Globalization is the process where people, organizations, companies and nations interact and integrate. This is through international trade and the development of technology. It increases competition which lead to coming up with new ideas through innovation and creativity. Thank you ma'am for this amazing lecture 🙏
ThanQ to the producers for making the lecture of 25 min duration. It makes lecture crisp , clear ,interesting and focussed for the learners at the same time giving the expert adequate time for rejuvenating for each and upcoming lectures
Thank you ma'am for this lecture. 👌globlisation is a process of intergration among the people, companies , and the government of different nations, a process driven by international trade and
Globalism refers to various systems with scope beyond the merely international. It is used by political scientists, such as Joseph Nye, to describe "attempts to understand all the interconnections of the modern world-and to highlight patterns that underlie (and explain) them." Video content is really good. Good work ❤❤
The paper analyses India's development before and after globalisation since Independence. It is seen that while India did lay the foundation of growth in the fifties and sixties, it was limited to certain sectors. An important feature of the early seventies was a greater control and involvement of the government where banks were nationalised, the public sector was given a major role and a large number of direct programmes were launched for the development of the poor and other weaker sections of the society. However, the overall growth rate remained modest. The public sector did not deliver the goods and the anti poverty programmes had a lackluster performance. The period after globalisation as a whole has seen a much higher growth rate, increase of GDP and a robust foreign exchange situation along with a record high of FIIs and FDI. The benefits though have been asymmetric with the unorganised and the agriculture sector remaining out of the purview of globalised development.
Understanding Global world - An analysis of Globalisation The lecture tries to depict various aspect of globalisation which have a bearing on not only on understanding of global politics ,internal relations but also domestic dynamics of the state. To begin, understanding the historical aspect of globalisation is important. The Bretton Woods system (Bretton Woods conference , 1945 in USA) which restore trades in goods and services as essential for the recovery of global economy. From the historical perspective what we see here is the Bretton Wood Institution, the IMF and the world Bank have an important role to play in making globalisation work better - Global integration. The Bretton Wood system establishes a new monetary system , replace the Gold system with US Dollar as the global currency system. Globalisation is define as an intensification of cross - border interaction and inter- dependence between countries . Importance of studying Globalization - Understanding globalisation and international relations is crucial for the future of not only governments, states , people , businesses, corporation but also for understanding the issues that are at stake for the survival of human race. Globalisation is a multi dimensional concept . It has political , economic , technological, cultural manifestation. Causes of Globalisation 1.flows of ideas, capital , commodities and people. 2.something distinct about contemporary Globalisation. 3.scale and speed of these flows that account for the uniqueness of Globalisation in the contemporary era. Different understanding of Globalisation 1.Globalisation as internationalization describe the border relations between countries. It describe the growth in international exchange and interdependence. 2. Globalisation as liberalisation. 3. Globalisation as universalisation. 4. Globalisation as westernisation/ modernization. Contemporary Globalisation makes the rich richer and poor poorer Globalisation 1.0,2.0,3.0 and 4.0. Globalisation 1.0,2.0 and 3.0,were a mainly concern of people who made things for a living, Globalisation 4.0 is going to hit the service sector . Hundreds of millions of service sector and professional worker be exposed to the challenges and the opportunities of Globalisation. At this juncture the question of IMF need to be discern i.e. will reversing the process of globalisation help to solve the problems? Or Does the world needs instead of new approach to Globalisation that exploits it's enormous potential for improving human welfare. World economic forum opines that to address this there a need for wider engagement, heightened imagination and involvement of all stakeholders in sustained dialogue.
While geography no longer stands in the way of globalization there are still many barriers. Language comes to mind but, realistically, it is the least of our worries. Due diligence must be done as innumerable issues of administrative and compliance issues impact setting up a global conference. So start by asking a few basic questions.
A global presence has become an increasingly significant reality for many PCOs while organising conferences but doing business worldwide presents far greater challenges then just working locally. Words Patrizia Semprebene Buongiorno There are many complex problems to be solved and choices to be made and of those, many are not straightforward. Numerous strategic aspects must be considered before a commitment can be made: starting with understanding the difference between “global” and “international.” These words seem interchangeable but there are significant differences. “Global” means worldwide or universal, applying to the whole world while the word “international” applies to two or more countries.
What is Globalization? Globalization is the free movement of people, goods, and services across boundaries. This movement is managed in a unified and integrated manner. Further, it can be seen as a scheme to open the global economy as well as the associated growth in trade (global). Hence, when the countries that were previously shut to foreign investment and trade have now burned down barriers.
It is the world economy which we think of as being globalized. We mean that the whole of the world is increasingly behaving as though it were a part of a single market, with interdependent production, consuming similar goods, and responding to the same impulses. Globalization is manifested in the growth of world trade as a proportion of output (the ratio of world imports to gross world product, GWP, has grown from some 7% in 1938 to about 10% in 1970 to over 18% in 1996). It is reflected in the explosion of foreign direct investment (FDI): FDI in developing countries has increased from $2.2 billion in 1970 to $154 billion in 1997. It has resulted also in national capital markets becoming increasingly integrated, to the point where some $1.3 trillion per day crosses the foreign exchange markets of the world, of which less than 2% is directly attributable to trade transactions. While they cannot be measured with the same ease, some other features of globalization are perhaps even more interesting. An increasing share of consumption consists of goods that are available from the same companies almost anywhere in the world. The technology that is used to produce these goods is increasingly standardized and invariant to the location of production. Above all, ideas have increasingly become the common property of the whole of humanity. This was brought home to me vividly by a conference that I attended four years ago, where we discussed the evolution of economic thought around the world during the half-century since World War Two (Coats 1997). We debated whether the increasing degree of convergence in economic thinking and technique, and the disappearance of national schools of economic thought, could more aptly be described as the internationalization, the homogenization, or the Americanization of economics. My own bottom line was that economics had indeed been largely internationalized, that it had been substantially homogenized, but only to a limited extent Americanized, for non-American economists continue to make central contributions to economic thought, as the Nobel Committee recognized by its award to Amartya Sen a few weeks before this conference took place. Incidentally, the nicest summary of the change in economic thinking over the period was offered by the Indian participant in that conference, who remarked that his graduate students used to return from Cambridge, England focusing on the inadequacies of the Invisible Hand, while now they return from Cambridge Mass. focusing on the inadequacies of the Visible Hand! In the same vein, one of the more telling criticisms of my phrase "the Washington Consensus" was that the (substantial though certainly incomplete) consensus on economic policy extends far beyond Washington. However, there are areas where globalization is incomplete, even in the economic sphere. In particular, migration is very far from being free. Highly skilled professionals have a relatively high degree of mobility, but those without skills often face obstacles in migrating to higher-wage countries. Despite the difficulties, substantial proportions of the labour forces of some countries are in fact working abroad: for example, around 10% of the Sri Lankan labour force is now abroad. Moreover, globalization is much less of a reality in other fields than it is in the economic one. Culture still displays strong national, and even regional and local, variations. While English is clearly in the process of emerging to be a common world language, at least as a second language, minority languages are making something of a comeback, at least in developed countries. Sport is still very different around the world: the Americans have still not learnt to play cricket, and most of the rest of us have still not learned to understand what they see in baseball. Although the nation state is far less dominant than it used to be, with significant powers being devolved both downwards to regional and local authorities and upwards to international and in Europe to supranational institutions (and although "interfering in the internal affairs of another state" is less frowned on than formerly), politics is still organized primarily on the basis of nation-states. CAUSES What explains this globalization? It is certainly not attributable to conquest, the source of most previous historical episodes where a single economic system has held sway over a vast geographical terrain. The source lies instead in the development of technology. The costs of transport, of travel, and above all the costs of communicating information have fallen dramatically in the postwar period, almost entirely because of the progress of technology. A 3-minute telephone call from the USA to Britain cost $12 in 1946, whereas today it can cost as little as 48 cents, despite the fact that consumer prices have multiplied by over eight times in the intervening period. The first computers were lumbering away with piles of punched cards in the early postwar years, and telegrams provided the only rapid means of written communication. There was no fax or internet or e-mail or world-wide web, no PCs or satellites or cell-phones. Today we witness phenomena that no futurist dreamed of half a century ago, such as Indians with medical degrees residing in Bangalore who earn a living by acting as secretaries to American doctors by transcribing their tapes overnight. It is clearly the availability of cheap, rapid and reliable communications that permits such phenomena, just as this is the key to the integration of the international capital market. I presume the same factor is important in nurturing the growth of multinational corporations, since it is this which enables them to exploit their intellectual property efficiently in a variety of locations without losing the ability to maintain control from head office. But in this context I would surmise that other factors are also at work, such as the spread of consumer knowledge about what is available that comes from travel and from advertising, itself encouraged by the communications revolution and its children like CNN. The reduction in transport costs is also a key factor underlying the growth in trade. Of course, it needed a reasonably peaceful world to induce economic agents to exploit the opportunities for globalization presented by technological progress. But the technological basis for the phenomenon of globalization implies that, barring an end to the "Pax Americana" or else extremely vigorous conscious actions to reverse the process, globalization is here to stay.
CONSEQUENCES Globalization certainly permits an increase in the level of global output. Whether as a result of the old Heckscher-Ohlin theory of the basis of comparative advantage as lying in different factor abundance in different countries, or as a result of the new trade theories that explain trade by increasing returns to scale, trade will increase world output.[2] Likewise FDI brings the best technology, and other forms of intellectual capital, to countries that would otherwise have to make do without it, or else invest substantial resources in reinventing the wheel for themselves. It may also bring products that would otherwise be unavailable to the countries where the investment occurs, which presumably increases the quality, and therefore the value, of world output. And international capital flows can transfer savings from countries where the marginal product of capital is low to those where it is high, which again increases world output. Globalization must be expected to influence the distribution of income as well as its level. So far as the distribution of income between countries is concerned, standard theory would lead one to expect that all countries will benefit. Economists have long preached that trade is mutually beneficial, and most of us believe that the experience of widespread growth alongside rapidly growing trade in the postwar period serves to substantiate that. Similarly most FDI goes where a multinational has intellectual capital that can contribute something to the local economy, and is therefore likely to be mutually beneficial to investor and recipient. And a flow of capital that finances a real investment is again likely to benefit both parties, since the yield on the investment is expected to be higher than the rate of interest the borrower has to pay, while that rate of interest is also likely to be higher than the lender could expect at home since otherwise there would have been no incentive to send it abroad. Loose talk about free trade making the rich countries richer and poor countries poorer finds no support in economic analysis. Nor is there any reason for supposing that the North benefits itself at the expense of the South by imposing import restrictions like non-tariff barriers or agricultural subsidies: standard theory says that, while this does indeed impoverish the South, the public in the North also suffers, and it loses more than the producers gain. This suggests that a promising strategy for eliminating such barriers is to seek a coalition with Northern consumers, rather than to engage in North-bashing which will simply alienate potential Northern allies. But it is surely also true that globalization is bringing new dangers. The virulence of the East Asian crisis was primarily a result of countries exposing themselves to the full force of the international capital market before they had built up an unquestioned reputation for being able as well as willing to service their debts come what may, which meant that when investors became concerned about their potential vulnerability as a result of the Thai crisis there were no other investors willing to step in and provide stabilizing speculation even after exchange rates and interest rates had clearly overshot. Of course, one can argue that this increased vulnerability to external shocks has to be weighed against a decreased vulnerability to internal shocks: think how much more Bangladesh would have suffered this year (1998) if the international community had not provided aid to partially offset the cost of the floods, let alone how much more hunger, or even starvation, there would have been had Bangladesh been unable to import additional rice. But this does not justify dismissing the increased dangers from external shocks. Moreover, I might note that Professor Indraratna offered you a much longer and more imaginative list of dangers than I have here identified, which looks beyond narrow economic questions and considers the role of globalization in spreading such unsavoury phenomena as drugs, the sex trade, crime, and terrorism. CONCLUDING REMARKS I have argued that globalization has a technological base and is therefore here to stay. Sensible policy involves asking how one can get the most out of it while limiting the risks that it brings. The answers on the economic level, I have suggested, involve educating citizens with relevant skills and opening up to trade and FDI while maintaining controls on short-term capital flows, constructing an appropriate social safety net, and seeking international actions to reverse erosion of the tax base.
Globalization is the process where people, organizations, companies and nations interact and integrate. This is through international trade and the development of technology. It increases competition which lead to coming up with new ideas through innovation and creativity. Thank you ma'am for this amazing lecture
Globalization is the process where people, organizations, companies and nations interact and integrate. This is through international trade and the development of technology. It increases competition which lead to coming up with new ideas through innovation and creativity. Thank you ma'am for this amazing lecture
Thankyou so much for this informative lecture 🌸
Very well explained ❤️
Globalization is the process where people, organizations, companies and nations interact and integrate. This is through international trade and the development of technology. It increases competition which lead to coming up with new ideas through innovation and creativity.
Thank you ma'am for this amazing lecture 🙏
Very nice lecture mam🙏🙏🙏🙏❤️❤️❤️
ThanQ to the producers for making the lecture of 25 min duration.
It makes lecture crisp , clear ,interesting and focussed for the learners at the same time giving the expert adequate time for rejuvenating for each and upcoming lectures
This lacture is very nice ma'am ❤️❤️👌👌
Thank you so much ma'am for your helpful sessions. It's so help full for us 🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏💐💐💐💐💐✨✨
Thank you ma'am for this lecture.
👌globlisation is a process of intergration among the people, companies , and the government of different nations, a process driven by international trade and
Globalism refers to various systems with scope beyond the merely international. It is used by political scientists, such as Joseph Nye, to describe "attempts to understand all the interconnections of the modern world-and to highlight patterns that underlie (and explain) them."
Video content is really good. Good work ❤❤
Thank you so much mam for this lecture 🙏🙏
Thank you so much ma'am for this lecture 🙏☺️🌸.
ThanQ v much ma'am for including contemporary topics and aspects.
May you keep enriching the learners
The paper analyses India's development before and after globalisation since Independence. It is seen that while India did lay the foundation of growth in the fifties and sixties, it was limited to certain sectors. An important feature of the early seventies was a greater control and involvement of the government where banks were nationalised, the public sector was given a major role and a large number of direct programmes were launched for the development of the poor and other weaker sections of the society. However, the overall growth rate remained modest. The public sector did not deliver the goods and the anti poverty programmes had a lackluster performance. The period after globalisation as a whole has seen a much higher growth rate, increase of GDP and a robust foreign exchange situation along with a record high of FIIs and FDI. The benefits though have been asymmetric with the unorganised and the agriculture sector remaining out of the purview of globalised development.
Understanding Global world - An analysis of Globalisation
The lecture tries to depict various aspect of globalisation which have a bearing on not only on understanding of global politics ,internal relations but also domestic dynamics of the state.
To begin, understanding the historical aspect of globalisation is important. The Bretton Woods system (Bretton Woods conference , 1945 in USA) which restore trades in goods and services as essential for the recovery of global economy.
From the historical perspective what we see here is the Bretton Wood Institution, the IMF and the world Bank have an important role to play in making globalisation work better - Global integration. The Bretton Wood system establishes a new monetary system , replace the Gold system with US Dollar as the global currency system.
Globalisation is define as an intensification of cross - border interaction and inter- dependence between countries .
Importance of studying Globalization - Understanding globalisation and international relations is crucial for the future of not only governments, states , people , businesses, corporation but also for understanding the issues that are at stake for the survival of human race. Globalisation is a multi dimensional concept . It has political , economic , technological, cultural manifestation.
Causes of Globalisation
1.flows of ideas, capital , commodities and people.
2.something distinct about contemporary Globalisation.
3.scale and speed of these flows that account for the uniqueness of Globalisation in the contemporary era.
Different understanding of Globalisation
1.Globalisation as internationalization describe the border relations between countries. It describe the growth in international exchange and interdependence.
2. Globalisation as liberalisation.
3. Globalisation as universalisation.
4. Globalisation as westernisation/ modernization.
Contemporary Globalisation makes the rich richer and poor poorer
Globalisation 1.0,2.0,3.0 and 4.0.
Globalisation 1.0,2.0 and 3.0,were a mainly concern of people who made things for a living, Globalisation 4.0 is going to hit the service sector . Hundreds of millions of service sector and professional worker be exposed to the challenges and the opportunities of Globalisation. At this juncture the question of IMF need to be discern i.e. will reversing the process of globalisation help to solve the problems? Or Does the world needs instead of new approach to Globalisation that exploits it's enormous potential for improving human welfare.
World economic forum opines that to address this there a need for wider engagement, heightened imagination and involvement of all stakeholders in sustained dialogue.
While geography no longer stands in the way of globalization there are still many barriers. Language comes to mind but, realistically, it is the least of our worries. Due diligence must be done as innumerable issues of administrative and compliance issues impact setting up a global conference. So start by asking a few basic questions.
A global presence has become an increasingly significant reality for many PCOs while organising conferences but doing business worldwide presents far greater challenges then just working locally.
Words Patrizia Semprebene Buongiorno
There are many complex problems to be solved and choices to be made and of those, many are not straightforward. Numerous strategic aspects must be considered before a commitment can be made: starting with understanding the difference between “global” and “international.” These words seem interchangeable but there are significant differences. “Global” means worldwide or universal, applying to the whole world while the word “international” applies to two or more countries.
हिन्दी में भी विडिओ बनाए
What is Globalization?
Globalization is the free movement of people, goods, and services across boundaries. This movement is managed in a unified and integrated manner. Further, it can be seen as a scheme to open the global economy as well as the associated growth in trade (global). Hence, when the countries that were previously shut to foreign investment and trade have now burned down barriers.
It is the world economy which we think of as being globalized. We mean that the whole of the world is increasingly behaving as though it were a part of a single market, with interdependent production, consuming similar goods, and responding to the same impulses. Globalization is manifested in the growth of world trade as a proportion of output (the ratio of world imports to gross world product, GWP, has grown from some 7% in 1938 to about 10% in 1970 to over 18% in 1996). It is reflected in the explosion of foreign direct investment (FDI): FDI in developing countries has increased from $2.2 billion in 1970 to $154 billion in 1997. It has resulted also in national capital markets becoming increasingly integrated, to the point where some $1.3 trillion per day crosses the foreign exchange markets of the world, of which less than 2% is directly attributable to trade transactions.
While they cannot be measured with the same ease, some other features of globalization are perhaps even more interesting. An increasing share of consumption consists of goods that are available from the same companies almost anywhere in the world. The technology that is used to produce these goods is increasingly standardized and invariant to the location of production. Above all, ideas have increasingly become the common property of the whole of humanity.
This was brought home to me vividly by a conference that I attended four years ago, where we discussed the evolution of economic thought around the world during the half-century since World War Two (Coats 1997). We debated whether the increasing degree of convergence in economic thinking and technique, and the disappearance of national schools of economic thought, could more aptly be described as the internationalization, the homogenization, or the Americanization of economics. My own bottom line was that economics had indeed been largely internationalized, that it had been substantially homogenized, but only to a limited extent Americanized, for non-American economists continue to make central contributions to economic thought, as the Nobel Committee recognized by its award to Amartya Sen a few weeks before this conference took place. Incidentally, the nicest summary of the change in economic thinking over the period was offered by the Indian participant in that conference, who remarked that his graduate students used to return from Cambridge, England focusing on the inadequacies of the Invisible Hand, while now they return from Cambridge Mass. focusing on the inadequacies of the Visible Hand! In the same vein, one of the more telling criticisms of my phrase "the Washington Consensus" was that the (substantial though certainly incomplete) consensus on economic policy extends far beyond Washington.
However, there are areas where globalization is incomplete, even in the economic sphere. In particular, migration is very far from being free. Highly skilled professionals have a relatively high degree of mobility, but those without skills often face obstacles in migrating to higher-wage countries. Despite the difficulties, substantial proportions of the labour forces of some countries are in fact working abroad: for example, around 10% of the Sri Lankan labour force is now abroad.
Moreover, globalization is much less of a reality in other fields than it is in the economic one. Culture still displays strong national, and even regional and local, variations. While English is clearly in the process of emerging to be a common world language, at least as a second language, minority languages are making something of a comeback, at least in developed countries. Sport is still very different around the world: the Americans have still not learnt to play cricket, and most of the rest of us have still not learned to understand what they see in baseball. Although the nation state is far less dominant than it used to be, with significant powers being devolved both downwards to regional and local authorities and upwards to international and in Europe to supranational institutions (and although "interfering in the internal affairs of another state" is less frowned on than formerly), politics is still organized primarily on the basis of nation-states.
CAUSES
What explains this globalization? It is certainly not attributable to conquest, the source of most previous historical episodes where a single economic system has held sway over a vast geographical terrain. The source lies instead in the development of technology. The costs of transport, of travel, and above all the costs of communicating information have fallen dramatically in the postwar period, almost entirely because of the progress of technology. A 3-minute telephone call from the USA to Britain cost $12 in 1946, whereas today it can cost as little as 48 cents, despite the fact that consumer prices have multiplied by over eight times in the intervening period. The first computers were lumbering away with piles of punched cards in the early postwar years, and telegrams provided the only rapid means of written communication. There was no fax or internet or e-mail or world-wide web, no PCs or satellites or cell-phones. Today we witness phenomena that no futurist dreamed of half a century ago, such as Indians with medical degrees residing in Bangalore who earn a living by acting as secretaries to American doctors by transcribing their tapes overnight.
It is clearly the availability of cheap, rapid and reliable communications that permits such phenomena, just as this is the key to the integration of the international capital market. I presume the same factor is important in nurturing the growth of multinational corporations, since it is this which enables them to exploit their intellectual property efficiently in a variety of locations without losing the ability to maintain control from head office. But in this context I would surmise that other factors are also at work, such as the spread of consumer knowledge about what is available that comes from travel and from advertising, itself encouraged by the communications revolution and its children like CNN. The reduction in transport costs is also a key factor underlying the growth in trade.
Of course, it needed a reasonably peaceful world to induce economic agents to exploit the opportunities for globalization presented by technological progress. But the technological basis for the phenomenon of globalization implies that, barring an end to the "Pax Americana" or else extremely vigorous conscious actions to reverse the process, globalization is here to stay.
*and investment and aded by information technology... Cononization all over the world was a major cause of globalization
CONSEQUENCES
Globalization certainly permits an increase in the level of global output. Whether as a result of the old Heckscher-Ohlin theory of the basis of comparative advantage as lying in different factor abundance in different countries, or as a result of the new trade theories that explain trade by increasing returns to scale, trade will increase world output.[2] Likewise FDI brings the best technology, and other forms of intellectual capital, to countries that would otherwise have to make do without it, or else invest substantial resources in reinventing the wheel for themselves. It may also bring products that would otherwise be unavailable to the countries where the investment occurs, which presumably increases the quality, and therefore the value, of world output. And international capital flows can transfer savings from countries where the marginal product of capital is low to those where it is high, which again increases world output.
Globalization must be expected to influence the distribution of income as well as its level. So far as the distribution of income between countries is concerned, standard theory would lead one to expect that all countries will benefit. Economists have long preached that trade is mutually beneficial, and most of us believe that the experience of widespread growth alongside rapidly growing trade in the postwar period serves to substantiate that. Similarly most FDI goes where a multinational has intellectual capital that can contribute something to the local economy, and is therefore likely to be mutually beneficial to investor and recipient. And a flow of capital that finances a real investment is again likely to benefit both parties, since the yield on the investment is expected to be higher than the rate of interest the borrower has to pay, while that rate of interest is also likely to be higher than the lender could expect at home since otherwise there would have been no incentive to send it abroad. Loose talk about free trade making the rich countries richer and poor countries poorer finds no support in economic analysis. Nor is there any reason for supposing that the North benefits itself at the expense of the South by imposing import restrictions like non-tariff barriers or agricultural subsidies: standard theory says that, while this does indeed impoverish the South, the public in the North also suffers, and it loses more than the producers gain. This suggests that a promising strategy for eliminating such barriers is to seek a coalition with Northern consumers, rather than to engage in North-bashing which will simply alienate potential Northern allies.
But it is surely also true that globalization is bringing new dangers. The virulence of the East Asian crisis was primarily a result of countries exposing themselves to the full force of the international capital market before they had built up an unquestioned reputation for being able as well as willing to service their debts come what may, which meant that when investors became concerned about their potential vulnerability as a result of the Thai crisis there were no other investors willing to step in and provide stabilizing speculation even after exchange rates and interest rates had clearly overshot. Of course, one can argue that this increased vulnerability to external shocks has to be weighed against a decreased vulnerability to internal shocks: think how much more Bangladesh would have suffered this year (1998) if the international community had not provided aid to partially offset the cost of the floods, let alone how much more hunger, or even starvation, there would have been had Bangladesh been unable to import additional rice. But this does not justify dismissing the increased dangers from external shocks. Moreover, I might note that Professor Indraratna offered you a much longer and more imaginative list of dangers than I have here identified, which looks beyond narrow economic questions and considers the role of globalization in spreading such unsavoury phenomena as drugs, the sex trade, crime, and terrorism.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
I have argued that globalization has a technological base and is therefore here to stay. Sensible policy involves asking how one can get the most out of it while limiting the risks that it brings. The answers on the economic level, I have suggested, involve educating citizens with relevant skills and opening up to trade and FDI while maintaining controls on short-term capital flows, constructing an appropriate social safety net, and seeking international actions to reverse erosion of the tax base.
Globalization is the process where people, organizations, companies and nations interact and integrate. This is through international trade and the development of technology. It increases competition which lead to coming up with new ideas through innovation and creativity.
Thank you ma'am for this amazing lecture
Globalization is the process where people, organizations, companies and nations interact and integrate. This is through international trade and the development of technology. It increases competition which lead to coming up with new ideas through innovation and creativity.
Thank you ma'am for this amazing lecture