填空题
GLOBALI$ATON
For many,
the surprise of finding a McDonald's outlet in Moscow or Beijing provides no
greater symbol of the spread of globalisation. Used to explain all manners of
economic, cultural and political change that has swept over the world in recent
decades, globalisation is a term that continues to cause intellectual debate.
Some see it as inevitable and desirable, but it is a contentious issue with an
increasing number of individual citizens around the world questioning whether or
not the implications of globalisation, in terms of international distribution of
income and decreasing poverty, are effective.
The beginning of
globalisation is inextricably linked to technological improvements in the field
of international communications and a fall in the cost of international
transport and travel. Entrepreneurs and power-brokers took advantage of these
advances to invest capital into foreign countries. This became the basic
mechanism for globalisation with the trading of currencies, stocks and bonds
growing rapidly.
Breaking down the barriers through the free
movement of capital, free trade and political cooperation was seen as a positive
move that would not only improve living standards around the world, but also
raise political and environmental awareness, especially in developing countries.
Predictions were that nations would become more outward-looking in their
policy-making, as they searched for opportunities to increase economic growth.
Roles would be assigned to various players around the globe as capital
providers, exporters of technology, suppliers of services, sources of labour,
etc. Consequently, countries and economies could concentrate on what they were
good at and, as a result, markets would experience increased efficiency.
The
process of economic globalisation was without doubt led by commercial and
financial power-brokers but there were many others who supported the integration
of world economies. As multinational companies searched for new work-forces and
raw materials, non-government organisations and lobby groups were optimistic
that in the wake of global business, indigenous cultures might be given a
reprieve with an injection of foreign capital. This would, in turn, provide
local employment opportunities. By spreading trade more evenly between developed
and developing nations, it was touted that poverty would decrease and living
standards would rise.
Governments saw the chance to attract multinational
companies with tax-breaks and incentives to set up in-country, effectively
buying employment opportunities for their constituents.
By the
late 1990s, some trepidation started to surface and globalisation faced its most
public setback. The spectacular economic collapses in Korea, Brazil, Thailand
and other countries were considered, rightly or wrongly, to be caused by the
outwardly-oriented trade policies that globalisation espoused such as the growth
of exports. These countries had enjoyed record growth for a relatively short
time, but when faced with difficulties, the growth appeared unsustainable. The
vulnerability and risk associated with reliance on exports and international
markets was made clear.
Meanwhile though, through the 1990s and
early 2000s, multinational companies continued to do well financially. Profits
were increasing, keeping shareholders happy, but the anticipated spin-offs were
not being felt at the workers' level or in local communities in the form of
increased employment. These successful companies did not want to share the
benefits of the increased efficiency they were receiving as a result of
introducing their own work practices. The multinationals were setting their own
agendas, with governments, in many cases, turning a blind eye fearing that they
might pull out and cause more unemployment. Free trade was now accused of
restricting governments, who were no longer setting the rules, and domestic
markets felt increasingly threatened by the power that the multinationals
had.
The negative consequences of globalisation have now become
a concern for many protest groups in different nations. If the concept of
globalisation was meant to benefit all nations, they say, then it has failed.
Rich countries, like America, continue to grow richer and more powerful with
many of the head offices of multinationals based there. The economies of some
developing countries though, especially in Africa, are making only negligible if
any progress in the war against poverty. As a result, protestors are confronting
the advocates of globalisation on their own doorstep as power-players meet at
economic summits in already-globalised cities.
The International
Monetary Fund (IMF) maintains that globalisation has succeeded in establishing a
more equitable share of world trade and remains optimistic that the gulf between
rich and poorer nations, given the right conditions, will be considerably
lessened in the future. They point out that no country can afford to opt out of
globalisation and, indeed, would be foolish to attempt to do so. They maintain
that 'non-globalising developing countries' have made slower progress than
'globalising developing countries' in the past two decades. Moreover, they
suggest that developing countries with huge debts be assisted so that their
economies can catch up with richer countries and integrate more effectively at
an international level.
Regardless of what IMF affirms, if the
benefits of globalisation are to be more evenly spread, the goal of reducing
world poverty needs to be re-prioritised. If this means imposing rules and
standards on multinational companies that are acceptable internationally, then
this will need to be done sooner rather than later. At this stage, the
multinationals and their shareholders appear to be the only winners. The
backlash against globalisation has already begun.
Questions 27-34
Look at the
following statements (Questions 27-34) and decide if they agree with the opinion
of the writer in Reading Passage 3. Write your answers in boxes 27-34 on your
Answer Sheet. Indicate."
YES if the
statement agrees with the writer's opinion
NO
if the statement does not agree with the writer's
opinion
NOT GIVEN if the writer's opinion
is not given in the text.