Globalization's Impact Across Four World Regions

Introduction

Globalization has long been a topic of interest. Globalization is defined as the growing relationship of the people of the world and the integration of economies, technologies, and some aspects of cultures (Bradshaw et al). The purpose of this discussion is to thoroughly explore the ways in which globalization has affected the following regions—Russian Federation and Neighboring States, Southeast Asia, Africa, and North America—in both historical and contemporary terms.

Russian Federation and Neighboring States

Bradshaw et al (2004) report that the Russian Federation and neighboring states compose 12 countries including Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia. After World War II, the Soviet Union was a world power that competed with the United States for both economic and political influence. By 1991, the Soviet Union had been dissolved and the republics became individual nations. Subsequent to the dismantling of the Soviet Union, economic conditions in the region were weakened.

The plan implemented in Russia to promote globalization was called shock therapy (Saunders 2001). The plan was first implemented in 1992 and began with the elimination of price controls on the majority of goods sold in the country. The purpose of the shock therapy strategy was to develop a market economy in Russia quickly (Saunders 2001). Strategists believed that freeing prices and liberalizing trade policies would stimulate competition. In addition, privatization was encouraged in an effort to create private property with all its attendant behavioral benefits for enterprises (Saunders 2001). The strategists also believed that controlling inflation would result from keeping tight control of currency emissions and government spending (Saunders 2001).

Although the Russian Federation and neighboring states have attempted a system of economic empowerment that involved globalization, it has not been met with much success (Saunders 2001). In fact, Saunders (2001) reports that in a highly critical 1999 review of the role of the United States and international financial institutions in Russia's transition, former World Bank Chief Economist Joseph Stiglitz suggests that the shock therapy approach, which he termed "the Washington Consensus," failed in Russia because it represented a fundamental misunderstanding of the reform process. He argued that policy makers adhered too strictly to neoclassical economic dogma and consequently gave little attention to the laws and institutions required for an effective market economy, to concepts such as corporate governance, or to the qualitative impact of their plans on Russia's citizens. Russia would have been much better off, Stiglitz suggested, if it had been advised to take a more gradual, consensus-based, bottom-up approach to reform that developed at least some key institutions before the conduct of large-scale privatization programs (Saunders 2001).

The inability of Russia to incorporate a successful strategy of globalization has been baffling to many. This is because, since the inception of such a strategy, it was believed that globalization in Russia would be easy to implement (Saunders 2001). This belief existed because Russia had an educated population, free media, and leadership that desired economic reform for the country (Saunders 2001). The author asserts that the globalization model is useful, arguing that "it is readily apparent that the world has changed in fundamental ways in the past 10 years and that the globalization paradigm can explain much of what has happened" (Saunders 2001).

Southeast Asia

Bradshaw et al (2004) report that in Southeast Asia, globalization occurred in the 1600s as the local population came into contact with European merchants and colonists created plantations using local labor to produce goods. The authors also report that "the economic growth of the Southeast Asian countries in the late 1900s was at first based on exporting products to American and European markets, but by the 1990s, it was also bolstered by intraregional trade" (Bradshaw et al 2004).

Indeed, globalization can translate to opportunity for developing countries. Nowhere is this more apparent than in Southeast Asia. In this region of the world, integration with the global economy broadened markets and has permitted nations to become wealthier through exports. This is due to faster and cheaper transport and communication, which reduce the cost of both exports and imports (Qin-Hilliard & Suarez-Orozco 2004). This permits industries to import the technology and tools they need to upgrade their own products and move into higher-value, more dynamic areas (Qin-Hilliard & Suarez-Orozco 2004). East Asia's economies began expanding through the exporting of low-value, labor-intensive goods such as textiles (Qin-Hilliard & Suarez-Orozco 2004).

Africa

There are several countries in Africa that have been globalized. Somalia is a prime example of an African nation that has many different factors that can and will result in the success or failure of globalization. On the one hand, there is a great deal of terrorist activity that arises out of the region, which complicates the world's perception of Somalia and impedes its efforts to globalize. According to Bradshaw et al (2004), Somalia was once governed by corrupt leadership from 1969 to 1990. After the fall of this government, there were many insurrections that resulted in political and civil unrest. The United States attempted to aid in recapturing stability in the region, but efforts failed and the United States withdrew troops in 1995 (Bradshaw et al 2004). However, the meetings in Djibouti in 2000 resulted in the establishment of the Transitional National Government (Bradshaw et al 2004).

Although the establishment of this government initially appeared to be promising, it has failed to bring stability to the region. One of the main reasons for the nation's inability to maintain stability has been its unwillingness to work closely with Ethiopia (Bradshaw et al 2004). The authors assert that instead, the country has attempted to rely on Arab nations. As a result, Ethiopia has supported opposition groups inside Somalia (Bradshaw et al 2004). The authors report that "Somalia remains ungovernable as a 'shadow state' in which local groups exploit the political and strategic impulses of foreign interests" (Bradshaw et al 2004).

In addition to political instability, Somalia's economy was in disarray. The authors point out that healthcare facilities and schools were scarce (Bradshaw et al 2004). In addition, a great deal of the country's infrastructure had been damaged in the insurrections that had taken place over the years (Bradshaw et al 2004). These factors, along with the breeding of terrorists, have resulted in stagnant efforts in the globalization of Somalia (Bradshaw et al 2004).

North America

Globalization in North America has been amongst the most successful in the world. Bradshaw et al report that the population of the United States grew rapidly in the 1700s and 1800s. The authors report that by 1900, the United States had become a global center. By 2000, Canada and the United States were the producers of 33 percent of the world's GNI.

In Canada and the United States, importing and exporting from various nations in the world have been successful. There are many reasons for this success, the most obvious being that the two nations in question have a great deal of capacity that enables them to handle globalization—for example, ports, goods, and experiences. North America's success in the global market can also be attributed to the differences in political histories.

Although globalization has been successful in North America, many argue that this success exists because the United States and other wealthy countries receive special treatment from the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Bradshaw et al (2004) assert that "Some critics see these institutions as representing the interests of materially wealthier countries, leading to debt and increased poverty in the poorer countries. Greater engagement in world trade and exposure to business cycle fluctuations cause poor countries to take out loans in short-lived better times" (Bradshaw et al 2004).

Conclusion

The purpose of this discussion was to explore the ways in which globalization has affected the following regions—Russian Federation and Neighboring States, Southeast Asia, Africa, and North America—in both historical and contemporary terms. We found that each of these regions has been impacted by globalization. Some of the experiences with globalization have been good, while others have been unable to benefit from globalization. Still others have been consumed with terrorist activities and are now perceived as a threat to other nations around the world. In any case, globalization will continue to be an issue in every region of the world as technological communications improve.