Global Branding Versus Local Marketing

An interesting blog and post about how globalisation and global branding is depleting local marketing.




Global Branding Versus Local Marketing

Martin Lindstrom  |  November 23, 2000   |  1 comments

Day by day, global branding is becoming a bigger challenge. Why? Because it's no longer possible to isolate a brand and its reputation.

You might think you've created an excellent strategy for your brand in one local market, only to realize that the rest of the world has access to that same local communication. This exposure destroys any possibility of separating your local branding strategy from your global branding strategy.

This unavoidable exposure of your local brand-building strategy in the international arena is part of the growing difficulties that attend global brand building. Related to this complication are the internal issues that arise. For example, how can corporations handle the local and global mix in their marketing departments? Is every local marketing department now obsolete? Can local marketing be taken over by a single department of centralized marketing functions?

Such issues are the result of the speed and spread of communications. The Internet has enabled every consumer to access every piece of communication in the world. Good old concepts like running test markets have been dramatically altered because of the increasing proximity among markets. True separation among markets has disappeared.

When Coca-Cola selected Australia as the test market for the first non-Coca-Cola drink it had launched in years, most of the world watched the experiment, and almost as many people participated in the experiment from outside the test market. This might very well have been the strategy's intention. However, if the objective was to test a new product in a local market, the strategy clearly failed.

Global communication is more or less forcing brand builders around the world to adjust their approaches. They're having to forego the strategy that provides local marketing teams with full autonomy. So, how should we handle the brand challenge?

First of all, the local brand is not dead. But some of the activities that are used to promote it are now obsolete. I would separate local brand-building activities from global brand-building activities on the promotional side, as McDonald's has done. Ronald McDonald is the key in-store promotional figure. Very seldom do you see him on television commercials and, when you do, you see him publicizing in-store promotions.

Ronald, very cleverly, has become McDonald's point of differentiation in each market. He celebrates Christmas in Northern Europe and the Chinese New Year in Hong Kong. He promotes McDonald's wine in France and McDonald's Filet-o-Fish in Australia. But he never appears in globally accessible media. McDonald's' global messages come through television commercials. The corporation produces local adaptations of these, too. But you can see McDonald's local twists are substantially stronger in the in-store promotions than on television.

The purpose of global brand management is to conceive of and control a brand's global direction, and this is done by defining and communicating the brand's core values. The execution of this communication lies in devising and consistently applying a specific style, tone, and image.

The role of local brand management is to refine the communication of the brand's core values by adjusting their execution to communicate meaningfully with each local market. If a local event like the Chinese New Year is taking place, it's the local brand-builder's task to ensure the brand leveraging on it. Local brand building depends on an acute awareness of local trends; it's all about leveraging knowledge that the international marketing department has no access to or sympathy with.

The global marketing department is the strategic group. The local team is the tactical group. Both need to work hand in hand.

Sound easy? Give it a go, and you'll realize that it isn't. But hopefully, I've helped explain this fairly complex reality. Now it's your turn to execute it.

Post from http://www.clickz.com/clickz/column/1695787/global-branding-versus-local-marketing

Phillip Booth representing the richman's think tank, the IEA...

"Prof Philip Booth is editorial and programme director at the Institute of Economic Affairs"
I have been investigating interesting comments on his which can be read here.Personally, the top comment sums up the situation for me perfectly. I've highlighted my favourite line!
However, the second comment raises some interesting points about the CAP, although I do not agree with the users opinion on Fairtrade being a 'noisy and visible campaign' when in actual fact Fairtrade attempts to raise awareness for the CAP and the people behind Fairtrade openly oppose it (source). Just goes to show, don't believe everything you read on the internet! Especially because people like hondaboy2001 and pragmatist can pop up at any occasion and talk bollocks. Comments can be viewed below.

"DivineSophi's comment says it all for me. We hear the same arguments over and over again from the idealogues opposed to Fairtrade apparently because it upsets their view of the world informed by a set of narrowly defined economic 'laws'. Yet in the meantime millions and millions of people are acting together, inspired by those like Sophie who have set out to change things throuigh action rather than talk. Fairtrade may not save the world, but it does do good and is a reminder that people do not always act in their self interest and that solidarity and empathy are still powerful motivators for human behaviour. Why do these people find that so upsetting? Are they saying that the majority of british shoppers who think that Fairtrade is a good idea (based simply on the principle that people should get a fair deal for their hard work) are all wrong, or deluded or unable to think for themselves? And for those who go on about EU subsidies, CAP etc, well it isn't an 'either - or' situation and if they bothered to visit the Fairtrade Foundation website they may be suprised to find that the Foundation is running a campaign right now to raise awareness of the impact of EU and US subsidies on poor cotton farmers in West Africa and is working hard to get these trade distorting subsidy regimes changed. More than the IEA is doing as far as I can see?"

-

"One of the unfortunate by-products of noisy and visible campaigns like Fair Trade is that they deflect attention from much more important issues - in this case the crushing protectionism of the EU and the USA, in particular, which denies economic opportunities to hundreds of millions of poor farmers.

Whilst most consumers are aware of what the Fair Trade symbol stands for - at least in the abstract - they do not understand what the CAP is and what impact it has on poor farrmers. Yet the CAP is responsible for keeping over 400 million Africans in abject poverty and will undoubtedly be viewed by future historians as one of the most heartless, ruinous and destructive policies ever created.

The CAP is effectively an enormous fence thrown up around Europe to prevent farmers in poor countries from selling their agricultural produce to us. Inside the fence, we tax European citizens more to fund subsidies to uneconomic farms all over Europe, which then produce food at multiples of the prevailing World price. Thus not only do we pay more in tax but we also pay more in the shops for our food than we should.

But the real impact is on the poor overseas. In many African countries, for example, the only sector they can compete in is agriculture and by taking that possibility away from them we deny them the possibility to grow their economies. At the same time we pressure them to open their own markets to our manufactured goods and specialist services which they cannot produce economically themselves.

To call this an uneven playing field is a massive understatement. It is a villainous policy with no moral justification whatsoever.

The Fair Trade lobbyists bang their drum loudly enough that no other voices can be heard. The 'crowding out' effect is dramatic. Consumers get to salve their consciences by buying fair trade bananas when in fact what they should be doing is voting into power politicians who are opposed to the CAP and will fight to open Europe's markets to imported food.

In the final analysis it is all about results, surely? What can the Fair Trade campaign hope to achieve, even in its most wildly optimistic forecasts? A 1% improvement in living standards in poor countries?

Scrapping the CAP would lift hundreds of millions out of poverty and in a very short space of time yet no action is taken because everyone is looking the wrong way. The Fair Trade lobby should recognise that they themselves are part of the problem."

-

"Trouble is, if you look into it, you find it's only the 'rich' farmers who can afford to join up!

Also, the money does not go to the poor worker, but rather to the landowner.

Really, there's nothing fair about Fair Trade!"  - hondaboy2001

-

"Thank you for expressing a view that I have long held. Unfortunately, too many people, doubtless well meaning people, have jumped on the "fair trade" bandwaggon without proper thought to its consequences. They get a warm glow of virtue from buying "fair trade" goods but don't grasp that they are distorting the market. However, it gives the chattering class something to talk about at dinner other than the alleged joys of organic food." - pragmatist

By Kerry - Globalisation - Third World, bad points

Globalisation is affecting all over the World. The West, which is also known as the first country, is losing jobs to the third world. This is because major companies are exploiting people, in places like Africa, for cheap labor. Crops such as Cocoa also grows really well in these countries and the large corporations know they can get away with paying next to nothing to the farmers that keep their companies afloat. The third world people are also being forced to work in sweat shops so that people in wealthier countries can buy cheap clothes that wear easily and are thrown away just as easily as they are bought, this way people go and buy more clothes from the same shop and this is how places like Primark etc make their money.  The workers are losing out because they have no other option then to work for places like this or risk living with no food or shelter because there is nothing else out there for them. There can be positive effects of Globalisation happening linking with third world companies. It makes goods cheaper, but this makes labor cheaper and means worked aren’t being paid a high enough wage to live properly. 

Follow on post

a similar article from BBC news highlighting controversies around Fairtrade can be found here.

The Guardian Fairtrade article

Although the article itself is quite good, what I;ve found to be most interesting is the comments posted by Guardian readers which can be seen below the article here. How legitamate these facts are I do not know, however, I believe that it is definitely worth investigating the claims put forward by these users.

Janet Daley on Fair Trade

"It transpires that a very small number of farmers are getting a subsidised fixed price for their produce under Fairtrade franchises and that this is at the expense of most other farmers in their regions, who are actually worse off as a result. But even more serious, the Fairtrade operation helps to keep poor countries and undeveloped economies exactly that - poor and undeveloped." - Janet Daley (25/02/2008), Telegraph newspaper

Free Trade vs Fair Trade

Continuing from Tori's "The Ethics of Globalisation, Free Trade and Fair Trade" post I decided to investigate the topic and then conduct a few interviews with my peers to gather their opinions on the matter (I'll leave them anonymous for privacy reasons):

Subject A
"[Free Trade], it's like communism, looks nice on paper but it's never going to work when you get to a certain number of people [in the population]. People always seem to forget about the greed of humanity."

Subject B
"Fair Trade tends to perpetuate the myth of the 'white man saviour'...but the question is do these undeveloped countries actually have the means and connections [or technology] to help themselves?"

Subject C
"It's a difficult question really. [With Free Trade] the growers ethical beliefs come into how they sell their produce. It means if they don't agree with a corporation or companies product/sales history/ethics, they wouldn't sell their produce to them. They could sell to only local sources which might force other companies or countries to look elsewhere to source materials, which might end up having negative environmental effects (for example if they go and cut down rain-forests and stuff to establish their own plantations). Fair Trade seems pretty good because it makes people accountable, people don't get undercut, companies get what they want. Free trade might open the door to 'slavery prices', the ethics of the people in charge of plantations might not be morally sound: they could be mistreating their workers."

Subject D
"Apparently there's a documentary out there that exposes Fair Trade to be not as fair as it seems! You should google it. I can't remember what it's about though"

Subject E
"I don't believe in either, Fair Trade is a load of rubbish and Free Trade is a load of rubbish. I believe in local trade. I find it odd that the green beans I had for tea tonight came all the way from Kenya. I’d love it if they just came from [round the corner]. It’d be great if [our city] had a big ecosphere so we could all grow bananas in the winter and eat natural, good, locally sourced foods. I believe in community trade."

There seems to be a general consensus in favour of Fair Trade over Free Trade, I tried to remain as impartial as possible and presented the subjects with an unbiased basic description of both ideas, the description can be viewed here.

Starbucks Vs Mcdonalds.

By Kerry - From 'Understanding Globalisation'...

Tony Schirato and Jen Webb, 2003

Understanding Globalisation

SAGE Publications Ltd

What’s in a name?

Globalization is the ‘name’ that is often used to designate the power relations, practices and technologies that characterize, and have helped bring into being, the contemporary world. What it in fact means, though, is less than precise. Armand Mattelart refers to globalization as: one of those tricky words, one of those instrumental notions that, under the effect of market logics and without citizens being aware of it, have been neutralized to the point of becoming indispensible for establishing communication between people of different cultures. (2000: 97)

- develop or be developed so as to make possible international influenceor operation.

By Kerry - 3 Key Texts

Understanding Globalisation
Tony Schirato & Jen Webb, 2003
Sage Publications Ltd

Marx on Globalisation
Edited and Selected by David Renton
Lawrence & Wishart Ltd 2001

Globalisation and the Third World
Edited by Ray Kiely and Phil Marfleet
Routledge 1998

Globalization - A Very Short Introduction part 3

Pg. 76 The Role of the Media


'To a large extent, the global cultural flows of our time are generated and directed by global media empires that rely on powerful communication technologies to spread their message. Saturating global cultural reality with formulaic TV shows and mindless advertisements, these corporations increasingly shape people's identities and the structure of desires around the world. During the last two decades, a small group of very large TNGs have come to dominate the global market for entertainment, news, television and film. In 2000, only ten media conglomerates - AT&T, Sony, AOL/Time Warner, Bertelsmann, Liberty Media, Vivendi Universal, Viacom, General Electric, Disney and New Corporation - accounted for more than two-thirds of the $250 - 275 billion in annual worldwide revenues generated be the communications industry. In the first half of that year, the volume of merges deals in global media, Internet, and Telecommunications totalled 4300 billion, three times the figure for the first six months of 1999.'

This is a short insight into the media and globalisation, and how the entertainment business has been spit into 10 conglomerates, monopolising the entertainment business.

By Kerry - What is Globalisation?

Globalization is the way in which the world is getting more interconnected due to increased trade and literary exchange. Businesses such as Walmart are becoming more and more popular and powerful, as this occurs, they bring in more money and can afford to buy more businesses in smaller towns, when this occurs the economy grows but can also have a negative affect on smaller, not-so-well-known businesses.

Some of the factors, which affect globalization, are:

Telephones and Internet. These have created a global village, for example the UK can have call centers in India and everybody in the world can connect with each other within seconds at the click of a button. Especially with social networking sites such as Facebook becoming more popular.

Transport is cheap and quick, therefore goods can be shipped and exchanged all over the world at any time, people can order things online from China and it will be waiting for you within a couple of weeks, never before has this been so easy to do.

People immigrate/emigrate too other countries to work and get paid a higher wage.

Corporations such as McDonalds have restaurants and businesses all over the world. Everybody seems to know the McDonalds logo, whether your 5 or 50.

Cheap materials and labor are what most companies are drawn to when deciding where to set up. However, foundations such as Fairtrade have stepped in to make sure people are being treated correctly and paid the wage they deserve.

Jobs and skills are brought to countries due to globalization, as well as bringing foreign currencies and different cultures, ideas and lifestyles. If Globalisation hadn’t of occurred, we wouldn’t have an understanding of other people lives and values, countries would be much more isolated, we wouldn’t have different foods and clothes. Countries would be far poorer than they are today.

However globalization isn’t always a good thing – it tends to work in favor of rich countries and in spite of the developing ones. Multinational companies can also send small businesses out of trade, as they just cannot cope with the loss of custom, cheap labor and profits. Globalization can also be the cause of recessions and other mass debt, for example; the countries that are part of Europe all suffered a recent crash after the Euro failed, when this happened it wasn’t just one country that was hit, it was every country whose currency was the Euro, it caused mass panic. As one country tries to help another country get out of debt, another country comes closer to debt. Every body owes somebody money.

By Kerry - Protesting against Globalisation

There are many people protesting about globalization and its effects, they say globalization creates poverty. However all countries were poor at some point and it is in this new modern era that countries are managing to get past this and bring in new income and have new wealth. This is due to globalisation. In the past 50 years, 3 billion people have been lifted from poverty. This is unique and down to global capitalism. Poverty is on the way out in countries that were some of the poorest years ago. These countries let globalization occur. Counties that used to be poor – such as the capital of Taiwan - have thrived and become as rich as the greater countries and today poverty in virtually extinct. In Taiwan the lands where poor farmers worked were bought by the Government and given to the farmers, these farmers grew crops and sold them to the locals for food, this way money stayed in the country and the economy grew and the land because richer. As these farmers grew richer they built mills and they built more and more as they brought in more and more money making the country and people richer, rich enough to sell things abroad and bring in money from other countries. 

My three key texts that I have been using throughout.

Globalization: a critical introduction by J. Scholte (published in 2000)

Provides a great general overview of the main issues that are up for discussion under the umbrella of globalisation. Well presented for people not massively familiar with the concept discussing the topic in an academic way.

Globalization: The Key Concepts by Annabelle Mooney and Betsy Evans (2007)

Explains and defines all the major (and minor) terms, phrases and ideas. Good to cross reference when coming across a term that I was not familiar with.

The Globalization of Nothing by George Ritzer (2003)

Offers a different, more radical view on globalisation - interesting to compare with the first more 'standard' book on the topic.

Going back to the idea that technology is fueling globalisation the book J Scholte (2000, p99) raises an interesting point of how the invention of many things such as the telephone (1876), the wireless radio (1895) and the digital computer in 1946 have helped to fuel capitalism (which I am currently looking at in relation to globalisation) thus in turn has furthered globalisation.

This technological advancement 'provided much of the infrastructure that globalisation needed'

I have a friend that I keep in touch with regularly who does not live in the country. Without these technological advancements such as the computer and the internet I would not be able to keep in contact as easily and immediately. If the world was not globalised it would have been far more difficult.

Brilliant Animation on Globalisation

A clean way of getting into globalisation, It has a comedy value to it but the key points for there.

Globalization - A Very Short Introduction part 2

Pg. 69 The Cultural Dimension of Globalization

'Cultural globalization refers to intensification and expansion of cultural flows across the globe. Obviously, 'culture' is a very broad concept; it is frequently used to describe the whole of human experience. In order to avoid the ensuing problem of overgeneralizaion, it is important to make analytical distinctions adjective 'economic' with the production, exchange, and consumption of commodities...

Global Culture: sameness or difference?

Does globalizationmake people around the world more alike or more different? This is the question most frequently raised in discussions on the subject of cultural globalization. A group of commentators we might call ' pessimistic hyperglobalizers' argue in favour of the former. They suggest that we are not moving towards a cultural rainbow that reflects the diversity of the world's existing homogenized popular culture underwritten be a Western 'culture industry' based in New York, Hollywood, London and Milan. As evidence for their interpretation, these commentators point to Amazonian Indians wearing Nike Training shoes, denizens of the Southern Sahara purchasing Texaco baseball caps, and Palestinian youths proudly displaying their Chicago Bulls sweatshirts in downtown Ramallah. Referring to the diffusion of Anglo-American values and consumer goods as the 'Americanization of the world', the proponents of this cultural honogenization thesis argue that Western norms and lifestyles are overwhelming more vulnerable cultures. Although there have been serious attempts by some countries to resist there forces of 'cultural imperialism' - for example, a ban on satellite dishes in Iran, and the French imposition of tariffs and quotas on imported film and television - the spread of American popular culture seems to be unstoppable.'

The example Americanization is way to real it is pushed into our culture with American sweet shops popping up all of the United Kingdom charging £8 for a box of Lucky Charms, I won't lie I got in them and spend stupid amounts of money on them. but it is because of the sweets or the fact that they are American? 

Globalisation and The Media

New Feature from COA News (http://www.coanews.org), this film explores how the media is involved in shaping public opinion during the 'War on Terrorism' and Globalisation.

The media's portrayal of, and in some ways responsibility for globalisation.

Globalisation and the Sex Trade

"This article is an overview of a fast growing sex trade through "mail-order-brides" in the Philippines and other Third World Countries, and the "Foreign Job Opportunities" schemes as is being done now in Russia, Ukraine and other former Soviet republics.

This is mainly the result of the economic consequences caused by globalization for the developing countries and the proliferation of websites that "traffic women". As the economic situation deteriorates in these countries so does the trafficking in women to Greece, Italy, Canada, Australia, USA, North Africa, Japan, Middle East… all these women hoping that their life will be easier and that they will be able to support their families back home.

In the Philippines, a significant number of women leaving, leave as "mail-order-brides" marrying men from various industrialized countries, There are over 600,000 Filipino women that are being trafficked globally – 1 out of every 4 are youngsters.

Under globalization, women have become commodities to be bought and sold for profit on the international market. According to the United Nations Organization, the trafficking of women is the third most profitable after trafficking in arms and drugs.

In Australia alone, as an example, 20,000 Filipino women come as mail-order-brides…22 have already been murdered since 1980. In Japan over 7,240 Filipino women were enticed to be housekeepers, but were forced to become prostitutes or bar dancers. This will increase since American soldiers are to be stationed in the Philippines, as the US continues its "war on terrorism".

In former Soviet Union there are over 50,000 young women that are ensnared each year to become prostitutes in actual fact, although they were promised that they will be waitresses or dancers.

Here is just one example. Let us call this 17 years Luda, who in year 2000 went to see a company in Moscow which was sending Russian girls to Greece to work as waitresses and dancers.

This firm, registered by the authorities in Moscow, told her that she will be working in a villa on a beach, earning good money, visiting expensive restaurants and receiving presents. They also assured her that she would not have to do anything she did not want to.

Shortly after she and others girls arrived in Greece, her illusions were shattered. She and other girls were locked up in an apartment, not allowed to go out, they took their passports away and they had to serve clients from 9 am to midnight each day. Weeks later, they were taken out of the filthy apartment, taken to the airport and shipped back to Russia, while another batch of girls was on their way to Greece.

Every year, there are over 5,000 young Russian women ensnared by these very slick Mafia-run firms, promising high-paying jobs. They are very often traded from one pimp to another pimp, shuffled from city to city, their passports taken away and they forfeit their lives if they try to run away.

Multiply this by thousands upon thousands of economically trapped women from these countries and you get the picture of this sex trade. This globalization, this ruthless+ capitalist exploitation by these governments and their legalized "businessmen" is allowed by these capitalist states, although they are very aware of this sex trade, but so far have not taken steps to close this human slavery… after all they say, this is "private enterprise"."

- www.northstarcompass.org

I thought this was yet interesting opposing argument to points touched on in my Ethics of Globalisation/academc thesis post. That post argued that globalisation was a good thing, and the best thing for developing poorer countries. This article opposes that in respect to the international sex trade, stating that it is a result of globalisation and its attempts to develop this countries. It can also be said to be providing a setback for women's rights and gender equality as, like the article says, "under globalization, women have become commodities to be bought and sold for profit on the international market" - the use of women in the sex trade is much more widely heard than men, particularly in regards to mail-order brides. The advantages of globalisation continue to be questionable!

Globalisation - Issues part 2

Pg. 2 What is globalisation...
... and when did it begin? Information from www.globalisationguide.org

'Many see it as a primarily economic, phenomenon, international trade, investment and capital flows.
However, one can also point to a rapid increase in cross-border social, cultural and technological exchange as part of the phenomenon of globalisation...

'Globalisation is the rapid increase in cross-border economics, social, technological exchange under conditions of capitalism'

A Dutch academic who maintains a good website on globalisation, www.globalization.org, Ruud Lubbers, defines it as process in which geographic distance becomes a factor of diminishing importance in the establishment and maintenance in the cross-border economics, political and socio-cultral relations.

Left critics of Globalisation  define the word quite differently, presenting it as worldwide drive toward a globalised economic system dominated by supranational corporate trade and banking institutions that are not accountable to democratic processes or national governments. 

Pg. 9 Corporate Globalisation

Information from CorpWatch

Global Reach

• Fifty-one of the world's top 100 economies are corporations.
• Royal Dutch Shell's revenues are greater than Venezuela's Gross Domestic Product. Using this measurement, WalMart is bigger then Indonesia. General Motors is roughly the same size as Ireland, New Zealand and Hungary combined 
• There are 63,000 transnational corporations worldwide, with 690,000 foreign affiliates
• Three-quarters of all transnational corporations are based in North America, Western Europe and Japan
• Ninety-nine of the 100 largest transnational corporations are from the industrialised countries'

The first extract introduces you into a academic and critical thoughts into globalisation, it is interesting to see how there can be such different takes on globalisation. It also gives a clean and fast start to a definition of it.

The second it some facts about corporate globalisation and it shows a clean insight into how corporations are spread through the world and see cleanly how them countries benefit.

Globalization - A Very Short Introduction

Some Great Quotes of Academics of defining aspects of Globalisation.

Pg. 10 Towards A Definition 

Quotes.

'Globalization can thus be defined as the intensification of worldwide social relations which link distant localities in such a way that local happenings are shaped be event occurring many miles away and vice versa.'

Anthony Giddens, Director of the London School of Economics

'The concept of globalization reflects the sense of an immense enlargement of world communication, as well as of the horizon of a world market, both of which seem for more tangible and immediate than in earlier stages of modernity.'

Fredric Jameson, Professor of Literature at Duke University

'Globalization may be thought of as a process (or set of Processes) which embodies a transformation in the the spatial organisation of social relations and transactions - assessed in terms of their extensity, intensity, velocity and impact - generating transcontinental or interregional flows and networks of activity, interaction, and the exercise of power.'

David Held, Professor of Political Science at the London School of Economics

'Globalization as a concept refers both to the compression of the world and the intensification of consciousness of the world as a whole.'

Roland Robertson, Professor of Sociology of the Univerisity of Pittsburgh

'Globalization compresses the time and space aspects of social relations.'

James Mittelman,Professor of International Relations at American University 

Globalisation: conspiracy, theory or neither?

"Globalisation is not a theory or a conspiracy

Globalisation is not a theory or a conspiracy or an ideology or anything other than what has happened as early man migrated out of Africa to all the nooks and corners of the world (with the exception of Madagascar which got overlooked somehow), trading as he did so. "Globalisation" is the word that's currently in fashion by people who are troubled enough by many nasty things going on in the world but are not troubled enough to read and think about them carefully, but instead choose a simple slogan to shout.

One of the world's experts in trading matters happens to be Indian-born -- Jagdish Bhagwadi -- which is reassuring for those who might feel intimidated that they are somehow exploiting the world's poor when "Globalisation" slogans are being hurled about. I follow with a review by Geoffrey Owen which is more of a readable summary of the book than finding fault with it. As printed in the Sunday Telegraph it might, just might, cause some anti-globalisation readers to pause awhile and consider some facts. Perhaps even buy the book.

The only controversial thing that really needs to be said about "Globalisation" is that Americans don't spell it correctly.

Keith Hudson"

- www.evolutionary-economics.org

For every reaction there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Following on from Tori's April Fools Day post, I began looking into the negative effects of globalisation.
The below videos are three, nearly four, years old. They investigate working conditions in factories in Bangladesh. My knowledge of international human rights standards across the globe isn't sufficient enough to say whether there have been improvements on circumstances like this or not. I'd love to believe that situations have improved but I'm certain that some places are equally as bad or worse even today.

NB: the videos get pretty heavy at some points...





Is globalisation only advantageous to those who are already in a privileged position? I believe globalisation plays a massive role in widening class divisions between the rich and the poor. It can be argued that globalisation creates jobs for many people in countries less well off than our own. However, in my opinion, it is blatantly apparent that international corporations completely exploit the need for jobs in poorer countries outside the EU (who, I guess, don't have the protection of European working time directives and international laws to protect their working conditions), taking advantage of people who are so poor they're willing to work for whatever tiny wage they are given. I recall reading an article about an Apple factory in China that had to install nets outside of its buildings and forced its workers to sign "I will not commit suicide on these premises" contracts because the worker suicide rate was so high due to the horrific working conditions and harsh production targets. The article was actually published either this year or last and I will try to find that at some point.
Of course it's not just third world countries in which people are used for their cheap labour, after all, people in the UK stereo-typically whine about immigrant workers coming over and "taking their jobs" because companies think they can get away with paying migrant workers an undercut wage. So I suppose globalisation is good for those migrant workers who can leave harsh conditions in their home country and immigrate to better circumstances.
Have to look into this in more depth.

Is the internet a positive influence on globalisation?

http://socyberty.com/issues/the-internet-and-globalization/

The article focuses on how the internet has affected the globalisation of the world. Admittedly there are no solid references however the authors arguments and points are explained clearly.
It focuses on some of the negative and positive impacts of globalisation.

Linking back to the previous post asking if globalisation is truly a good thing, is the point that the reliance and importance placed on the internet is so great that 3rd world countries are being left out as they are unable to be included in the 'global village' due to a lack of access to the internet. Those that do have access, generally, are able only to receive information and are not in a position to control it. Causing what is known as the 'digital divide'.

'The globalization of internet technology in the less developed countries typically is a one way proposition: the people do not control any of the information; they only receive it. It is also true that worldwide the ability to control or generate broadcasts rests in the hands of the tiny minority. This shows that in these countries the internet technology generally does not have a neutral application. The placement of the internet technology in developing countries often causes social costs, as well as costs in the form of urbanization, employment displacement, and the “digital divide.”'

This 'digital divide' is perhaps causing hundreds of thousands of people to be left behind in the globalising (globalised?) world. 

Globalisation - Issues

This is my first book from my reading list, it is a small insight into globalisation but it covers a wide range of aspects of globalisation by asking questions.

pg. 1, OverviewGlobalisation is a short way of describing how people around the world have become much more interconnected. people who geographically live far apart have been brought closer be a kind of revolution in global trading, electronic communications and the faster spread of of ideas and culture. There are good and bad sides to this, especially for children. 

Whats good about it?One argument about globalisation is that it offers people unique opportunities to develop - socially and economically - because it is much easier to trade goods between countries and continents. In theory, the more goods that are are exchanged, the more money is pumped into the economy, which creates more jobs, which should help to cut poverty.
When a society gets riche, it can also afford better health care and education for its children, so they benefit directly.
The internet is another positive aspect of globalisation. It doesn't just generate business, it also allows people to spread campaigning messages around the world, and raise awareness of important issues. The Internet can be very democratic, potentially giving anyone access to millions of other people.
on a more personal mote - need help with your homework? Surf the net and find the answers. Want to find new friends? Anyone can create their own website and beam it around the globe. 

And what's bad? The Internet is only great if you can log on to it. poorer people don't get a look-in. Children who haven't even got electricity get left further and further behind in the global race. The internet is meaningless to billions who lack the skills and technology to use it.
The gap between rich and poor children is growing. Though some people are doing nicely, a few global companies control most of the wealth and power, leaving the great majority of people poor outsiders. Half the world's poor are cildren. At least 600 million children exist on less than 60p a day.
Increasing family poverty and easier cross-border trade exposes children to particular risks. One of the worst examples is commercial sex abuse; traffickers forcing children to become sex workers and 'trading' them like cheap goods across international borders.
The pressure on poor countries to expand their business overseas means growing more crops for export - like coffee, tobacco and flowers. Land that was once used to grow food for local people is being used to grow 'luxury' crops that will be flown oversea to relatively well-off consumers. For example, most ordinary Kenyan families can't afford those nice green beans you see in supermarkets, labelled 'Produce of Kenya.' They are mostly grown for the export to the west. 

So what is the answer? Globalisation can be a force for good, so long as it doesn't expose children to greater poverty and risks, such as dangerous work. People in power have to be aware of the effects of global economic change on children; all too often, their needs and lives aren't taken into account.

so you can see from the off go this book shows both sides of the story and goes on in this way of asking and answering questions.
I understand that globalisation is a good thing for those is benefits and pushes a bigger gap between the those is poverty but why don't countries take globalisation by both hands and gain all the benefits such as betters health care and education for the children?

Obama Speech

This is a short speech from Obama but there is a point where he speaks about going to the google head quarters and seeing a image of the world showing all the internet searches around the world in all the different languages, "a image of a world where all boundaries are disappearing, a world where communication, connection and competition can come from anywhere." - Obama
the world may seem like it is shrinking but why would that it a bad thing, we can now get ourselves and information anywhere around the world, in my own opinion it can't be a bad thing. To unite the world in this way is an amazing achievement.

The Ethics of Globalisation, Free Trade and Fair Trade

The Ethics of Globalisation, Free Trade and Fair Trade
An academic thesis by Daniel Wood

"In this thesis I take a broadly consequentialist normative position and argue that because fair trade is an inefficient method of aiding the poor, we should not support it and prefer free trade goods with an appropriate and equal donation to a charity, designed to aid the poor and encourage development in the undeveloped and developing world, instead. I also argue that globalisation is the best means of development and we should support it as well. The thesis progresses first by considering consequentialism, which I argue is especially suited to the problem of analysing poverty in applied ethics, and some objections to it, which I briefly attempt to answer. Following that, I consider fair trade and both some theoretical and practical problems that it faces which my alternative does not. Then I briefly consider how globalisation results in development and why it should be supported. Finally, I conclude with a brief chapter where I respond to a few pertinent objections which arise on the periphery of my discussion that could be seen as damaging to my position."

Click for full thesis.

Relevant to my post on the ethics of globalisation, and as a contrast to my last post's stance that globalisation isn't necessarilymorally just, this thesis discusses how globalisation is the best route for economic development of poorer areas of the world and how it is ultimately the one we should support in developing and building up financially underwhelmed societies. It also offers arguments on consequentialism, anti-globalisation theories and human rights.

A short documentary on globalisation, is quite one sided but it shows the strengths and positives on globalisation and global capitalism and how it helps countries grow such at Taiwan and Vietnam.
globalisation creates jobs and better lives for these people, the only way countries get out of poverty is to embrace globalisation and uses it to trade with other countries. In the past 15 years the Vietnamese economy has doubled this can prove in itself that globalisation can work and help.

Matt Boak Reading List

A Very Short Introduction - Globalization

Manfred B. Steger

Gloalisation - Issues

Craig Donnellan

The Handbook of Globalisatio, Second Edition

Jonathan Michie

Virtue Ethics and Globalisation

How does virtue ethics apply to ethical issues raised by globalisation?

"Business ethics suggests there are a number of moral problems specific to business as well as general ethical considerations about the place of honesty and generosity in business relations. These specific issues arise partly because of globalisation: markets exist as global entities, and are no longer limited by territorial boundaries (nor is knowledge, information, or money limited in its flow).

The first problem created by globalisation is lack of regulation. Because multinational companies operate in many countries, no one country can pass laws to control their behaviour. So a company may locate in the least regulated, or most corrupt country. As we found in the banking crisis, it may also be difficult to understand what Goldman Sachs or RBS is actually doing with their complicated financial derivatives. Goldman Sachs has been criticised recently for designing risky debt packages which were then sold on to other banks (like RBS) while at the same time betting on the collapse of the very property market that created that debt.

The second problem is exploitation. In May 2010 Apple was accused of using a Chinese company, Foxconn, to manufacture it's new ipad, which ignored Apple's own rules set down for suppliers. For example, maximum hours are fixed at 60 per week (which itself seems rather high to me at 10 hours a day for a six day week), and safety standards should be applied. At Foxconn eleven suicide attempts in five months resulted from excessive hours worked at a subsistence wage of 30p a day. "They don't treat us as humans" commented one worker. There is a trade-off here between the lower price demanded by consumers and the costliness to Apple of fair wages and good safety standards.

A third problem is externalities. Companies produce external costs and benefits (paid or enjoyed by someone else). Negative externalities include pollution, noise and congestion. The fishermen of Louisiana are paying the price of BP's failure to ensure adequate risk management of the huge oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico. The total environmental cost is uncertain, and may only be fully known some years hence.

Can virtue ethics help? In at least three ways. First, by the aspiration to build a flourishing common life, both local and international. Virtue ethics ask the question: what habits of character need to be embodied for a good society to result? The good society needs to create wealth, but not at any price, and not at the cost of destroying the future stability of the planet's biosphere. So the great moderating principle of virtue ethics as advocated by Aristotle, is phronesis or practical wisdom (see the link to Barry Swartz's brilliant lecture on practical wisdom in the introduction to virtue ethics on the site), which needs to be applied to wealth creation, and limited by virtues such as conservation, sustainability and generosity to others. If stewardship is a virtue we can agree on (meaning we see nature and each other as a gift, not as a means to an end), then the vice of deficiency is neglect, and the vice of excess a kind of Amish view of progress which sees the natural as anything not involving complex machine and technology. So stewardship so defined can achieve Aristotle's golden mean or wise, balanced judgement.

Secondly, virtue ethics is about heroism. Our politicians and our managers should be our moral heroes, not, as at present, our villains. Virtue ethics asks us to apply our reason to work out the idea of heroism. Sadly, the expenses scandal involving a third of MPs causes many to say "they're all at it" in the vice of dishonesty, and the banking crisis, the oil pollution of the Gulf of Mexico and the accusations against Apple's suppliers in China lead us also to say "all business is interested in is profit."

Finally we need both the Aristotelean types of virtue, the intellectual and the moral, to build the flourishing world order. The intellectual virtues attached to the scientific method and the development of technology is urgently needed to stop the oil gushing into the sea, to come up with solutions to CO2 emissions, or even, using the virtues of economics, to create an ordered banking system. Remember virtue means excellence or skill, and we need excellent, skilful leaders in this era of uncertainty.

But we also need moral heroes: managers who want to serve communities rather than take huge bonuses, politicians who eschew the privilege of free perks to live a simpler life, and citizens who strive for good and against evil, like Erin Brokovitch , a true life heroine who took on Pacific Gas and Electricity and won.

In short, we need characters committed to build our common life and so achieve the goal of eudaimonia, the flourishing society."

- www.philosophicalinvestigations.co.uk

Virtue ethics

Character-based ethics

• A right act is the action a virtuous person would do in the same circumstances.

"Virtue ethics is person rather than action based: it looks at the virtue or moral character of the person carrying out an action, rather than at ethical duties and rules, or the consequences of particular actions.

Virtue ethics not only deals with the rightness or wrongness of individual actions, it provides guidance as to the sort of characteristics and behaviours a good person will seek to achieve.

In that way, virtue ethics is concerned with the whole of a person's life, rather than particular episodes or actions."

- www.bbc.co.uk

So, is globalisation morally sound, or morally corrupt? Would a company's global expansion through entirely ethical means be more or less successful than a company using more unethical methods to get ahead? Is the only way to successful globalisation through exploitation and not-so-virtuous intentions?

Advantages and Disadvantages of Globalisation

Globalisation refers to the integration of markets in the global economy. Markets where globalisation is particularly common include, financial markets, such as capital markets, money and credit markets, and insurance markets, commodity markets, such as markets for oil, coffee, tin, and gold, and product markets, such as markets for motor vehicles and consumer electronics.

Why has globalisation increased?

The pace of globalisation has increased for a number of reasons:

1. Developments in ICT, transport and communications have accelerated the pace of globalisation over the past 30 years. The internet has enabled fast and 24/7 global communication, and the use of containerisation has enabled vast quantities of goods and commodities to be shipped across the world at extremely low cost.

2. Increasing capital mobility has also acted as a stimulus to globalisation. When capital can move freely from country to country, it is relatively straightforward for firms to locate and invest abroad, and repatriate profits.

3. The development of complex financial products, such as derivatives, has enabled global credit markets to grow rapidly.

4. Trade has become increasingly free, following the collapse of communism, which has opened up many former communist countries to inward investment and global trade. Over the last 30 years, trade openness, which is defined as the ratio of exports and imports to national income, has risen from 25% to around 40% for industrialised economies, and from 15% to 60% for emerging economies.

5. The growth of multinational companies (MNCs) and the rise in the significance of global brands like Microsoft, Sony, and McDonalds, has been central to the emergence of globalisation.

The advantages of globalisation

Globalisation brings a number of potential benefits to international producers and national economies, including:

1. Providing an incentive for countries to specialise and benefit fcrom the application of the principle of comparative advantage.
   

2. Access to larger markets means that firms may experience higher demand for their products, as well as benefit from economies of scale, which leads to a reduction in average production costs.

3. Globalisation enables worldwide access to sources of cheap raw materials, and this enables firms to be cost competitive in their own markets and in overseas markets. Seeking out the cheapest materials from around the world is called global sourcing. Because of cost reductions and increased revenue, globalisation can generate increased profits for shareholders.

4. Avoidance of regulation by locating production in countries with less strict regulatory regimes, such as inthose in many Less Developed Countries (LCDs).

5. Globalisation has led to increased flows of inward investment between countries, which has created benefits for recipient countries. These benefits include the sharing of knowledge and technology between countries.

6. In the long term, increased trade is likely to lead to the creation of more employment in all countries that are involved.

The disadvantages of globalisation

There are also several potential disadvantages of globalisation, including the following:

1. The over-standardisation of products through global branding is a common criticism of globalisation. For example, the majority of the world’s computers use Microsoft’s Windows operating system. Clearly, standardising of computer operating systems and platforms creates considerable benefits, but critics argue that this leads to a lack of product diversity, as well as presenting barriers to entry to small, local, producers.

2. Large multinational companies can also suffer from diseconomies of scale, such as difficulties associated with coordinating the activities of subsidiaries based in several countries.

3. The increased power and influence of multinationals is also seen by many as a considerable disadvantage of globalisation. For example, large multinational companies can switch their investments between territories in search of the most favourable regulatory regimes. MNCs can operate as local monopsonies of labour, and push wages lower than the free market equilibrium.

4. Critics of globalisation also highlight the potential loss of jobs in domestic markets caused by increased, and in some cases, unfair, free trade.

5. Globalisation can also increase the pace of deindustrialisation, which is the slow erosion of an economy's manufacturing base.

6. Jobs may be lost because of the structural changes arising from globalisation. Structural changes may lead to structural unemployment and may also widen the gap between rich and poor within a country.

7. One of the most significant criticisms of globalisation is the increased risk associated with the interdependence of economies. As countries are increasingly dependent on each other, a negative economic shock in one country can quickly spread to other countries. For example, a downturn in car sales in the UK affects the rest of Europe as most cars bought in the UK are imported from the EU. The Far East crisis of the 1990s was triggered by the collapse of just a few Japanese banks.

   Most recently, the collapse of the US sub-prime housing market triggered a global crisis in the banking system as banks around the world suffered a fall in the value of their assets and reduced their lending to each other. This created a liquidity crisis and helped fuel a severe downturn in the global economy.

   Over-specialisation, such as being over-reliant on producing a limited range of goods for the global market, is a further risk associated with globalisation. A sudden downturn in world demand for one of these products can plunge an economy into a recession. Many developing countries suffer by over-specialising in a limited range of products, such as agriculture and tourism.

7. Globalisation generates winners and losers, and for this reason it is likely to increase inequality, as richer nations benefit more than poorer ones.

8. Increased trade associated with globalisation has increased pollution and helped contribute to CO₂ emissions and global warming. Trade growth has also accelerated the depletion of non-renewable resources, such as oil.

The impact of globalisation on the UK economy

The main issues arising from globalisation for the UK are:

Growth

Assuming the UK maintains its competitiveness, globalisation is likely to increase UK growth in the long term because aggregate demand (AD) is likely to increase through increased exports (X), and aggregate supply (AS) is likely to increase because of higher levels of investment, both domestic and foreign direct investment (FDI). However, growth in the short term may become more unstable as the global economy becomes increasingly interconnected. The recent credit crunch is evidence that unstable growth is a possible consequence of globalisation. Some economists have also argued that globalisation has increased the process of deindustrialisation in the developed countries, including the UK.

Employment

Long term, jobs may be destroyed in the manufacturing sector and created in the service sector, hence creating structural unemployment, which could widen the income gap within countries. The net effect of the impact on employment depends upon the speed of labour market adjustment, which itself depends upon mobility and flexibility. Improvements in labour productivity may be needed to close the productivity gap.

Prices

Increased competition is likely to reduce the price level, for traded manufactures. Because UK firms can source from around the world costs may be held down, and this may be passed on in terms of reduced domestic and export prices.

Trade

The volume of both imports and exports is likely to increase, with trade representing an increasing proportion of GDP. The effect on the balance of payments is uncertain and depends upon relative growth rates, inflation, competitiveness, and the exchange rate.

- www.economicsonline.co.uk

Subcategories of Globalisation

Antiglobalisation

Opposition to the agendas and actions of groups perceived to favor globalization, such as the IMF, the World Trade Organization, and the G8 countries.
(google dictionary)


Globalism

Globalism can have at least two different and opposing meanings. One meaning is the attitude or policy of placing the interests of the entire world above those of individual nations. Another is viewing the entire world as a proper sphere for one nation to project political influence.
(google dictionary)


Globality

Globality is the end-state of globalisation – a hypothetical condition in which the process of globalization is complete or nearly so, barriers have fallen, and "a new global reality" is emerging.
(wikipedia)


Glocalisation

The practice of conducting business according to both local and global considerations
(google dictionary)

Grobalisation

Grobalization is a term coined by sociologist George Ritzer (2004) in his book The Globalization of Nothing . It is meant to serve as a companion to the widely employed concept of glocalization. While glocalization represents the unique combinations resulting from the interpenetration of the global and the local, grobalization represents “the imperialistic ambitions of nations, corporations, organizations, and the like and their desire, indeed need, to impose themselves on various geographic areas” (p. 73).
- www.blackwellreference.com

Introduction to Globalisation

The Globalization of Nothing - George Ritzer

chapter 4, pg 71


"While social theorists (and other social scientists) have long been interested in globalisation, in recent years there has been an explosion of work on the topic by leading contemporary thinkers. The flowering of such theories (and other work) is a reflection of the fact that globalisation is of great concern to, and of enormous significance for, the larger population. Virtually every nation and the lives of billions of people throughout the world are being transformed, often quite dramatically, by globalisation. "

Simply put, Ritzer is stating that globalisation, its effects and theories on such are both mutually inclusive, and both as important as the other when understanding the topic. He also means that globalisation is so vast and so prominent that it is nigh impossible to ignore or avoid - basically, it's inevitable.

pg 72

"We can start with a definition of globalisation as 'the worldwide diffusion of practices, expansion of relations across continents, organisation of social life on a global scale, and growth of a shared global conciousness'."

Basically, the growth from local to national, to international, to worldwide; affecting business, social and ideological means.

pg 72

"Globalisation has naturally been of great interest to those in business, especially the emergence of new global markets and the ideologies that accompany them. Related to many other issues is the relationship between technology and globalisation, including the role technology plays in global inequalities. Of special interest and concern in this regard is the computer, the Internet, and the emergence of the global digital divide. Then there are such issues as the relationship between globalisation and religion, sport, pop music and virtually every other aspect of the social world, as well as linkage of globalisation to a range of social problems such as poverty and inequality, global crime, global sex and the international sex trade, and terrorism, as well as the impact of globalisation on the environment. All of these problems, and many others, have led to considerable interest in the morality and ethics of globalisation."

Looking beyond the simple definition of globalisation now, as the above text indicates it is not quite as simple or straightforward anymore - both the positive and negative aspects become very obvious. "Growth" and "expansion", at first, have positive connotations, so we assume globalisation to be a good thing. The growth and enhancement of technology, which makes our lives both easier and more enjoyable, is more or less seen as a positive, as with the rise in popularity and audience of pop music, sport etc as mentioned. In regards to the problems Ritzer points out such as terrorism and international sex trade, however, growth and expansion cease to be a desirable trait, as these social aspects are far more of a nuisance with very little benefit to the population.

So, with a brief insight to both the good and the bad, is globalisation really good for society?