Globalization is the new wave across any country, from the days of Export and Import trade to the modern day’s outsourcing, countries are now wide open to accept people from different corners of the world. Is this Globalization a threat to native citizens of that particular place?
Let’s analyze the country India, with more than 25 states and population of over a billion, India is now widely open to western trade and culture. With IT hubs like Bangalore and Pune becoming more significant on the world map, India is slowly emerging as 21st century’s most influential country but what’s going on inside the country is staggering. Recently the commercial capital of India, Mumbai was tattered into pieces when one of their leaders raised voice against increasing number of people from the neighbouring states thus slenderizing the space for native residents. Cities like Bangalore have increasing number of outside population with only 30% of original inhabitants according to the latest census. Riots erupted across India over the issue of increasing population of north Indians in the state of Maharastra. Is this a political game to gain mileage or a frustration of locals; the reason is still unknown.
When asked; the locals say that they need more space in their own territory where as on the other side the immigrants claim that they relocate just to earn their daily bread. Countries like United States of America who were more open to accept people from all over the world are now slowly turning towards the alarming level of immigration.
A survey of New York City households taken by the US Census Bureau in 1999 has revealed that 40 percent of the city’s 7.4 million people are now foreign-born. This figure quantifies and confirms what is apparent on the city’s streets, subways and in other public places. Roughly 100,000 immigrants have been arriving and making New York City their home each year for the past decade. One million have come since 1990. This has meant an almost incredible jump in the percentage of foreign-born New Yorkers, from 28 to 40 percent, in less than ten years. Immigration has of course been a widespread phenomenon in the past 50 years. Canada and Australia, with major metropolises such as Toronto and Sydney, have been greatly changed by this process.
Most major cities in the US have also seen their share of immigration. It all boils to one question finally; that between this race of “SPACE” and “BREAD” who should be protected by the government? The locals want more space, the immigrants want more money, is it a crime to relocate? Or is it a crime not to adapt to that particular region?
“Who’s city is it anyway?” does it belong to the native residents or the occupants who work day in and day out and in that process making the city more prosperous.
There are many questions unanswered and the only sufferer is yet again the common man.
Download Wallpaper: 
February 23rd, 2008 at 9:38 am
I believe you have answered your own question- it belongs to no ‘one’.
Within the next 40 years the artificial barriers of regions, nations and nationalism created by man will be overshadowed- aleast in practice and purpose, if not geographical lines, i.e assuming globalisation continues at its ccurrent pace(which i am extremely skeptical about).
In recent decades, political economy has gained new juice and importance however is losing ground as research is exposing the very basis and gut of its practice and thought.
Is globalisation itself the problem or has it helped is identify our inherent problems? I would argue in favour of the latter and would further elaborate through my post on the ‘Economic Wheel’ in the weeks to come.
February 26th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Abhishek…interesting analysis. I’m intrigued, however, by your closing assertion:
‘There are many questions unanswered and the only sufferer is yet again the common man.’
Who exactly is this common man? The immigrants and natives you talk about…are they not ‘common men’?
February 27th, 2008 at 4:54 am
Hi Tahera, well i was pointing both the natives and immigrants in the last line, and as you have pointed out, both are common man and both are suffering against globalization. That’s why i concluded as irrespective of what ever happens the suffer will be the middle class common man.
February 27th, 2008 at 9:38 am
becoz- the common man is inflexible due to the lack of opportunities interms of education offered to him. Inaddition, to the mentality and reality grilled into his mind and surroundings multiplied by the neighbourhood effect.
Therefore, whose fault is it aneway-
The society? The policy makers? or Globalisation?
Surely not globalisation and maybe not even the policy maker, not over a short term atleast, and only if so i.e if they still havent made needed changes to breech and change the structural rigities.
February 27th, 2008 at 9:52 am
Daer Abhishek,
I am extremely perplexed by the argument that the middle class common man suffers, specifically in the case of India where immense market opportunities have been attained by the middle class, within and outside the country (from a producer and a consumer perspective) - evident by the very expansion of the segment of the tier itself due to globalisation.
If anything, it is the lower class- due to the rigities ingrilled through society which have worsely effected his reality, and that even due to the instincts of protectionism that we have been socialised into, rather than globalisation as a cause.
Running way from competition is never a progressive solution, rather accepting and taking it on the face is the way forward, atleast as long term solution.
February 27th, 2008 at 11:18 am
Hi Ali,
I, completely agree with your point that middle class are more profited from globalization, Every country has its own share when it comes to globalization but what i tried to tell was “is this facotr affecting the locals?” Natives think that they are outfoxed, it could be a different way they see things but should Immigrants adjust to the local environment? is that factor justified? cities like Newyork (USA), bangalore(India) are becoming more legible on the world map. So what about the tradition or customs of that particular region are they getting faded by this ‘Occupancy’ factor? this was my question and point. Just a small example, to support my point, taking my home city Bangalore’s condition, there are number of old food joints which are slowly being shut down due to heavy influx of people who do not prefer old style eating anymore! What is their condition now? Small scale shops are being substituted by huge malls, now who is responsible for the loss of locals, Definately an unanswerable Question but surely a point to think.
February 27th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Agreed- the very same way the hunters from the pre-medieval times, who were providing for their own family and had a subsistence driven business lost to the small scale shops who started catering beyond self sufficency.
Change is inevitable, we live a post fordism age, in an age of diversification, agglomeration, clustering and balancing between large and small scale activity. Their riots explain the discomfort to change, not neccessarily Globalisation itself.
Yes, Globalisation has amalgamated societies to quite an extend, therefore we live a world with converging social norms- However, far from one.
To take it further, it is not a one-way road. India, like many other post colonial nations, have accepted western thought, culture and stream of life, atleast interms of the elite block and influence. However, it is important to note that India itself has benefitted tremenduously from Globalisation and the exosure to the larger market. Hence, the ability to export its culture, practice and the nation in its pure form through Indian Cinema.
‘Bollywood’ has had an immense impact economically and socially in spreading the hype India is on today- therefore it is 2 way road in export and import of culture.
Another positive to note as a consequence of Globalisation.