Globalization has been stated as the main cause for the high amount of inequality being experienced in the world. Globalization encompasses the amplified role of international and domestic market forces in the determination of the allocation of goods and services, the social economic outcomes, production and investment. Globalizations also encompass the domestic policy aspects of deregulation and privatization (Berry, 2006). Conversely, inequality has always been translated into income inequality, but it should also comprise of such multi-dimensional aspects as nutrition, individual’s health, political freedoms, cultural rights and civil rights. Globalization is an aspect that is greatly studied because of its increased acceleration since the 1980s especially in the developing countries without excluding the developed countries.
The main enhancers of globalization are domestic reforms, capital account liberalization and trade. Due to globalization, many developing countries have been subjected to intense international competition that culminates into inequality in its many forms (Prabhakar, 2003). This is because globalization affects the domestic social, cultural, economic and political outcomes of different countries. Although globalization is a desired outcome, its many causes should be put into consideration because even after a survey was carried out in the United Kingdom and United states, many people from those countries were not in support of globalization yet their governments constantly engage in the political support of globalization.
Statement of the Problem
The effects of globalization do not only culminate into income inequality but it also results into other multi-dimensional inequalities such as nutrition, individual’s health, political freedoms and civil rights inequalities. This should be studied significantly while comparing those countries of high globalization and low Traditional-Rational v. Secular Values or Survival v. Self-Expressive Values and the countries with low globalization and high Traditional-Rational v. Secular Values or Survival v. Self-Expressive Values.
The study of the effect of globalization on inequality has been narrowed down to effects being experienced in developing countries and those being experienced in developed countries. This has ignored the fact that the countries may be highly globalized but their Traditional-Rational v. Secular Values or Survival v. Self-Expressive Values might be so low while some other countries might be lowly globalized but exhibit high Traditional-Rational v. Secular Values or Survival v. Self-Expressive Values (Norris & McLean, 1999). This clearly indicates that though globalization is desirable in many cases, its effects on inequality should be considered cautiously to ensure that globalization is regulated thus making all the countries better off without focusing on the making of others to be worse off.
This study is aimed at refining people’s current understanding of the effects of globalization on equality because it covers other aspects such as nutrition, individual’s health, political freedoms and civil rights inequality on top of income inequality that has been covered by many scholars.
Significance of the Study
This study aims at enabling the conduction of more research into the effects of globalization, which can lead to the coming up of solutions that can be utilized in regulating globalization to such levels that can aid in the reduction of both inter-country inequality and domestic inequality.
- What are the attitudes of different people towards globalization and inequality?
- Is there a significance relationship between globalization and inequality?
- Is there a significant relationship between income inequality and nutrition, individual’s health, political freedoms and civil rights inequality?
France and Australia are countries that have a high globalization and low Traditional-Rational v. Secular Values or Survival v. Self-Expressive Value. On the contrary, China and India are countries that have low globalization and high Traditional-Rational v. Secular Values or Survival v. Self-Expressive Values (Rapley, 2004). All the above countries exhibit different cultural traditions and attitudes making them significant for this study. Globalization and inequality in most cases has been focusing on the developed countries of the United States and the EU countries while studies on the effects of globalization on developing countries has been narrowed down to the effects of trade liberalization on wage inequality as well as world income inequality.
This does not cover the whole problem substantially because globalization is also linked to traditional-rational v. Secular values exhibited by the people from both the developed and developing countries. On the other hand, there exists a clear relationship between globalization and Survival v. Self-Expressive Values. Traditional-rational v. Secular values measures the extent to which religion is important to the society (Smith, 2004). Most of the globalized countries such as France have higher secular-rational values as compared to the religious-rational values of India culminating into the cultural inequality existing between the two countries. On the contrary, Australia on one side has higher survival values due to its identification as a developed country. China has a high level of self-express values, which have made it increase its self-expression due to the economic changes that have resulted from globalization leading to an increased inclination to economic survival. China cannot be compared to Australia in any terms because of the amount of economic inequality that exists between them.
The transition from traditional-rational values to the secular-rational values occurs due to industrialization. Most of the developed countries industrialized before the developing countries. In this case, developed countries globalized before the developing countries. This will definitely cause the amount of cultural and income inequality that exists between such countries as France as well as Australia, India and China. This is because the secular-rational values are positively correlated with the GDP. In Australia, the transitions from the traditional rational values to the secular-rational values through industrialization, which culminated into globalization, have enabled the employment rate of the country to increase especially for the unskilled workers. Norris & McLean (1999) came up with an aggregate data that showed the significant increase in inequality in Australia since 1975.
The same case happened in India where it has been undergoing a slow transition from the traditional-rational values to the secular-rational values leading to slow globalization, which has increased inequality in the country at a lower pace. When Australia and India are compared however, high levels of nutrition and individual health inequality exist because the people of India cannot be able to access the technological advancement in medicine that Australia has thus the individual health so the two populations are very different (Zhang & Zhang, 2003). Globalization has led to the increase in free trade such that India exports most of its agricultural products to such countries as Australia. In this case, their nutrition as compared to that of Australia is poor. This is the main reason behind the nutrition inequality between the two countries and because the rich in India can access enough monetary value to purchase food, there exists domestic nutrition inequality in India.
Zhang, & Zhang, (2003) estimated that rural-urban inequality made up more that half of the overall inequality experienced in the world in 1995. When some regions of China were considered, such authors as Zhang, & Zhang, (2003) estimated the 82 percent change that was experienced in one of China’s provinces was due to the rural-urban inequality, which culminated from globalization. The author goes ahead to explain that this is because most people in the rural areas were focused on the self-expression values while shunning the survival values. The self-expression values are the outcomes of trying to survive through the economic changes that were effected by globalization. The author on the contrary explains that those in the urban areas on the other hand, do not have the time for self-expression. This is because they engage in survival values that are inclined towards industrialization. Under industrialization, they are subjected to globalization that improves their standing where economic development is concerned.
There does not only exist income inequality between the urban areas and rural areas but also such inequalities as individual health, civil rights and nutrition inequalities. On the other hand, France is one country that has transitioned from the self-expression values to the survival values as well as from the traditional-rational values to the secular-rational values. Its transitions are because it has been under the support of the EU during its industrialization period. Industrialization is followed by globalization, which bestows a developed country with competitive advantage especially in international trade. France is a country that has benefited in this way due to its being allowed to expand some of its companies to countries in which labor productivity is high at a low cost. Smith, (2004) states that France is a country that relies on secular-rational values in which the political system is not rigid but provides people with political freedom.
This could not have been possible without globalization because the economy is self-independent and privatization has replaced the owning of most public goods by the government. This clearly indicates the fact that the country does not face political freedom inequality. Conversely, China is still relying on the traditional rational values that have reduced the chances of privatization. The government manages most of the companies in the country making it hard for the country to attain political freedom (Rapley, 2004). In this case, when France and China are compared, political inequality emerges, as the Chinese people cannot afford the amount of political freedom that the French are enjoying due to globalization. Globalization culminates into inequality and inequality on the other side goes hand-in-hand with political instability.
A country that has a liberal political system, which culminates from globalization, is likely to have less civil rights inequality. A country that experiences an authoritarian political system is likely to experience high levels of civil rights inequality. France and Australia enjoy liberal political systems. India and China consequently are subjected to authoritarian governments that restrict privatization (Berry, 2006). When the four countries are compared, India and China face civil rights inequalities of a higher level because of the fact that their governments are rigid and are not willing to provide the civil rights that could lead to their losing of power. The French and Australian governments do not restrict their citizens from participating in privatization thus increasing their access to civil rights.
The increase of educational levels is one of the effects of globalization. The countries whose globalization levels are low, exhibit low education levels. This means that those countries who dwell mostly on the traditional-rational values may exhibit low educational levels. When the educational levels are low, the countries cannot tap from the positive effect of globalization leading to their subjection to inequality effects of globalization (Prabhakar, 2003). India and China are countries that exhibit low education levels. France and Australia on the other hand, are countries that exhibit high education levels. This clearly indicates that all sorts of inequalities be they income, nutrition, political freedom, individual’s health, cultural rights and civil rights inequalities cannot be eliminated between the four countries.
This study is aimed at refining people’s current understanding of the effects of globalization on equality because it covers other aspects such as nutrition, individual’s health, political freedoms and civil rights inequality on top of income inequality that has been covered by many scholars (Berry, 2006). In this case, the research questions utilized include the attitude of people towards globalization and inequality, the relationship between globalization and inequality, the relationship between income inequality and nutrition, individual’s health, political freedoms and civil rights inequality. The population to be utilized in this research includes the countries with high globalization and low Traditional-Rational v. Secular Values or Survival v. Self-Expressive Values and the countries with low globalization and high Traditional-Rational v. Secular Values or Survival v. Self-Expressive Value.
The sample drawn includes two countries that have a high globalization and low Traditional-Rational v. Secular Values or Survival v. Self-Expressive Values, which are France and Australia, and two countries that have low globalization and high Traditional-Rational v. Secular Values or Survival v. Self-Expressive Value which are India and China (Prabhakar, 2003). The data for the research will be obtained from the World Value Survey website. This entails the selection of the four countries, which include France, India, China and Australia such that the information obtained will be from these countries. The main questions to be selected in the website include the political, religious and educational feeling of the population of those countries. After all the information for the four countries has been collected, the last step will be to obtain the graphs for the same information to await its analysis.
The information obtained will be analyzed according to the research questions provided to ensure that they guide towards the correct answers. The acquisition of the data will not take a lot of time as it can be obtained within a few hours. The analyzation process may take time, as the data will be analyzed according to the research questions provided. The data in question is easy to understand; hence, statistical tests will not be required (Zhang, & Zhang, 2003). The data provided by the World Value Survey website is valid in many ways because many scholars have been relying on it to answer the major questions asked about any topic in the world. The data is updated every year to enhance its validity and can therefore be relied on. The assumptions to be made are that the data can be relied to answer the research questions without the need for other secondary data. The limitation of the data is that it may not be enough to answer the research questions substantially.
The information obtained is going to be for France, India, china and Australia.
The graph above points to the fact that France and Australia contain the highest numbers of educated citizens as compared to the other two countries. This is a clear indication that due to the high level of globalization contained in France and Australia. Their education levels are high and so the majority of the population can manage to attain good jobs in the labor market, be it international or domestic. Conversely, the education levels of the population of China and India is low, which indicates that the two countries have undergone low levels of globalization hence their citizens cannot maintain any level of competitive advantage in the labor market culminating into the many types of inequalities that both countries are subjected to (Prabhakar, 2003). Conversely, the same graph points to the fact that the citizens of India and China do not have access to the political freedom enjoyed by those from France and Australia thus increasing the levels of political freedom inequality between the four countries.
When political freedom inequality exists, civil rights inequality also exists substantially. Those citizens lacking civil rights equality cannot participate in privatization, which is one of the aspects behind globalization thus enhancing their lagging behind where globalization is concerned. Low education levels translate to high levels of unemployment due to the high demands of skilled labor under globalization. India and China have been experiencing high unemployment levels, which have increased the reliance of the population on agricultural exports, which may increase the country’s revenue while decreasing the availability of food. When food shortages are experienced, nutrition inequality emerges (Rapley, 2004). France and Australia have not been facing nutrition inequalities because they capitalize on importing the necessary food products while discouraging their citizens from exporting food provisions to other countries. This means that there is plenty of nutritional food in the two countries, which aids in eliminating nutrition inequality.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Globalization is one of the desirable changes that have taken place in the world culminating into many advantages. Conversely, the same phenomenon has resulted into adverse effect that should be checked out to enhance a good global village in all aspects. Globalization has been known to have adverse effect on inequality with some scholars propounding that it leads to an increase in inequality while other suggest that it leads to the reduction of inequality. One of the factors behind globalization is free trade, which has enhanced the economic growth of many developing countries (Berry, 2006). Free trade has also led to the emergence of many inequalities in the developing countries, as it does not contain any barriers to discrimination.
Most scholars who have researched on the negative effect of globalization on inequality have capitalized on income inequality while neglecting nutrition, political freedom, individuals health, cultural rights and civil rights inequalities that have been affecting both the developed and developing countries (Norris & McLean, 1999). This paper has therefore focused on the effects of globalization on the other types of inequalities by narrowing down the study to France, India, China and Australia. France and Australia are developed countries while India and China are developing countries, which may not have arrived at the globalization levels of both France and Australia. Due to different globalization levels existing between the four countries, a high level of inequality has been in existence between them.
The recommendation that can be made based on the findings of this paper is that more scholars should research on the effects of globalization on the other types of inequalities so that solutions can be formulated to solve the problems of inequality in the global village. The scholars should not only utilize secondary data as this paper has but they should also rely on the primary data that they will collect from different countries (Zhang, & Zhang, 2003). This is a type of research that should be concentrated on through provision of enough resources as well as time to ensure that the end results arrived at can chart a better way forwards towards globalization. Information should also be gathered from the researches conducted on income inequality because there are links between it and the other forms of inequality.
Berry, J. W. (2006). Cross-Cultural Psychology: Research and Applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Norris, K. & McLean, I. (1999), ‘Changes in Earnings Inequality 1975—1998’. Australian Bulletin of Labor, 25, 23-31.
Prabhakar, A.C. (2003). A Critical Reflection on Globalization and Inequality: A New Approach to the Development of the South. African and Asian Studies, 2, 307-345
Rapley, J. (2004). Globalization and Inequality: Neoliberalism’s Downward Spiral. Boulder, CO: Rienner.
Smith, T. B. (2004). France in Crisis: Welfare, Inequality, and Globalization since 1980. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Zhang, X., & Zhang, K., H. (2003). How Does Globalization Affect Regional Inequality within A Developing Country? Evidence from China. Journal of Development Studies. 39, 47 – 67