Is Globalization good for the world?

Is globalization "good for the world"? When a single factory closes in China, leaving workers
unemployed in Mexico, but enabling activists to mobilize globally for climate action, it is hard
to form a simple judgment. Just like the weather, the effects of globalization depend on
where you are located - your nation-state, your community, and your level of privilege. This
dilemma, while unsettling and troubling, is also why it matters. It provides a framework for us
to interpret how we understand a world in which economic integration is lifting millions out of
poverty, but also driving many into a greater state of inequality; one in which cultural
exchange and sharing is strengthening societies but also reducing cultural diversity; and one
where immigrant labor and trade is enabling global trends at unprecedented scales. In this
essay, I will explore the antagonisms (or trade-offs) of globalization through a broad lens of
economic equity and cultural identity, examining how history (or the absence of it) provides
important insights into our contemporary conversation. I do not have a neat and tidy
"answer" to this question - life rarely provides neat answers - however, by working through
these complexities, it will help us think more clearly about the world we want to build.

What do we mean by Globalization?

Globalization is not a single, unavoidably iterated, monolithic force, but rather, globalization
is a complicated process comprising trade, migration, technology, cultural diffusion, and
systems of finance. In Globalization/Anti-Globalization, David Held and Anthony McGrew
characterize globalization as several flows of power, ideas, and governance that flow across
borders, illustrating, for example, how global trade treaties like the WTO can encroach on
national sovereignty. This understanding leads to the conclusion that globalization is
facilitated by human decisions (policy, agreements, values) instead of an anonymous market
force. However, if globalization is predicated on decisions and policies that govern our world,
who makes them, and on behalf of whom? This dilemma is an immured evidentiary base for
my analysis of whether the benefits of globalization, such as increased economic growth, are
worth its costs, such as increased inequality, and destruction of cultural heritage.

The Potential of Globalization: Access and Freedom

The notion that globalization can be life-changing is overwhelming. For example, Thomas
Friedman takes a very positive stance on globalization in "The World is Flat," explaining that
with technology and access to markets, the world levels the playing field, allowing everyone
to compete on a global scale-from coding in Vietnam to designing in Kenya. In addition,
Upwork operates similarly, connecting freelancers to jobs, such that a freelancer from a
small, developing nation has the same access to global clientele as anyone else. Yet
Friedman's argument fails by omission; access is appealing, but not enough. Amartya Sen
takes the opposing stance in "Development as Freedom," where he claims that development
emerges from the expansion of "real freedoms" or opportunities that people value, via
health, education, and access. For example, an uneducated citizen in rural India may have
all the access in the world, but without health and/or education, that global access means
nothing. Where Sen's evaluation applies to those requiring effort for equity of investment at
the onset, the advantages of globalization that are so easily overlooked by more positive
assessments do not apply here. Ultimately, if any access becomes universal, who is to say
why and how? This question serves as my investigative response to answer whether the
benefits of globalization outweigh its costs.

The Problems of Globalization: Inequality of Wealth and Mismanagement

The issue with globalization's benefits is that there are real challenges. In his book,
Globalization and Its Discontents, Joseph Stiglitz critiques the mismanagement of
globalization by entities such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank,
which may often not be using the authority imparted upon them as they deal with the
interests and wishes of more powerful nations. Stiglitz maintains that there is a need for
regulation on markets; that without regulation, along with policies, some simply pour into the
fire, like the rapid liberalization of a market, such as in the 1997 Asian financial crisis, where
in reality the countries were pushed into increasing poverty by austerity mandated by the
IMF, as well as the economic collapse of Argentina in 2001. Thomas Piketty, in Capital and
Ideology, approaches the problem from a dynamics of wealth; wealth can accumulate faster
than its economic growth when it flows freely across borders. Piketty points to the Panama
Papers, which chronicled the wealthy elites evading taxes everywhere, as the best example
of the concentration of wealth filtered by globalization. Stiglitz focuses on institutional flaws
(or failures) in - and Piketty maintains the nature of capital - but both authors warn that
globalization is likely to make inequality worse. They do not call for the abandonment of
globalization, but are asking for it to be constructed in a way that allows for equity. If the
problems of globalization are human choices, are we able to review what works to fix the
inequality that results from globalization, or are structural changes necessary? This question
will help guide my judgment of whether the benefits outweigh the costs of globalization.

A Real-World Example: Detroit and Shenzhen

To illustrate this concept in a real-world context, consider Detroit. Once the hub of America's
automotive industry, and thriving for decades as factories built a seemingly endless supply of
cars and jobs, it shrunk once globalization opened markets and companies sought cheaper
labor elsewhere, moving factories across sea or into automation. As the economy shrunk
and unemployment soared, neighborhoods were hollowed out. Joseph Stiglitz discusses this
kind of industrial decline as well, and states that poorly managed globalization can devastate
communities (Stiglitz, 2017; see also Sassen, 1998). On the opposite side of the world, a city
like Shenzhen in China exploded from a fishing village to a global tech city in just a couple of
decades due to the precise same global flows of capital and trade. Millions there found new
jobs, higher wages, and a pathway out of poverty (Friedman, 2005; Sassen, 1998). Thus,
while someone in Detroit might view globalization as a force that took everything away,
someone in Shenzhen might view globalization as the engine of their future that built it. This
example captures the tension perfectly: globalization can create opportunity in one place,
while eliminating another. It is not a straightforward villain or hero story. It is a clear reminder
that the benefits of globalization are not automatically translated or evenly distributed - and
the real struggle is managing those trade offs.

The Environment: A Global Issue Requiring Global Solutions

In This Changes Everything, Naomi Klein is vocally skeptical of the state of globalization
today. Klein argues that the systemic failures of deregulated capitalism have made climate
change worse because unregulated companies are hunting for the cheapest labor and
weakest environmental rules. More pollution, more emissions, a planet in crisis.

But here is the paradox. As Yuval Noah Harari describes in 21 Lessons for the 21st Century,
some problems-climate change, pandemics, cyber threats- are so big and so global that
there is no country that can solve them alone. In an interesting way, globalization is the
problem, and the only possible solution. We need global cooperation, not just global
markets.

Identity and Belonging: The Human Element

It isn't just about the economy or the environment. Globalization shifts how people feel about
themselves. For some it is exciting-a world of new ideas, new foods, and new friends. For
others it is jarring. Important traditions seem to be under threat, communities are being
disrupted, and the world feels like it is moving too fast. Harari spoke to the growth of
nationalism and backlash to globalization. It is a reminder that not only do people need to
feel connected, at times they need to feel connected to something rooted.

Policy: The Devil in the Details

It's easy to say we need "better rules," but what does that mean? Take Piketty's idea of a
global wealth tax. In theory, it could reduce inequality and fund public goods. In practice,
there are formidable obstacles to overcome: national sovereignty, political will, enforcement.
Countries compete to attract capital and no one wants to go first. Still, while a global tax may
be farfetched, perhaps these modest steps-international cooperation in tax avoidance or
global minimum taxes-are attainable (see Piketty, 2020, OECD reports). Held and McGrew's
concept of "cosmopolitan social democracy" offers a similar puzzle. How do we balance the
imperatives of global governance with the local conditions of autonomy, especially as it
relates to accountability and representation of international institutions? These aren't easy
questions to answer, but they're not impossible answers either. The European Union, for all
its imperfections, is one example of shared sovereignty. Maybe it functions as a model,
maybe it serves as a cautionary tale. Probably both.

My Take: Why Iʼm Still in Favor.

I know I sound cynical-but I'm not. Well, maybe a little. I've seen globalization's benefits:
millions lifted from poverty, ideas spread, a smaller world with more connectedness, and
even I am computing this competition because of globalization. I've seen the pitfalls: job
displacement, widening inequality, climate change, and people being forgotten. But then I
ask you this- when have the great strides of humanity ever occurred at no cost? Look at the
Industrial Revolution-had it not happened, we'd never be able to exist within our information
and digital age. But the Industrial Revolution brought with it pollution, exploitative labor
practices, and socioeconomic divisions that cut millions out of the deal (Piketty, 2020;
Sassen, 1998). So does that mean the Industrial Revolution was a "bad thing"? No. It means
we, as a society, had to engage, evolve, and create systems of new governance-labor rights,
environmental protections, educational access-to make sure the wealth could be more
equally distributed. This is how I feel about globalization. It has its problems. It always will.
But that doesn't mean we should avoid it. It should motivate us to work harder to level the
playing field, promote more green initiatives, and ensure as many people are part of the
developmental process as possible.

Conclusion: Looking Ahead

Is globalization good for the world? I believe so-but only if we continue to take action to
manage it smartly. The real question is: can we make systems that spread wealth, protect
societyʼs vulnerable and address collective problems that no one country can solve on its
own? That is going to mean more investment in people, better safety nets and more rules for
a human-centered, sustainable planet. I don't pretend to have solutions to all of these
problems. But I do believe that with commitment and imagination we can make globalization
work for more people not less. This is not just a hopeful position. It is a call to action. The
alternative is to turn inward and close out the world. That has never been a path to progress.
If history has taught us anything it is that the future always belongs to the people who are
willing to adapt, learn and connect. And perhaps, that in itself is the best case for
globalization yet.

Bibliography
Friedman, Thomas L. The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century.
Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2005.
Harari, Yuval Noah. 21 Lessons for the 21st Century. Spiegel & Grau, 2018.
Held, David, and Anthony McGrew. Globalization/Anti-Globalization: Beyond the
Great Divide. Polity Press, 2007.
Klein, Naomi. This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate. Simon &
Schuster, 2014.
Piketty, Thomas. Capital and Ideology. Translated by Arthur Goldhammer, Harvard
University Press, 2020.
Sen, Amartya. Development as Freedom. Anchor Books, 1999.
Sassen, Saskia. Globalization and Its Discontents. New Press, 1998.
Stiglitz, Joseph E. Globalization and Its Discontents. W.W. Norton & Company, 2002.

Notes
1.​ Thomas L. Friedman argues that technological advances and global markets
have “flattened” the world, creating equal opportunities for individuals
worldwide (The World Is Flat, 2005).
2.​ Amartya Sen emphasizes that true development entails expanding real
freedoms, including access to education and healthcare, which are essential
for benefiting from globalization (Development as Freedom, 1999).
3.​ Joseph Stiglitz critiques the role of international financial institutions in
exacerbating inequality through mismanaged policies (Globalization and Its
Discontents, 2002).
4.​ Thomas Piketty highlights how wealth accumulation often outpaces economic
growth, leading to increased inequality, especially when capital flows freely
across borders (Capital and Ideology, 2020).
5.​ Naomi Klein connects deregulated capitalism and globalization to
environmental degradation and climate change (This Changes Everything,
2014).
6.​ Yuval Noah Harari discusses the necessity of global cooperation to address
challenges like climate change and pandemics that transcend national
borders (21 Lessons for the 21st Century, 2018).
7.​ Saskia Sassen explores the impact of globalization on cities and communities,
noting both opportunities and dislocations (Globalization and Its Discontents,
1998).