The Instigator
Conservatively_Liberal
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
RoyalFlush100
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points

On balance, economic globalization benefits worldwide poverty reduction

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 1 vote the winner is...
RoyalFlush100
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/25/2015 Category: Economics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,391 times Debate No: 72281
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

Conservatively_Liberal

Con

I stand in strong negation of the statement, resolved: "On balance, economic globalization benefits worldwide poverty reduction". In order to better understand the information that the Con side wishes to present today, it is necessary to understand some terms. The United Nations defines "economic globalization" as: " the increasing interdependence of world economies as a result of the growing scale of cross-border trade of commodities and services, flow of international capital and wide and rapid spread of technologies."1. I believe that economic globalization does not decrease poverty rates for the following reasons:

Contention One: Globalization displaces the poor.
The effects of globalizing the economy of a country is felt by more than simply those who manage it. In a study by the Journal of Developing Societies, it was found that India is essentially depriving its poor, tribal people of a sustainable livelihood by promoting the unregulated growth of mineral-based industries in their area. The report went on to say, and I quote: "In the name of modernization and the country's economic development, the elites in India are taking over the life sustaining resources of the poor and pushing them into a further marginalized state of living as a result of displacing them from their land and homes.". This is not simply an isolated instance, as a similar situation can be observed on the other side of the globe. In Mexico, nearly forty percent of farmers were displaced by a prime example of economic globalization- the North American Free Trade Act. These displaced people are often then forced into slums, as detailed in the aforementioned report. The report concluded by stating the following: "Their status changes from self-sustaining members of their local ecosystem to ecological refugees who are forced into the slums of the large urban centers and urban-industrial towns created by the development pathologies of our time". This in turn enhances the effects of poverty, thus not decreasing poverty, but instead making the problem worse.

Contention Two: Economic globalization creates inequality in developing societies.
According to a study published by the Economist in 2014, contrary to popular belief, multinational corporations will hire the skilled workers in countries, as opposed to the unskilled workers. However, as a result of this, the unskilled workers are not given such opportunities. This leads to increased inequality. The gap between the upper and lower class expands significantly, as shown by this report. It cites a GINI study, which is a method used to determine inequality. The closer the score is to zero, the more equally the money is distributed amongst the people. The average score on the Index is about 10%. However, China, a country that has been radically altered by economic globalization, scores a whopping 34%. This is preposterous. A report published by the Global Policy Forum stated that citizens will observe, "signs of injustice, insider privilege, and unequal opportunity" all as a result of inequality. This same report went on to state: "In developing countries inequality is usually economically destructive; it interacts with underdeveloped markets and ineffective government programs to slow growth " which in turn slows progress in reducing poverty."

Contention Three: Globalization exploits the poor through sweatshop labor
Globalization critics often cite sweatshops as a prime example of the "race to the bottom" phenomenon. A "race to the bottom" is defined as a situation characterized by a progressive lowering or deterioration of standards, especially (in business contexts) as a result of the pressure of competition. This happens when world markets are opened to free, unfettered trade. Without transnational labor guidelines and regulations, big corporations will look to place factories and manufacturing plants in countries with the most relaxed environmental and labor standards. Developing countries then compete for the patronage of these companies by lowering labor standards -- minimum wages and workplace safety requirements. The result: horrendous working conditions like those described above, and no state oversight to make the factories change them.
Sweatshops are a way for corporations to exploit the poverty and desperation of the third world, while allowing them to circumvent the living wages, organization rights, and workplace safety regulations labor activists have fought long and hard for in the west. "In a village in the Mekong delta in Vietnam a woman and her twelve-year old daughter sit all day in the shade from five in the morning until five in the evening making straw beach mats. For their labour they receive $1 a day." "In China, workers at Wellco Factory making shoes for Nike are paid 16 cents/hour (living wage for a small family is about 87 cents), 11-12 hour shifts, 7 days a week, 77-84 hours per week; workers are fined if they refuse overtime, and they're not paid an extra rate for overtime hours.
The evidence shown here today, makes it abundantly clear that Economic Globalization is in no way "reducing worldwide poverty." For these reasons we urge the judge to vote Con.
RoyalFlush100

Pro

Definition of Poverty (from the World Bank): Earning less than $1.25 a day.

Premise:
Global poverty rates have been cut in half over the past couple decades. (1) For this debate, I will prove that economic globalization help caused this.

R1:
Con asserts that moving from rural areas to urban areas makes the world poverty problem worse. However, this is not one bit true. Urban jobs usually pay more than rural jobs. (4) I will elaborate on rural/urban migration in my arguments.

R2:
Our debate is that economic globalization benefits worldwide poverty reduction. So, even if the income gap is expanding in some countries, it doesn't mean that poverty rates aren't decreasing. Although, Con does assert that a widening class gap slows progress in reducing poverty. However, no evidence of this was provided. In fact, the exact opposite was shown in China (which Con noted for inequality problems), as they have had among the fastest rate of poverty reduction (3):

Con's argument is also flawed as it doesn't even prove globalization is causing this widening income gap or the possibility that the reason for widening income gaps is because the wealthier are working at jobs that were provided by globalization and the poor are still working rural jobs.

R3:
Poverty has absolutely nothing to do with working conditions or number of hours worked per day, so any arguments Con made regarding that should be discredited. Con also asserts using a few examples that sweatshops keep people in poverty. However, examining the apparel industry's (which is perhaps best known for using sweatshop labour) average hourly wage in countries with sweatshops we see even if they only worked 8 hour work days (standard in the United States) the average daily income exceeds $1.25 in all of them, except Bangladesh (2):

Therefore, on average if somebody works in a sweatshop they are not in poverty.

C1-Rural/Urban Migration:
As already mentioned urban jobs pay better than rural jobs. In fact, nearly three quarters of those below the poverty line work in rural jobs. (5) Fortunately, the share of people living in urban areas has increased and is increasing. (6) After World War II, many Japanese were living in rural areas. Then Japan began exporting materials, which led to people leaving their urban areas to work in cities. This exportation led to rapid economic growth for Japan. (6) However, if Japan didn't have foreign support, there wouldn't have been demand for those products, and Japan would still see a lot of their population working dead end rural jobs. Therefore, globalization helps reduce poverty rates by providing more opportunities for jobs to be transferred from rural areas to urban areas.

C2-Sweatshops:
Not only are sweatshops typically above the poverty line, people working at sweatshops usually earn more than the rest of the country (2):

Since sweatshops usually produce goods for export (most people in countries battling poverty cannot afford certain goods), globalization is needed for these sweatshops to exist. Therefore, globalization assists in decreasing global poverty rates. Also, it has been found that at sweatshops run multinational firms pay more than domestic firms. (2) Therefore, foreign owned sweatshops (which definitely wouldn't exist without globalization) help decrease poverty as well, as they provide better opportunities than locally owned sweatshops.

C3-Foreign Investment:
Globalization allows foreign companies to directly invest into poorer countries. This has helped bring in new technology, employment creation, human capital development, contribution to international trade, integration, enhancing domestic investment, and increasing tax revenue. (7) All of these factors have helped reduce poverty. It indirectly helps reduce poverty through economic growth, leading to better living standards (due to higher GDP), improvement in technology, productivity, and economic environment. (7) It also helps directly by allowing more people to be employed. (7) This is explained by the Modernization Theory. To see economic growth according to the Modernization Theory, there needs to be an increase in technology, trade, and industrial manufacturing. (8) China has perhaps benefited the most. As soon as China opened up to foreign investment it saw rapid economic growth. (9)


1-http://www.economist.com...
2-http://www.independent.org...
3-http://www.chinadaily.com.cn...
4-http://www.carleton.ca...
5-http://siteresources.worldbank.org...
6-http://catt.univ-pau.fr...
7-http://www.grips.ac.jp...
8-http://www.academia.edu...
9-http://www.worldbank.org...
Debate Round No. 1
Conservatively_Liberal

Con

Conservatively_Liberal forfeited this round.
RoyalFlush100

Pro

Arguments extended.
Debate Round No. 2
Conservatively_Liberal

Con

Conservatively_Liberal forfeited this round.
RoyalFlush100

Pro

Arguments extended.
Debate Round No. 3
Conservatively_Liberal

Con

Conservatively_Liberal forfeited this round.
RoyalFlush100

Pro

Arguments extended.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Conservatively_Liberal 1 year ago
Conservatively_Liberal
I'm sorry, I should have specified that I'm looking for more of a NSDA Public Forum Debate structure that you are not following.
Posted by Conservatively_Liberal 1 year ago
Conservatively_Liberal
@ColeTrain I love this topic and debated it at Speech and Debate States competition. Great Topic! ee you around.
Posted by ColeTrain 1 year ago
ColeTrain
I have interest in the topic, but am currently debating multiple topics, and cannot accept this one. Good luck to whomever accepts. (And the instigator, of course.) ;)
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Objectivity 1 year ago
Objectivity
Conservatively_LiberalRoyalFlush100Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: Con FF