop the Asian market as it is really promising.10 Likewise, other giants prefer to run their business in Asia where numerous opportunities are evident.
Bhagwati notes that certain stagnation in the US economy or rather stagnation in wages is not caused by cheaper workforce offered in developing countries.11 The researcher claims that the stagnation is an inevitable process and has nothing to do with outsourcing and globalization. Notably, the assumption is quite logical as any growth is followed by certain decline and vice versa. The United States is now in the stage of the decline. However, the country has many ways to solve this temporary issue.
Ironically, globalization offers some ways to overcome these difficulties. Thus, Stiglitz argues that though many people think globalization should follow major rules of physics everything is just opposite.12 The researcher notes that according to common belief
money is supposed to flow from rich countries to poor countries, and risk is supposed to be transferred from the poor, who are least able to bear it, to the rich.13
However, the funds flow backwards. For instance, the Peterson Institute has calculated that the American economy becomes $1 trillion richer every year due to globalization.14 Shiva seconds the opinion that rich countries grow richer due to the globalization.15 The researcher states that globalization has created a specific corridor for rich countries which exploit resources of poorer countries and prevent them from developing properly.
Of course, this kind of assumption is rather one-sided as the researcher leaves aside a lot of facts (e.g. growth rates of different developing countries). However, the researcher has the point as rich countries are in a bit more favorable conditions.
Thus, the USA is a technologically developed country which cannot be outrun by developing countries which are only on their way to industrial and informational development. American entrepreneurs do benefit from running businesses oversees which slightly modifies the way the US economy used to work.16 Nonetheless, the US economy has enough capacity to adapt to comply with the rules of the globalized world.
Geopolitical Situation
Apart from purely economic factors, geopolitical issues will not let the USA lose its leading position. It is necessary to contemplate the world before the Berlin Wall falling. This was the moment when the two-polarized world collapsed.17 The two super powers, the USA and the USSR, were competing and this competition was a potent source of development for both parties as well as the rest of the world. Stiglitz notes that the two countries tried to support certain countries, i.e. their allies.18
The years after the fall of the Berlin Wall could become a certain proof which confirms that polarized world was beneficial for the super powers. The decline of the US economy suggests that the absence of a rival deprives of many tools which could be used to develop economy (development of military sector, collaboration with other countries-allies against the rival).
The USA had to rely on inner resources to foster economic development. Apparently, certain inner sources are far from being enough for keeping a position of a super power. It is possible to assume that the USA needs another super power to start the rivalry which will positively affect the country’s economy.
New Rivals
Many researchers agree that the USA has already acquired the necessary rival. Analysts claim that China is the new rival which will become the other super power to divide the world into two poles.19
Admittedly, growth of Chinese economy is, indeed, the miracle people have been talking about for so long. Irrespective of numerous social and political issues, the country has managed to evolve in a very potent power. Now Chinese market is one of the most attractive markets to investors worldwide. First, it is one of the most populous markets. Secondly, China has a very friendly environment for investors.
As has been mentioned above, such giants as Wal-Mart are eager to enter Chinese market. Schell states that Wal-Mart is changing China.20 Of course, this is not the only force that has brought changes to the country. Various giants have created working places and have created the necessary premises for the economic growth. Some claim that China will soon outgrow the USA making it lag behind or even collapse. However, some argue that the growth of China will only lead to a mild decline of the US economy.21
It is clear that the two scenarios are quite erroneous. The USA and China will develop in a slightly different way. The two powers will become the two super powers the world used to have in the twentieth century. China is already a major power in the eastern region, whereas the USA is leading in the western hemisphere. The two countries are becoming rivals in many spheres. Thus, the sphere of national security has already been affected by certain rivalry.22 China invests a lot into the development of its military sector.
The Economist provides a parallel of two rivals in the beginning of the twentieth century.23 Great Britain and Germany were then rivals and the growth of one of the countries led to certain decline of the other. However, it is necessary to draw another (more precise) parallel.
The USA and China are likely to become the new USA and the USSR. Thus, the two economies are becoming rather equal. Both countries invest a lot in their military sectors. Finally, the two countries are trying to acquire allies. The final factor is one of the major premises for the development of the polarized world with two super powers.
Admittedly, the USA is cooperating with India which is seen as an immediate rival to China. Of course, Europe is likely to remain in the western camp. However, China is also trying to find new friends. Pakistan and Afghanistan are likely to become these friends. Russia can also join the camp.24 Thus, the two countries will be able to use tools common for super powers in the polarized world. Globalization can precipitate the process.
Policy-Makers’ Actions
Economic Development
Some believe that globalization is a great threat to US supremacy. As has been mentioned above, it is, on the contrary, a favorable premise for regaining leading position. Of course, it is still necessary to control the process of big changes. Thus, policy-makers should focus on two major spheres.
In the first place, it is essential to pay attention to the development of economy. Globalization offers a lot of opportunities for economic development:
[b]y helping to break down barriers—ranging from the regulatory to the cultural—more countries can be integrated into the global economy, and more people can seize more of the benefits of globalization.25
It is important to pay special attention to such sectors as information technology, military sector and science. These spheres are of paramount importance. It is possible to state that development of these sectors will enable the USA remain competitive.
It is also important to address various issues concerning natural resources as the lack of these resources can undermine the future of any country. Globalization enables countries to cooperate in many ways. It is possible to state that globalization can help the USA address the issues mentioned above. Of course, military sector remains one of the most important sectors for any country as national security is another guarantee of a country’s prosperity.
Geopolitical Issues
As has been stated above, the USA will need allies in the new polarized world. The country will need to develop proper relationships with many countries. Admittedly, the major allies of the USA are European countries, Canada and Australia. However, the USA needs to increase cooperation with the countries of South and Central America. Thus, Brazil is one of the major emerging economies in the world.26 Cooperation with this country will strengthen the western camp.
Of course, US officials should continue cooperating with India which is also developing very fast. The country is one of the four major emerging markets.27 Its geographical position is also favorable. Besides, India does deter the growth of Chinese economy. The cooperation should not be confined to certain economic ties. The cooperation should embrace various spheres: national security, technology, science, education, etc.
Finally, the USA should also develop appropriate relationships with China. Globalization has eliminated boundaries so it is inappropriate to build new walls. The USA should cooperate with China in certain spheres. Cooperation in the sphere of space technology, economic as well as cultural ties should also characterize relationships between the two countries.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is possible to note that globalization is an inevitable process which can positively affect nations. Though there are many critics of globalization, it is impossible to deny that it has already helped many nations develop. Some critics believe that globalization will lead to the decline of the US economy. However, globalization is more likely to have a reverse effect for the USA.
The USA is likely to become one of the super powers in a new polarized world. The country’s rival will be China which is becoming one of the most potent economies in the world. This scenario is the most likely one, at the same time, it is one of the most favorable scenarios for the USA. Of course, US policy-makers should be ready for this scenario and they should understand what measures are to be undertaken.
The US officials need to focus on economy and international relationships to make the USA one of the super powers in the new polarized world.
The country will need to develop appropriate relationships with new rivals. Americans will need to focus on such important issues as national security, information technology and issues concerning natural resources. Admittedly, it is no time for US officials to contemplate possible decline as it is high time to think of the new ways to choose to operate in the two polarized world where the USA and China are major powers.
Bibliography
Bhagwati, Jagdish. “Why the Critics of Globalization Are Mistaken.” Web.
Brooks, Stephen G. Producing Security: Multinational Corporations, Globalization, and the Changing Calculus of Conflict. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007.
Cha, Victor D. “Globalization and the Study of International Security.” Journal of Peace Research 37, no.3 (2000): 391-403.
Hufbauer, Gary Clyde. “Answering the Critics: Why Large American Gains from Globalization Are Plausible.” Web.
International Monetary Fund. “Globalization: A Brief Overview.” Web.
Naim, Moises. “Think Again: Globalization.” Web.
Schell, Orville. “How Walmart Is Changing China.” The Atlantic. Web.
Shiva, Vandana. “The Polarised World of Globalization.” Web.
Stiglitz, Joseph E. “Making Globalization Work – The 2006 Geary Lecture.” The Economic and Social Review 39, no.3(2008): 171-190.
The Economist. “A Game of Catch-up.” Web.
Yusuf, Shahid. “Globalization and the Challenge for Developing Countries.” Web.
Footnotes
1. The Economist, “A Game of Catch-up.”
2. Victor D. Cha, Globalization and the Study of International Security, Journal of Peace Research 37, no.3(2000): 392.
3. International Monetary Fund, “Globalization: A Brief Overview.”
4. Stephen G. Brooks, Producing Security: Multinational Corporations, Globalization, and the Changing Calculus of Conflict. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007), 13.
5. Vandana Shiva, “The Polarised World of Globalization,” 2005.
6. International Monetary Fund, “Globalization: A Brief Overview.”
7. Shahid Yusuf, “Globalization and the Challenge for Developing Countries,” 2001.
8. The Economist, “A Game of Catch-up.”
9. ibid.
10. Orville Schell, “How Walmart Is Changing China,” The Atlantic.
11. Jagdish Bhagwati, “Why the Critics of Globalization Are Mistaken,” 2008.
12. Joseph E. Stiglitz, Making Globalization Work – The 2006 Geary Lecture, The Economic and Social Review 39, no.3(2008): 173.
13 Ibid., 173.
14. Gary Clyde Hufbauer, “Answering the Critics: Why Large American Gains from Globalization Are Plausible,” 2008.
15. Vandana Shiva, “The Polarised World of Globalization,” 2005.
16. Moises Naim, “Think Again: Globalization,” 2009.
17. Joseph E. Stiglitz, Making Globalization Work – The 2006 Geary Lecture, The Economic and Social Review 39, no.3(2008): 178.
18. Ibid., 178.
19. The Economist, “A Game of Catch-up.”
20. Orville Schell, “How Walmart Is Changing China,” The Atlantic, 2011.
21. The Economist, “A Game of Catch-up.”
22. Stephen G. Brooks, Producing Security: Multinational Corporations, Globalization, and the Changing Calculus of Conflict. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007), 219.
23. The Economist, “A Game of Catch-up.”
24. Stephen G. Brooks, Producing Security: Multinational Corporations, Globalization, and the Changing Calculus of Conflict. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007), 219.
25. International Monetary Fund, “Globalization: A Brief Overview.”
26. The Economist, “A Game of Catch-up.”
27. Ibid.