As we begin to cover the economic facet of globalization it is important to categorize the globe. There is a world systems theory that addresses this idea. When we were brainstorming in class the categories that we came up with are the first, second, and third worlds. We also covered developed and underdeveloped but how do we come up with these categories. Is it fair to break down the world based on the "haves" and the "have-nots"? I realize in order to study the globe and try to get a grasp on the economic growth we have to put up the lines somewhere but could we look at it from a different angle?
As I write this I know that much of the economy and capitalism is based on money. Since these categorizations are mostly formed on GDP and other branches connecting to tangible money in the country it does make sense. Also, if we are accepting capitalism as a strong component to our world's economy then I suppose looking at the financial status of a country as a way of categorization is acceptable. My argument is whether in today's day and age, if it is just.
The link I have connected to the blog gives a plethora of information on underdeveloped and developed countries. It states, "...37 of the 46 states ranked as having low human development are located in Africa." My next point is that since we are studying globalization and know that underdeveloped countries exist why are we not stepping up our game? The developed countries should see this as an opportunity to share the wealth both literally and figuratively. If each country is seen to have a role then as a world we should be working together as a team to be victorious. Each country has something unique to offer and instead of working to capitalize the money for one given country there should be a sense of good for all. I think there is a way to add the cohesive cement to the global economy to keep the cycle functioning but better yet, balanced.
Link--> http://www.globalization101.org/the-divide-between-developed-and-developing-countries
No comments:
Post a Comment