MANAGEMENT IN CONTEXT
PROFESSOR NANCY HARDING
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
DATE OF SUBMISSION:
18th NOV 2010
I certify that this assignment is the result of my own work and does not exceed the word count noted below.
Number of words
Globalisation has had adverse effects and implications and this paper examines as it affects developing countries. It’s a comparative review of two articles; “The evolution of development economics and globalisation” by Piasecki and Wolnicki (2004) and “Could developing countries take the benefit of globalisation?” by Hartungi (2006). Effort was made to also identify points of congruence between the two articles as well as different views on globalisation trends experienced in developing countries. The general consensus is that globalisation theories reflecting economic growth and development are not a true representation of economic realities in developing countries. It is also clear that the articles do not identify the positive effects of globalisation. A holistic unbiased approach is thus encouraged in the understanding of globalisation as there is the tendency to get carried away with theoretical approaches while ignoring practical implications.
Hartungi (2006) describes the various concepts of globalisation and how it has affected developing countries. The article is focused on the debate on whether developing countries can benefit from globalisation and the involvement of the domestic nation-state in maximising these benefits. It identifies the dependency of economic development not only on domestic policies but on market forces and global influences of international trade. The possible positives of globalisation to developing countries are briefly highlighted in the article but the author focused on the negative effects on developing countries. The benefits of globalisation to developing countries are examined under the following classification;
• Trade and industry
• Labour and employment
• Intellectual property right
In each of the above listed instances, the author cited under-development, brain drain, unbiased favour of industrialised countries and multi-national corporations by international organisations such as the World Trade Organisation (WTO) at the expense of the domestic economies of the developing countries as further hindering the ability to gain from globalisation. The author consistently used Indonesia as a reference point in examining the effects of globalisation on developing countries. This isn’t totally representative of the existing scenario of globalisation in developing countries. Hartungi (2006) argues that globalisation should favour both developing and developed countries but this isn’t the case.
The article goes on to identify the concept of protectionism as a panacea for developing countries in their bid to control and manage globalisation and the influence of multinational corporations and industrialised countries on their domestic economies. Hartungi (2006) encourages protection of domestic economies matched with the nation’s development level as the key to reaping the inherent benefits of globalisation. The author concludes by accepting the inevitability of globalisation, soliciting for developing countries to synchronize their domestic economic policies in line with the globalisation process so as to make the best use of it.
Piasecki and Wolnicki (2004) on the other hand, focuses on the evolution of development economics and its failures, the intervention of globalisation as a solution and the experience of economic and social growth for developing countries. A key point identified in the article is the need for development economics to...
References: Hartungi, R. (2006) ”Could Developing Countries Take Benefit of Globalization?” International Journal of Economics.Vol.33, No. 11, pp.728-743
Kabilan, M. (2007) “Writing Critical Literature Review”, Scribd, 9 January, available at: www.scribd.com/doc/267683/Writing-Critical-Literature-Review
Piasecki, R. and Wolnicki, M. (2004) “The evolution of development economics and globalization” International Journal of Social Economics. Vol.31, No. 3, pp. 300-314
Please join StudyMode to read the full document