The Instigator
HoratioMaxwell
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ColeTrain
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Economic globalisation is beneficial to most people.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
ColeTrain
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/9/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 640 times Debate No: 82287
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

HoratioMaxwell

Pro

I will be debating that economic globalisation is beneficial for most people. My opponent will be arguing that economic globalisation is harmful for most people.
ColeTrain

Con

I accept the debate and will be arguing that, on balance, economic globalization is not beneficial.
Debate Round No. 1
HoratioMaxwell

Pro

HoratioMaxwell forfeited this round.
ColeTrain

Con

Framework:

Economic Globalization: “The trans-national increase in trade and capital transfers across national boundaries.” [http://tinyurl.com...] If I can prove economic globalization will have a net negative effect, I win. If my opponent proves the converse, he/she wins.


Environmental Concerns:

Generally, as income increases, so does production and consumption. These trends facilitate a rampant increase in pollution. Obviously, pollution isn’t something that is a net positive for society or for environment, as environment destruction has a subsequent negative effect on society. Pollution, as it is increased by economic globalization, creates an “Inverse-U” graph of environmental decay, called the Kuznets Curve. Environmental degradation is an irreversible cost of economic globalization, as demonstrated by the graph below:


[http://www.trunity.net...]


Essentially, when economic globalization begins, the short-term effects on environment are empirically harmful. However, assuming economic globalization is successful in poverty reduction, the curve is completed and environmental degradation slows. Regardless, the initial impact on environment is irreversible and extremely harmful. For the preservation of the environment, it’s imperative we don’t utilize economic globalization as an international policy.


This point is important, and I think it needs further explanation. It’s necessary to understand the effects of globalization are far-reaching, not confined to developed or developing countries. It applies to both of them, and that’s a basis for global environmental degradation. Though some proponent’s of economic globalization assert the Kuznet’s curve flattens its environmental effects, this does not include CO2 (carbon dioxide) emissions. Increase in production and consumption and easily induce further CO2 emissions, which subsequently results in global warming. There is “No evidence that Kuznet’s curve for CO2 ever turns down on its own.” [1]


Global warming is a subsequent effect of CO2 [2], and it’s generally common knowledge -- being backed by empirical studies [3] CO2 emissions are generally and primarily caused by increased production, which is what economic globalization facilitates. If it increases production, the only logical consequence is then furthered global warming.


Besides CO2 emissions, SO2 (sulfur oxide) emissions, which are pollutants [5], are another facet of considerable concern in regards to economic globalization. Yong S. Cho of Korea University explained in a study that there exists “a negative long-run relationship between SO2 emissions and income for developed countries…” [4] This clearly isn’t a positive consequence as there is less income. Even with SO2 emissions regressing, the effect on developing countries outweighs this slight benefit. The study continues, “while trade liberalization appears to increase environmental quality in developed economies, it has a detrimental effect on environmental quality in most developing countries.” Essentially, slight reduction in SO2 emissions in developed countries has little effect when weighed against *increased* emissions in developing countries and long-term lower income in developed nations.


Aside from these two specific negative impacts, the total impact is negative, as indicated by studies. The foundation of this conclusion rests on one main point: the “race-to-the-bottom” theory, which will be addressed in further contentions. Because of this, the environmental degradation facilitated by economic globalization is both highly detrimental and irreversible.


Labor Implications:

The “race-to-the-bottom” theory is essentially constructed of the idea that “to the extent that countries are open to international trade and investment, environmental standards will be lower than they would otherwise be.” [6] Competition is a primary factor of economics and the standards by which corporations and countries lead their policies and practices. When competition becomes international rather than limited to nation-wide, companies lower labor standards to compensate for increased competition. Lowered labor standards facilitate and directly alter labor practices in a regressive manner.


[http://cdn.static-economist.com...]


The graph above exemplifies the impact of lower labor standards on practices, and demonstrates the regressive trend over a period of 17 years. The graph is derived from an empirical time-series investigation study conducted by Ronald B. Davies of UCD School of Economics. [7] The study typifies these concerns: economic globalization has a net negative impact on labor practices and econometric spatial lag between the labor-rights index and actual labor practices. Lower labor standards allows unethical labor and wage abuse to employees, which could potentially apply to every working individual. This is a huge problem in regards to generating a net benefit. The Economist summarizes the findings as such: “If the labour standards across all other countries decline, those of the excepted country also tend to fall.” [9] These demonstrate the negative effects of economic globalization, and affirm the “race-to-the-bottom” theory.


Moreover, the same conclusion can be applied to regulations in environmental protection, indicating due to increased competition, regulations would be lowered to lure polluting businesses to contribute to their GDP. These large companies would settle in areas with the least environmental prevention to their company. The same study from Harvard [6] explains, “by limiting trade and investment in some way, we might be able to attain a better environment for any given level of GDP.” This would negatively affect the environment as these companies would be permitted to release vast amounts of emissions known to contribute to global warming and general degradation of the environment.


But beyond environmental attributes, labor practices and the facilitation of income inequality. Osvaldo Sunkel, professor of economics in Chile explains, “Since the [19]80s, when the new [globalization] policies have been implemented more or less all over the world, income distribution has worsened, both within countries and among countries.” [8] Income distribution is being degraded by economic globalization since the 1980s, and no evidence seem to suggest that trend will skew in favor of economic globalization.


Indeed, Marc Bacchetta, economics research and statistics division of the World Trade Organization, furthers that globalization results in an “economy [that] is characterized by less job security, lower incomes, an absence of access to a range of social benefits and fewer possibilities to participate in formal education and training programmes – in short, the absence of key ingredients of decent work opportunities.” [10] Opportunities for “most” individuals to obtain “good” jobs are lacking, labor standards are degrading, and income inequality is rampant; all of these necessitate refraining from economic globalization.


Conclusion:

Due to large concerns in regards to the environment and the implications on labor, economic globalization does not generate a net benefit and certainly is not appealing or desirable.



Sources:

[1] http://pages.ucsd.edu...

[2] http://climate.nasa.gov...

[3] http://www.sciencedirect.com...

[4] http://ageconsearch.umn.edu...

[5] https://www.tceq.texas.gov...

[6] http://www.hks.harvard.edu...

[7] http://www.etsg.org...

[8] http://www.pbs.org...

[9] http://www.economist.com...

[10] http://tinyurl.com...

Debate Round No. 2
HoratioMaxwell

Pro

HoratioMaxwell forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by bballcrook21 1 year ago
bballcrook21
HoratioMaxwellColeTrainTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture.
Vote Placed by tajshar2k 1 year ago
tajshar2k
HoratioMaxwellColeTrainTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF