Is the Global Environment at the mercy of Global Politics?

Over the last century or so, environmental problems have become increasingly globalised in nature. Problems such as ozone depletion and acid rain have the ability to transcend borders and their effects can be felt across many nations. Poorer nations often have trouble to adequately deal with environmental problems, and are often forced to seek the help of more developed nations. Often times, this results in nations banding together to assist one another, resulting in international cooperation where the participants believe they will all be able to benefit from fixing or preventing environmental problems. However, even in these situations, some nations could stand to benefit from their inaction, leaving other nations to do the work for them.

International environmental issues are often dominated by developed nations, chief among which is the United States (US). These countries have a large say in the way in which environmental treaties and protocols turn out mainly because of the huge political and economic clout which they possess in the international scene. Also, the steps which such nations chose to take often have bearing on the decisions made by other nations, particularly developing nations. A good example is that of the lack of action done by the US to combat the high rates of carbon emissions, of which the US is the number one producer of in the world. As shown in the article the ‘Protection of the atmospheric commons’, by Mark Seis, not only does the US continue to be the largest producer of carbon emissions, her inaction to reduce the amount of carbon emissions has made it ‘difficult to persuade industrializing nations to slow their rate of carbon emissions and look to alternative technologies.’¹ Besides that, industrializing nations also choose to sit out from actively participating in international environmental discourses because they feel that the economic situation is not beneficial for them, and many times, such states often see if there are perks such as technical and financial assistance involved before deciding if they will participate in the international environmental policies.

However, states are often pluralistic entities consisting of more than simply just the government, and it would be naive to think that global environmental politics is simply dominated by governments. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and corporations, particularly big multinational corporations (MNCs), often play vital roles in contributing to the global environment. NGOs, especially environmental ones can be particularly effective with regards to global environmental issues, as they have the ability to pressure governments to implement domestic policies which would contribute to the overall environmental well being. Big corporations also play an important part in influencing global environmental policy, as it is often their actions which can lead to environmental problems in the first place. Corporations often have to consider the bottom line, which in their case is cost, and the processes which they adopt often reflect this. Developing countries often have lax pollution controls, which often leads to MNCs to site their most environmentally unfriendly operations in such nations.²

In conclusion, as mentioned above, there are a number of actors whom all play a part in global environmental policy. However, the power to influence environmental policies resides very much in the hands of governments. This is because they have the authority needed to enforce policies and control other actors such as corporations to operate according to a certain standard. Thus, the sooner governments realise that local activities can have ultimately global effects, and that the effects of environmental problems that appear only to be global can be felt in local ways, the sooner efforts to protect the global environment can be implemented and succeed.³

¹ Mark Seis “Protection of the Atmospheric Commons.’ In Introducing Global Issues. S.a. Snarr, Lynn Renier.

² Robert J. Brym and John Lie. 2007. Sociology: Your compass for a new world. Thomson Wadsworth

³ Elizabeth R. DeSombre. 2007. The Global Environment and World Politics. Continuum Publishing Group.

Corruption of values in society – A product of the mass media?

The inventions of the television (TV) and the radio signalled a radical change in communications around the world. With these inventions, information could be transmitted across vast distances, and in the case of the TV, images could be broadcast to the masses. With the rapid advances in technology over the past few decades, these tools of mass communication have experienced massive improvements. For example, with the advent of satellite communications, TV programmes could now be transmitted across vast distances around the world in an instant. This means that information can now be spread throughout the world efficiently and rapidly.

However, modern forms of mass media have often been lambasted as the ‘bane of society’. This is because tools of mass media such as the TV often broadcast programmes which are often focused on subjects such as sex, drugs or violence. Thus, they are often blamed for the erosion of cultural values all over the world, and also linked to problems such as rising crime rates among youths and the increasingly promiscuous sexual behaviour exhibited among adolescents. Also, the ideas shown through mediums such as movies and television dramas are often blamed for inculcating an ‘individualistic’ culture into impressionable youths, causing the ‘rebellious’ nature to arise within youths.

As can be seen from the above, the messages that come from the media are almost always directed towards the youth. Over the last couple of decades, the content of the mass media has evolved radically. In the past, movies, music and television tended to be generally more conservative in nature, with regards to their content, usually shying away from topics such as sex, drugs and alcohol. In contrast, the content shown nowadays is rather blatant in the way that they portray all the above mentioned vices. The effect on society, specifically the youth, is rather obvious especially in developed nations, where the youth have easy access to the mass media. Rising rates of drug abuses, teenage pregnancies and youth criminal activities have become commonplace throughout the world.

So has anything been done to curb the spread of these social problems? There have been efforts by governments as well as media companies to regulate the flow of information, and also controlling the content that is shown in programmes and movies. This is done through censorship, where viewership is controlled by setting limits. One example is Singapore, where there is a government censorship board, which classifies movies according to ages, restricting people below the age limit from watching certain movies which may be considered inappropriate due to the content. Also, many religious groups often urge their followers, especially the youths to reject the hedonistic lifestyles which are often portrayed in the mass media and return to the fundamentals of religion. However, as effective as these steps are to protect the youth from the mass media, there is a limit to its effectiveness.

In conclusion, ‘it is unlikely the adolescent comes to the media with great naiveté, and it is equally unlikely that the adolescent comes away from the media unaffected’.¹ So long as there is an audience for content such as sex and violence, such content will continue to be available. Society’s task must then be to influence what the youths ultimately do with such content and how it shapes them.

¹ ‘Media, Sex and the Adolescent’ by Bradley S. Greenberg, Jane D. Brown and Nancy L. Buerkel-Rothfuss

Reasons behind the disparity in healthcare in the USA

As one of the most technologically advanced nations in the world, the United States of America (USA) is home to some of the best hospitals in the world, with highly advanced medical equipment, and also the base for many globally renowned medical personnel. This makes the widespread inequality in healthcare in the USA all the more confusing to the casual observer. So how is it that a country with such abundant medical resources, still have problems in bridging these gaps?

The main problem lies in the way in which the healthcare system in the US works. In the US, the healthcare system is dominated by the major health insurance companies.  These insurance companies work on the basis of providing subsidised medical care to everyone. However, in actual fact this is often not the case. This is due to the high premiums that people are required to pay in order to enjoy the benefits of medical insurance. Thus, even though it would seem like a great idea paper, in practice, the idea of subsidised medical care through medical insurance fails to achieve its objectives.

What this has caused, is the increased social stratification in American society, where good medical care only reaches those who can afford it, rather than the entire public. This laissez-faire system of health care has resulted in fifteen percent of the population, or about 37 million citizens being unable to afford health insurance or coverage, and this figure is one of the highest among developed nations.¹ The effects of the inequalities that have resulted, can be best seen in the documentary ‘Sicko’, directed by Michael Moore, in which he travelled around the United States interviewing ordinary citizens and asking them on their views about the current healthcare system. He then proceeded to other developed nations to find out more about their respective healthcare systems and compare them with that of the US. What the documentary succeeded in showing is the failure of the US healthcare system to provide basic medical care to the ordinary person. Of particular note to me, was the example of a man who had lost one of his fingers due to a workplace accident. Even though the severed portion of the finger was recovered, he chose to forgo the surgery to attach the severed portion, simply because he was not covered by medical insurance and the costs were simply prohibitive.

So what then has been done to improve this situation? The answer is frankly, very little. Proposals to introduce plans to reform the healthcare system have been put forth in the American Congress, but none of them have become permanent. One good example is that of the 1993-1994 Health Security proposal made by the then President Bill Clinton. In the face of rising health care costs, President Clinton decided to put forward a proposal, ‘that would guarantee basic health care for all Americans.’² However, his efforts were thwarted by an aggressive media campaign, funded by health insurance companies and political opponents, which ultimately turned the public against the proposal, and it was rejected by the Congress.

In conclusion, as long as the US health care system continues to be dominated by the health insurance companies, the ultimate loser stands to be the ordinary citizen, whose very health depends upon the whims of these companies.

¹‘Comparing Health Care Systems: What makes sense for the US?’ by Ed Cooper & Liz Taylor

²‘The Great Health Care Debate of 1993-94′ by Derek Bok

Urbanization, an unavoidable consequence of Globalization?

In countries all around the world, urbanization is occurring at a phenomenal rate. Rural workers, in search of employment and the promise of a better life in the cities, flock there like bees to honey. Once there, many of them find out that the reality is often much harsher than what they expected. So what was it that caused them to have a desire to move out from the countryside into these ‘concrete jungles’? This shift from rural to urban areas is caused by industrialization, which results in a decline in the agricultural sector of a country, thus causing a rise in the industrial sector.

This trend can be attributed to the process of globalization, whereby nations’ economies and cultures become increasingly intertwined with each other. Capitalism, which is the main form of market in almost every country to a certain degree, encourages a free market, and is often marked by the rapid industrialization of countries, with the most marked changes often seen in the development of industries which often contribute to the growth of urban areas.

As stated by Canadian urbanist Jane Jacobs, cities are seen as the necessary engines of productivity, creativity and prosperity for their countries.¹ She goes on further to elaborate that even though not all urban dwellers are exactly living in excellent standards, they often earn higher salaries, and are generally better off due to easy access to services such as schools and hospitals. Therefore, people from the rural areas still continue to move into urban areas even though the opportunities available are generally few and far between. This is further supported by Michael Lipton, a British social scientist who coined this ‘urban bias’, whereby city life is often better because governments often utilise the resources from the rural area to use in urban areas, where their main bases of power often lie. Thus, often times, sprawling metropolises, which are the bases for the ruling and corporate elites, determine the direction in which countries move towards.

 With globalization, there has been much discourse over whether there has been a homogenization or specifically an ‘Americanization’ of culture – or more specifically a McWorld.² This has caused a sense of ‘individualism’ to develop among the younger generation, and this has transpired itself in Urbanisation, in that many younger people tend to leave their villages in order to seek for more opportunities in order to lead a better life for themselves. For example, in China, many young adults leave their home towns and travel to the major cities to look for jobs. In the cities, they are exposed more to communication tools such as the radio and television, than in their own home towns.   Thus, they may be exposed to Western culture through these communication mediums and develop their own ideas about how they should live their lives. As a result, many of them decide to settle down permanently in the cities instead of moving back to their hometowns, as they believe that in the city, they would be able to earn enough for their families and themselves, compared to if they moved back to their places of origin.

In conclusion, with the spread of this new world culture, as well as the fact that many cities dominate social, political and economic life in many countries, thus globalization will continue to be linked inextricably to Urbanisation.

¹ Global Problems: The Search for Equity, Peace and Sustainability’ by Scott Sernau

²“Modernization’s challenge to traditional values: who’s afraid of Ronald McDonald?’ by Ronald Inglehart& Wayne E. Baker.

Racial and Religious Conflict – A product of ‘identity’?

Throughout the history of mankind, racial and religious conflict has occurred on a regular basis. Different racial and religious groups always seem to clash over obvious differences in beliefs, physical and cultural differences. However, if one delves deeper, the individual ‘identities’ which each different groups possess, might also play a big part in explaining why these clashes occur on such a frequent basis.

In conflict zones all over the world, violence from a certain ethnic or religious group towards another seems to occur simply because they appear different and thus inferior in the group’s eyes or because they cannot tolerate the existence of the opposite group’s beliefs. Examples of these include the bloodshed that occurred between the Hutu and Tutsis in Rwanda, where the people were killed just because they looked like a Hutu or Tutsi.

But, can the roots of such violence be blamed on the fact that different groups simply detest each other because of outward appearances and beliefs? 

If you look closely at any of the so called ethnic or religious groups in the world or in any country, what one finds is that each ‘group’ is in fact made up many individually diverse persons. So what is it that causes a bunch of people to group together and find fault and start to use violence against other groups of people?

The main reason would be the existence of ‘identities’, which as is obvious allows for a group of people to identify with each other and thus form groups in which the group looks after the interests of each and every individual in the group. As mentioned in ‘The politics of identity’, by Kwame Anthony Appiah, kindness in terms of treatment is often accorded to fellow in-group members, while the opposite, is true when it comes to dealing with individuals who are not part of the group.

A good example of the above mentioned concept of ‘identities’ and the senseless violence that can erupt, is the conflict between the Sunni and Shiite Muslims in Iraq. Sunnis and Shiites differ from each other in terms of religious doctrine in very minor details. Also, in Iraq itself the interaction and intermarrying between members of the two sects is so prevalent that it is almost impossible to distinguish who is from which sect. So how is it that religious sectarian violence still occurs with such a lack of reason? This is due to the fact that in Iraq, people often classify others as Sunnis or Shiites based purely on assumptions such as accents, attires or even based on the surname of the person. As stated in ‘The politics of identity’, ‘… because social identities are associated with norms of behaviour…’ Thus, people ‘identify’ each other based on shared ‘cultures’ and appearances rather than on religious sectarian differences.

In conclusion, although many racial and religious groups continue to be in conflict with each other based on supposedly ‘obvious’ differences, the real reason is mainly the existence of ‘identities’, which is the real reason for the creation of such violence.

Is Democracy dead?

As noted by a prominent political analyst, Fareed Zakaria,¹ the world has been shaped over the last century by the meteoric rise in democracy around the world. In countries the world over, power has been transferred into the hands of the people, and the common citizen now has the freedom to select who comes into power and how the nation is run. However, if one delves deeper and takes a good look at the so called ‘democratic’ processes in many countries, one may begin to wonder if there is indeed any ‘democracy’ at all.

In this essay, I would like to show examples of how countries whose governments claim to be democratic, have instead caused a decline in the level of ‘democracy’ in the respective nations and the reasons behind them.

One of the most wealthy and powerful nations in the world is Russia. Formed from the breakup of the Soviet Union, Russia possesses much resources, has a strong military and a government with huge political clout throughout the world. With the demise of communism, and the emergence of a democratic system in its place, Russians have experienced an enormous increase in individual freedom. Where previously under the Communist government, there was no chance for an individual to amass his or her own personal fortune, with all the restrictions lifted, each citizen was free to decide what path to take in life.

However, with the rise of Vladimir Putin to power as President of Russia, the democratic process has experienced a sharp decline with respect to the fairness and freedom associated to Democracy. With his appointment as President, he immediately set about trying to restore Russia back to its ‘former glory’. Among other things, Putin revived the Nationalist fervour among ordinary Russians, and this brought about a feeling of loyalty among them both towards the country and to the ruling party. Also, he began to surround himself with rich and powerful elites, and has in essence created an Oligarchy which masquerades as a ‘democratic government’. By placing all his allies and friends in positions of power, he effectively held all the financial clout in the country which meant that he had the power to steer the country in the way he saw best fit.

Once Putin had the support of all the rich and powerful in Russia and had friends in all the crucial ministerial positions, he started to consolidate his base of power by squeezing the life out of the democratic process in Russia. He did this by implementing policies and passing new laws which made it all but impossible for anyone to set up a new political party, or if the party already existed, that it would be virtually impossible to continue in its existence. Failing that, he can count on the help of election officials, who can influence the vote. Take for example Viktor Solokov, a retired teacher who wanted to vote for Yabloko, a Russian opposition party in the recently held 2008 regional elections. He was barred from voting due to his building number not being listed on the election database. This even though he has been living in the same place for 35 years.²

With such blatant disregard for the democratic processes and democracy in general, why is it that in general, there has not been a widespread show of unhappiness towards the government? This is due to the fact that the President enjoys widespread support, not just among the elites, but also among the populous. A good indicator of this is the number of phone calls which he receives during the one day every year where any citizen can call him and appeal to him about a problem.³ The sheer number and the ardour of the appeals show that he is a well supported President, whom the people trust to lead the nation.

Thus, it can be seen as in the case of Russia, even though democracy belongs to the people, those in power can twist it for their own means, such that the general populace supports anything that it says, even believing that it is ‘Democracy’.

^1′Global Problems: The Search for Equity, Peace and Sustainability’ by Scott Sernau

² ‘Putin Seizes Total Control of 2008 “Election” Sham’ http://larussophobe.wordpress.com/2007/03/08/putin-seizes-total-control-of-2008-election-sham/

3Time Magazine (December 31 2007/ January 7 2008 issue) A Tsar is Born by Adi Ignatius

The illegal global arms trade

The illegal global arms trade continues to be the proverbial thorn in the side of many International Organizations and national governments the world over. Even though there are many tough international and national laws banning the illegal flow of weapons, this trade continues to flourish around the world. As a result, illegal weapons still continue to flow into the hands of street gangs as well as rival factions in conflicts throughout the world, particularly in Asia and Africa.

One of the main sources of illegal arms are the countries of the former Soviet Union, a case in point being that of the Ukraine. Being part of the former Soviet Union, the Ukraine had a heavy military presence within its borders throughout the course of the Cold war. With the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the Ukraine became a newly independent nation and almost immediately started to downsize her military. Thus, a sizable amount of weapons fell into disuse. This provided fertile grounds for an illegal arms black market to flourish, and in the years following Ukraine’s independence, many of these ‘forgotten’ weapons found their way into the hands of paramilitary and rebel groups in conflict zones such as Afghanistan and Sierra Leone. According to an inquiry by the Ukrainian parliament, the country lost an estimated $32 billion worth of military assets from 1992 to 1998, mainly due to theft, illegal arms sales and lack of oversight.¹

Also guilty for contributing to the illegal arms trade are unscrupulous businessmen, who are just looking to make money without worrying about the serious consequences on human life that follow. One of the most infamous was a Russian arms dealer, Viktor Bout. A former officer in the Soviet military, Viktor Bout gained notoriety throughout the international community due to his heavy involvement in the illegal global arms trade. Taking advantage of the vast amounts of military material sitting around after the breakup of the Soviet Union, Bout quickly built up an empire based on the shipment of arms. This was done by setting up many ‘shell’ companies as a front for illegal arms trafficking. Such was his clout, that he was able to influence the outcome of a conflict by supplying both sides in a conflict. For example, during the 1990s, he supplied both the Taliban government in Afghanistan, as well as the Northern Alliance, a rebel group which opposed the Taliban.²   

However, the flourishing of the illegal arms trade should not be seen as just the fault of unstable governments and unscrupulous businessmen. Government figures are also often guilty for fuelling the trade by silently supporting and even getting involved in the trade. One excellent example of such a case is that of the former Argentinean President Carlos Menem, who was arrested in 2001 for having sold 6500 tonnes of arms illegally to Croatia and Ecuador in between 1991 and 1995 in violation of international arms embargoes. ³ More recently, the United States government was left red-faced when it was found that they had hired some companies linked to Viktor Bout in their efforts in the war in Iraq.⁴

In conclusion, the illegal arms trade has swelled in recent years, and despite close attention from the international community, will continue to flourish as long as conflict and violence are present in the world.

¹ http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/sierraleone/context.html

^2′Merchant of Death’ by Douglas Farah & Stephen Braun

³www.thegully.com

⁴http://www.motherjones.com/news/update/2004/09/09_413.html

The persistence of conflict in the world

Throughout the history of mankind, warfare has been an ever present feature. In the first half of the 20th century, the world bore witness to 2 large scale conflicts, World War 1 and 2. These conflicts were characterised by the sheer number of troops and equipment, as well as the widespread destruction caused. In recent decades, warfare has generally been conducted on a smaller scale. These conflicts are characterised by their low intensity and guerrilla warfare. However, these conflicts often last many years, and in terms of human and financial costs are more often than not on par or even more costly than high intensity conflicts. So what is the reason behind the persistence of conflicts around the world in modern society?

 

Around the world, there have been many small scale conflicts that have come about as a result of racial and religious differences. One of the most prolonged of such conflicts is that in Sri Lanka. Since 1975, there has been a conflict between the minority Hindu, Tamil speaking community and the majority Buddhist, Sinhalese speaking community. Even though there have been numerous attempts by neighbouring countries such as India and international organizations such as the UN to bring a halt to the conflict, none of have brought a lasting end to the violence which has brutalized the entire society. Like many other similar conflicts around the world, the Sri Lankan conflict is characterised by a minority, rebel group in this case the Tamil tigers, against a superior force, in this case the Sri Lankan government which is mainly made up of Sinhalese, who make up the majority of the population in Sri Lanka. Conflict persists in this case as with many others due to the fact that both warring factions are unable to come to a satisfactory conclusion in which both sides feel that their interests are secure. This is due to the distrust which both factions view each other with over racial and religious lines. For example, the Tamil tigers believe that the Sinhalese Buddhist majority (the Sri Lankan government) will never treat the Hindu Tamil minority as equals, thus they believe that the only way to secure this goal is through violence. On the flip side, the Sri Lankan government often shows its biasness in its policies which favour the Sinhalese majority, while at the same time limiting the prospects of the Tamil minority.

 

Another major factor which causes conflict is the presence of natural resources and minerals in an area. A case in point is the Democratic Republic of Congo, previously known as the Zaire, which has been wracked in violence throughout its turbulent history. A country which is the size of western Europe, it is rich in natural resources such as water and valuable minerals such as diamonds. However, instead of bringing peace and prosperity to the nation, it has instead led to much violence and misery to the people. Even though the various internal factions in the nation seem to be fighting over political reason, much of the fighting is motivated over control of the plentiful natural and mineral resources. This has been aggravated by the presence of national and international companies and other nations who have a vested interest in the outcome of the conflict as they seek to exploit the abundant resources in the country. The conflict has its roots from the Belgian colonial period, where the Belgian colonial government plundered natural resources from the country, with the native population receiving minimal benefit from this exploitation. After the overthrow of the dictator Mobutu Sese Soko in 1997, the country plunged into civil war, with the country divided into different factions supposedly fighting for political reason when in fact they were each trying to secure resources for themselves. This fighting was made further worse by factions from neighbouring countries, who were also trying to gain resources for their own gain and companies whose demand for certain resources have indirectly affected the fighting.

 

Thus, racial and religious divides, as well as the presence of resources or the lack thereof, will ensure that conflicts will endure for the foreseeable future to come in all corners of the globe.

 

Sources

1) Time Magazine (April 16, 2007 issue) ‘Endless war’ by Simon Robinson

2) http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/kongdix.htm

The changing roles of parents in our modern world

The stereotypical image of the role of the mother in family, is that of the stay-at-home mom, one who does is not actively pursuing a career, but instead devotes all her time to taking care of the children and settling all the house chores. However, in the Modern world which we now live in, the roles which women play in households now have changed radically.

In the past, the roles that a father had in the family was to be the sole breadwinner, while his wife would stay at home and nurture the young. Nowadays, with the increased education among women, and the high costs of living, the role of the woman has changed, to sharing the burden of providing for the family with her husband.

A good example of this trend can be found in the Middle East, where women are usually confined to traditional roles. In the past few years, restrictions on women have begun to ease around the region, and many countries have allowed women to have a greater say with regards to the finances of their own individual families. This means that women can now deal in things such as trading stocks as well as managing their own family’s wealth. As stated by Shamsa Noor Ali Rashid, a board member of a fund started by a Dubai firm for female investors, “Women are becoming more empowered in dealing with their wealth”. ¹

On the flip side, such trends have led to some interesting results, especially within families in developed nations. One of the results is that in many families, both parents are sharing the workload, supporting the family economically, as well as taking turns with the household chores and looking after the children.

This had led to a gradual reverse in roles between men and women in today’s society, as we can see more and more career-minded women, who place their pursuit of career before their family. On the other hand, men are increasingly devoting more and more of their time to their children. A recent survey conducted in the US among young fathers found that 32% of them dedicate more time to their children than their jobs. ²

Moreover, in everyday life as well as in the press, we can see stereotypes about the roles of parents. Magazines on effective fathering are now more prevalent than ever, and in many shows that we see nowadays, men are just as likely to be seen cooking and cleaning as woman. Even male politicians are often seen with their children at social functions. Thus, as Masahiro Endo, a gas station owner from Japan succinctly puts it, “Women are doing it, so why can’t men?” ³  

In conclusion, as the roles of both men and women in Today’s societies continue to evolve, stereotypical images of what men and women were supposed to be like will be torn down, and in the future, there may even be a social reversal of roles.

 

¹ Time magazine (September 8, 2008 issue) ‘Money talks’ by Carla Power

² Time magazine (November 26, 2007 issue) “Fatherhood 2.0″ by Lisa Cullen & Lev Grossman

³ Time Magazine (April 16, 2007 issue) “Dad’s dilemma” by Liam Fitzpatrick

THE UNEVEN IMPACT OF TRADE IN THE WORLD

In the modern world that we now live in, the economies of all nations are, to a certain extent Capitalistic in nature. Through the globalisation of work and trade, all nations are directly or indirectly linked together. However, the new “global economy” has not eliminated perpetual economic problems facing the world, such as poverty and the uneven distribution of wealth, but in fact has caused these problems to become even more pronounced.

 

This imbalance can not only be seen between respective nations, but also within the different financial classes that exist in every nation. Excellent examples of such a case are the African nations of Angola and Mauritius. Even though both nations are currently experiencing strong economic growth, the difference in the outcomes between both nations is startling. Mauritius, a small island nation off the coast of mainland Africa, is among the most developed nations in Africa. Even though it is relatively bereft of natural resources, it boasts a per capita GDP of US$13700 and the citizens enjoy free education and health care ¹. Angola is a nation of around 12 million people in south-western Africa, which is currently enjoying an economic boom mainly due to the discovery of oil in the country. However, even though the economy grew 35% in 2007 ², most of the people of Angola continue to suffer in poverty. So how can it be that both countries experience such positive growth but experience such contrasting fortunes? The main reason lies in the way which companies operate and also their treatment of workers. In Mauritius, the government imposes low taxes and implement business-friendly policies, which attract companies the world over to come and set up shop. The same cannot be said of Angola. Even with the huge economic potential of oil, the government is rife with corruption, and most of the gains end up with government figures and company elites. Another reason is that the government of Angola refuses to diversify the economy, resulting in the country being over reliant on oil for its income.

 

Within each nation, the government of each and every individual nation faces the never ending quest to eradicate unemployment. Companies throughout the world are constantly on the lookout for places which offer the lowest costs of production, so as to give themselves a comparative advantage over others. Thus, employees are often the most vulnerable in such situations, as any sudden shift by the company to relocate elsewhere will leave these people without a source of income.  This can be seen in all job sectors, whether it be manufacturing or even the legal sector. From factories in the US shifting their operations to Mexico, to legal companies in New York, outsourcing jobs to India; it sure seems that there is a global rush to the bottom for cheap labour ³.

 

In conclusion, as governments continue to ensure that their country is as attractive to investors as possible, and companies continue searching for the most cost effective locations available, the ultimate loser still stands to be the worker, and this will probably remain so for some time to come.

 

^{1 & 2} Time Magazine (November 26, 2007 issue), ‘Two sides of Africa’s Coin’ by Alex Perry & Zoe Eisenstein

³ ‘Maytag moves to Mexico’ by David Moberg