In today contemporary society, the
United States of America has positioned itself well globally and is accredited
for being a commanding force and nerve of global establishments and empires.
According to Kolk and van Tulder (2006),
the United States of America is considered a super power and is arguably one of
the powerful nations around the entire globe. Their power often determines the
nature of international politics, economic and cultural aspects. In addition,
it is also responsible in the formulation of rules that aid in guiding the
nature and state of global integration, trade and diffusion. However, that does
not imply that the United States of America dictates all international players
especially those who are not at the center of power. Economies at the periphery also have a voice
in global matters especially those whose impacts directly affect them. However,
despite having a say in international matters, these economies are not well
positioned to or rarely do they formulates rules and regulations that guide
global integration. More often, they react to already formulated policies and
guidelines. The power of United States has opened up global economies to
international trade. In addition, it has liberalized states by lambasting and
critiquing protectionism measures that were employed by emerging and developing
economies. The United States of America has played a cardinal role in addressing
global poverty. It has done this solely through a number of measures. One
noteworthy measure is through global investments through its domestic companies
that have spread their wings globally. These companies are often called
Multinationals. This essay seeks to ascertain how global poverty,
multinationals and the United States as an international empire are related.
Global poverty is largely intertwined
with multinationals. Multinationals have had relative impact on economic growth
and development of quite a number of economies. Multinationals are foreign
companies that are keen to open up branches in countries not their mother
nation. First, these companies seek to establish business units in economies
where they can have easy access to cheap labor and other resources. Proponents
of globalizations are in full support of the rapid growth and expansion of
multinationals. They assert that, multinationals are responsible for the flow
of wealth to those economies and communities that have embraced them. However,
opponents view multinationals as unnecessary encroachers that are out to fleece
resources of other countries while exploiting its citizens. This is not
necessarily the case because multinationals bring with them additional jobs to
local communities and economies that embrace them. In addition, they help
improve living standards of the populace as they provide easy access to not
only quality but also quantity goods and services which are often subsidized as
compared to those produced by local companies. Looking at the other side of the
coin, multinationals are often keen to establish new branches in new zones or
places where markets are yet to be exploited. Breaking the ground and injecting
capital on new zones are responsible for economic development. Multinationals
strive to ensure that they develop or else improve the infrastructures near the
places of establishment. This opens up the economy for other businesses as
businesses tend to be attracted to places with improved infrastructure. On the
other hand, the influence of multinationals on the formulation and
implementation of national policies cannot be understated. They often guide
government in the development of policy papers that are keen in opening up the
economy to business. Furthermore, these papers are tailored and well aligned to
both the corporate and the public demands (Paupp
and Urbain 2012).
The global influence of the United
States of America has played a major role in reshaping the operations of most
economies. According Aronowitz (2009),
the United States is responsible for the global village concept and the changed
dynamics of political social and economic relations between nations. For
example, it created and advocated for the policies that propagated dynamic
changes in the operations of not only Africa but also the Asian emerging
tigers. The outward policies brought about greater economic prosperity and
transformed East Asia from a very poor region to a remarkably progressive
region. In the contrary, economies that failed to embrace these outward policies
as advanced by United States Policy makers in the late 20th century,
such as Africa and the Latin America were got up in economic stagnation. The
failure to accommodate sound policies led to the deterioration of their social
economic standings. The vicious cycles of poverty together with runaway
inflation gagged the developments of these economies (Aronowitz 2009).
In the 21st century, the
global standing of the United States has engineered a number of changes
directed towards the development of sound economic development policies. Growth
of world markets together with the changes in demand and supply patterns are
some of the aspects responsible for breaking the global vicious cycles of
poverty. To realize the aforementioned, economies need to disband protectionist
measures to be able to fully harness more from their international partners.
The coming in of liberalization together with the breakdown of economic
barriers has spurred development and growth of nations. In addition, the move
has enhanced competition between economies. This economic reforms and adopted
strategies have encouraged the free flow of capital, investors and commodities.
In addition, modern technology has been able to penetrate. Technology has
enhanced ways of doing business and has subsequently reduced the costs of doing
business. The communication costs have also been brought down through the rapid
innovation in the telecommunications sectors. Low costs of communication
together with advanced ecommerce have relatively increased the flow of global
finance. Through the increase in international financial flows, economies have
realized improved levels of economic development and growth. The aforementioned
factors are paramount in breaking the global vicious cycle of poverty (Jain and Vachani 2006).
According to Asiedu and Gyimah-Brempong (2008), the growth of global trade
courtesy of the United States influence has resulted in not only the
improvement of living standards but also the economic standings of economies.
International trade has enhanced economic development and growth through increased
foreign receipts. The increased levels of trading between nations who produce
different goods have enhanced economic growth and developments in economies
relatively because the funds from foreign receipts are incorporated in the
larger plan of a nation. The United States has also advocated for global
research and innovation. Technical know-how and innovations play a cardinal
role in the elimination of global poverty. While there is a general assumption
that the above only happen in developed economies, the same is transferred to
developing economies courtesy of multinationals. It is therefore evident that
the United States plays an integral role in ensuring that no economy is left
behind in matters innovation. Moreover, it is evident that the accrued
advantage could not be a reality if economies were not integrated. The spread
of new innovations is not limited to technological innovations as economics,
political and social knowledge is also exchanged. The transferred knowledge is
therefore coined well to suit the economic needs of an economy. In addition, it
can be packaged and sold to other economies i.e. in terms of labor exchange
programs. The exchange increases the economic receipts of a country and spurs
rapid development internally that subsequently bring down the poverty levels in
a country (Asiedu and Gyimah-Brempong 2008).
Poverty Eradication goes hand in hand
with quality education. The spread of quality education is one of the huge advantageous
effects of the United States Empire. In the 21st century, one is
able to search and enroll in the world best facilities without any controls
courtesy of global educational policies. This implies that one is not limited
to local educational facilities that might otherwise fall short of
expectations. On the other hand, one is able to acquire required knowledge from
one country that is to be utilized in another country without and form of
restriction. Through the influence of the United States, a number of companies
and economies have been encouraged to invest in developing countries. These
investments help the least developing countries increase the foreign exchange
reserves and address issues that bind the populace in abject poverty. In
addition, it provides employment avenues to citizens who will in turn utilize
the earned wages to improve their welfare. Due to the opening up of global
market, economies will tend to produce what it can produce best incurring
minimal costs. This move to inject countries capital on commodities that give
it a competitive advantage globally will enhance economic growth and development
and subsequently bring the poverty levels down
(Bailey 2007).
The economic prosperity of an economy
relies largely on the formulation and subsequent adoption of feasible trade and
investment policies. According to Jain and
Vachani (2006), over a billion jobs currently enjoyed by the global
populace are in one way or another derived courtesy of sound global polices
created by the United States. The rationale behind full realization of global
benefits by an economy is the elimination of trade barriers. Trade barriers
minimize the movement of goods and services between states. Therefore, their
dismantling enhances economic growth and subsequent macroeconomic stability of
an economy. That is possible as exchange between economies is eased. Developing
economies need to support the World Trade Organization on matters trade
liberalization in order for them to address the impending issues of poverty.
The least developed economies often
benefit more from freeing trade. Developing economies accrue subsidies from
developed economies that are channeled to liberal economies. In addition the
increased economic growth and development that is often associated with free
trade brings with it an increase in income
(Paupp and Urbain 2012). Therefore, citizens from these developing
economies are able to improve their living standards through an increase of
income. Moreover, increased foreign investments lead to establishment of new
firms that brings with them new jobs. The unskilled populaces are able to
secure new jobs which transform them to middle class people. The general
improvement people welfare guarantees economic growth of a state. In addition,
it aids in breaking the vicious cycles of poverty. From the above, it is
noteworthy that open economies are able to accrue more benefits from engaging
global partners than their counterparts who are exercising trade protectionism.
Indeed, the benefits associated with liberation outshine the costs associated
with the opening up of an economy to other states. Trade liberalization has
brought with it a lot of benefits to both the developed and the developing
economies. Despite the magnitude of these gains, developing economies are not
able to fully enjoy these gains. That is largely because they still over depend
on developed economies for aid. For example, of all the liberalization gains,
the developing economies only enjoy a 30% with the developed economies going
with the other percentage (Jain and Vachani
2006). However, the developing economies can still tighten its borrowing
policies to ensure that it equally enjoys the benefits from trade
liberalization and free market. Despite the amount of benefits harnessed from accessing
the market of a trading partner, countries are better placed to benefit
massively by freeing their own markets. However, industrial economies are well
placed to accrue more gains given they remove protectionism policies in their
agricultural markets. Industrial economies have often been lambasted for not
liberalizing the agriculture. These economies are associated with high
protection measures that are often derived from high tariff levels. According to Aronowitz (2009), agriculture has the highest
average of tariff when compared with manufacturing i.e. it is nine times
higher. This showcases agriculture as one of the areas that need a lot of
consideration in matters liberalization. The developing economies are also
better placed to benefit from the liberalization of agriculture. However, those
economies with relatively low income have great potential of gaining a lot from
the liberalization of Agriculture. This is relatively because they are largely
depended on it for survival and growth. In addition, a good number of its
citizens are dependent on agriculture meaning the sector affects them directly.
The livelihood of most developing
countries is agriculture. That is, their foreign receipts are largely inclined
towards agriculture. This is so because agricultural produce make up a major
part of their exports. For agricultural exports, protectionism and tariffs pose
a major threat to the survival and subsequent thriving of the economies (Jain and Vachani 2006). Developing countries
look up to agriculture to address the United Nations Millennium development
goals. The global agriculture trade is a cardinal issue that cannot be brushed
off easily when it comes to international trade. Problems associated with
global trading of agricultural produce have advanced effects on developing
economies simply because agriculture is their primary source of export. In
addition, agriculture is the source of livelihood for most citizens in these
countries. Therefore, to matters appertaining to global poverty, issues surrounding
agriculture need to be solved. This will enable developing countries contain
the acute poverty levels as well as position themselves well globally by
enhancing sound relations with their trading partners (Asiedu and Gyimah-Brempong 2008).
Developing economies are faced with
acute problems that are often interrelated. First is the issue of global market
instability. Instability in the global market largely hampers the development
capabilities of developing economies (Kolk and
van Tulder 2006). Decline in the export price of agricultural produce
jeopardizes the competitiveness of the third world countries. This is because
it their foreign exchange receipts are largely affected. In addition,
considering these economies rely primarily on agriculture, its citizens will
not be able to meet the ever rising cost of living. Secondly, the capacity of
these economies also does not match the international demands. This alienates
them from the derivation of enough benefits from their exports. Thirdly, developing
economies have continually tightened their protection policies related to
agriculture. This rapidly hampers their chances of benefiting from global trade
because the policies curtail free movement of goods from other trading states.
Finally, developing countries lack the production capacity that is able to
quench global market thirst. This is a cardinal reason why the less developed
economies are unable to accrue full benefits from global trade. To address
these impending problems related to agricultural trade, the United States of
America being a super power and having a lot of global influence needs to exert
more pressure on developing economies. This will see them drop their
protectionism measures and ease the movement of products across borders (Jain and Vachani 2006).
In conclusion, the United States of
America has been instrumental in the formulation of sound policies that have
opened up the world and brought solutions to the impending global problem of
poverty. From the above discussion, it is apparent that multinationals have
played a cardinal role in breaking the vicious cycles of poverty by creating
opportunities to individual citizens and economies as a whole. In addition, it
is evident that the corporation between states has relatively increased the
level of capital investments that have consequently opened up growth
opportunities. Moreover, economies have been able to break the vicious cycles
of poverty. The aforementioned was made possible by the sprouting of new
companies that created employment avenues to the masses. However, the ultimate
gains associated with the influence of the United States of America are yet to
be fully realized. That is so because quite a number of developing economies
still embrace protective policies. In the other hand, some who have embrace
free market are not able to derive the full benefits as they are still gagged
by foreign debt burden. Finally, it is evident that issues surrounding global
trade, the place of multinationals and the United States as being an empire are
largely intertwined.
Bibliography
Aronowitz, Stanley. Implicating Empire. New York:
Basic Books, 2009.
Asiedu, Elizabeth, and Kwabena Gyimah-Brempong. "The
Effect of the Liberalization of Investment Policies on Employment and
Investment of Multinational Corporations in Africa." African
Development Review 20, no. 1 (2008): 49-66.
Bailey, Robert. "Multinational Corporations and Global
Poverty Reduction." Development in Practice 17, no. 3 (2007):
451-452.
Jain, Subhash, and Sushil Vachani. Multinational
corporations and global poverty reduction. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2006.
Kolk, Ans, and Rob van Tulder. "Poverty alleviation as
business strategy? Evaluating commitments of frontrunner Multinational
Corporations." World Development 34, no. 5 (2006): 789-801.
Paupp, Terrence, and Olivier Urbain. Beyond Global Crisis:
Remedies and road maps by daisaku ikeda and his contemporaries. New Jersey:
Transaction Publishers, 2012.
No comments:
Post a Comment