Globalisation, what is globalisation

A peregrination to trace the origin of this hi-tech 13 letter word leads to the ages around 1960, when this sophisticated word was confined within the boundaries defined by financial terminologies and academic manuscripts.

What happened then? Has the anti-globalization movements accelerated the impact of globalization? Yes, would be the answer if the questionnaire hasn’t had the objective to dwell deep by the feedback.  

Now, what globalization meant as a whole? Economists and experts had foreseen the idea of globalization as an internationally covered movement, where financial markets as well as investment markets could broaden their horizon internationally.

The enhanced and sophisticated methods developed, which led to the revolution in the arena of communication were the stepping stones for globalization to conquer the world.  The transition graph of globalization from a book of money to a world of ideas was astonishingly impressive, since “world” has transformed to “global village”. 

In the 1980s and early 1990s, globalization conveyed that it does not only posses an imbibing idea of financial widespread, but also have some extra stuff to ponder about. It was initially a straight simple method of doing business.

Later, it became a trend, a fashion or rather a process. Most modern communication mechanisms made it possible for globalization to grow. Now, impact of globalization has its own objectives when Indians pick calls for serving US customers, when Asia design shoes for Europe to sell.  

But is it wise to say, when an International discussion is held,” A globalization conspiracy?” certainly not. The job opportunities created for the youths in developing and under-developed countries, the poverty eradication schemes in under developed countries, the illiteracy eradication policies –everything is an impact of globalization.  

Speaking from another stand point, it is worthy to mention that anti-globalization movements can also be considered as an impact of globalization. They argue on aspects like the monopoly of nation being overpowered by the western markets, domestic manipulations being back seated by international peeping etc.

The anti global movements repeatedly insist on the fact that developing or under developed nations are vulnerable to financial restrictions imposed by the global forces. Financial freedom of national market will be hurt severely, and the culture, policies and even the nation building strategies will have to be compromised to meet the requirements of global forces.

They argue that the national market might become, a wee bit amicable to rich, but the culture and tradition might become so amicable to the poor. 

The supporting party, the opposing party, the neutral party-everyone would find globalization as a hot topic of debate. Whether it has to move stronger forward, whether it has got anything to change without hurting national set up, whether countries had to redefine the meaning of globalization with respect to their demands and necessities?

A bunch of answers are yet to come. The fact is arguments are going on. We can’t find a topic other than this that has been the cynosure of thinking minds. But why have we never heard a call that fell on the grid of solutions?