Positives/Negatives of Globalisation.


  • Causes growth, stability, integration and development.
  • Industries/TNCs shifting to poorer countries can help reduce poverty and offers job opportunities. (E.g. Vietnam had economic and social reform in line with globalisation and now the extreme poverty rate has dropped below 3%)
  • Cultural and social globalisation has allowed new global norms and ideas. People in once oppressive countries may become more progressive and social change can occur. (E.g. in 2018 women in Saudi Arabia were finally able to drive).
  • Countries can also work together to tackle global issues like climate change and they can also come together to respond to events like natural disasters.
  • Trade Blocs can improve peace and increase trade on a global scale. On a national scale it can allow countries to compete on a global scale and give LEDCs a voice.
  • Free trade is supposed to make world trade easier and aid in the economic development of countries. (E.g. Brazil developed free trade ideas to expand it's trade leading it to have a surplus balance of trade.)
  • Global trade creates competition between countries, this drives down prices for consumer goods and those with lower incomes can now afford them and increase their SOL/QOL.
  • Migration can bring new skills to countries (E.g. elite migrants creating global hub cities in places like New York and London and allowing the development of the quaternary sector.) It also allow people to seek better QOLs. Remittances can be sent home to develop the origin country.
  • Many NICs have rapidly developed due to inward investment as a result of globalisation (MINTs and BRICs).
  • TNCs have developed larger economies of scale from global supply chains and they generate more profits, aiding economic development of their origin country through corporation tax.


  • Causes inequalities, injustices, conflict and negative environmental impacts.
  • Interdependence caused by economic globalisation can cause global financial crashes to be more common. (E.g. the 2008 financial crisis started with the housing market in the USA and the effects were spread worldwide.)
  • Encouraged TNCs which can be extremely exploitative (E.g. Apple case study). Can have negative social and environmental impacts, can also harm small, local businesses.
  • Development of TNCs/global shift has led to deindustrialisation in developed countries. This causes structural unemployment. ( the North East of England after coal mining decreased due to cheaper imports).
  • As transport increases, so does the emissions leading to climate change.
  • Global trade still benefits MEDCs more, increasing the development gap. The IMF and WB support neo-liberalism and this can be damaging to LEDCs who are not ready to open their markets to the domination of TNCs and MEDC products. MEDCs are protectionists and are able to keep their tariffs.
  • The spread of ideas globally are all Western based with thinking that benefits MEDCs- e.g. neoliberalism.
  • Migration can lead to exploitation of workers (E.g. migrant workers building for the 2022 world cup in Qatar) and overcrowding. Remittances sent home can also be an unstable source of income, if the host country experiences a economic crisis, the home country will also feel the hit. Additionally, remittances can often find their way into the hands of terrorist groups (Somalia). The host country also experiences brain drain.
  • With the spread of ideas and cultures, the world has become Americanised/Westernised and there has been cultural erosion.
  • Global NGOs that have developed as a result of globalisation (WB, WTO, IMF) are unfair to LEDCs. The loans they receive have conditions to force them to reduce their spending on their citizens or means they have to enforce damaging, neoliberlistic ideas.


Globalisation means the world is more interdependent. Interdependency can cause economic growth from trade blocs but trade blocs can also cause problems with differential access to markets. The trade in Bananas demonstrates how some countries/TNCs dominate global markets and the WTO seeks to protect neo-liberalistic ideals against SDT that would actually make global trade more fair.  Migration as a result of globalisation can cause brain drain and overcrowding/exploitation but it can also mean that countries gain skilled workforces and people gain a better QOL, remittances can also be both positive and negative here (they help the origin country develop but they are unstable and can fall into the hands of terrorists). TNCs arise from globalisation and they gain bigger economies of scale through global supply chains, increasing profits, reducing costs of consumer goods and bringing more tax to the origin country. The host country also can develop economically and jobs are created- stimulating development and the multiplier effect. They also gain new skills and technologies and are able to attract other TNCs. However, (Apple case study), TNCs can also be exploitative and create sweatshops. This global shift causes deindustrialisation and structural unemployment in the origin countries. TNCs are attempting to stop this damage though (Apple surveying factories and improving environmental status).Transport and communication revolution means goods can be transported around a globalised world. This increases access to consumer goods for many around the world but it also increases the amount of pollution. The global marketing approach of brands can lead to cultural erosion, though glolocalisation is being used to combat this. Ideas have been able to spread through a globalised world, reducing the number of switched off countries. People develop global norms and become more progressive. However this can also lead to cultural erosion and most ideas that spread are rooted in the West and favour MEDCs. Most global organisations that have developed/benefited as part of globalisation (WB, WTO, IMF) favour neo-liberalism which can be damaging to unprepared markets of LEDCs.Countries can also work together to tackle global problems like climate change and pandemics. However, it is likely there will always be a power-imbalance, for example China in the South China Sea. 


No comments have yet been made