Small Vs Big Business

The impact that huge multinational retailers have had on small and medium businesses is a regular topic of discussion when it comes to the consequences of globalisation as it is seen in a growing number of places all over the world. The main reason for such a high focus is because small businesses make significant contributions to the economy of developed nations as well as helping with the reduction of poverty in developing nations (Asiedu & Freeman 2006, p. 2).

Australia has its fair share of large retail franchises (Harvey Norman, David Jones, Bunnings, JB Hi-Fi, Kmart etc) but it is really nothing compared to America. The US has 48 different department and discount store franchises (so many that the US required a separate link on Wiki). <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_department_stores_of_the_United_States>

In The States, Walmart is often blamed for being the major source of the problems faced by small businesses (as South Park so brilliantly parody). Like any major retailer, they receive criticism for dominating over small business and creating unfair competition, exploiting their workers, marking up prices and utilizing child labour in sweat shops.

I completely disagree with all the criticism these major businesses receive as I believe they are a positive thing in our community. We as consumers get more variety when it comes to products, big retailers provide jobs to the otherwise unemployed both in the retail sector but the distribution and logistics industries. Sweat shop’s are also providing employment and majority of the time pay more than the average income of that nation. Yes it is bad but compared to what?

References.

Asiedu, E & Freeman, J 2006, ‘The Effect of Globalisation on the performance of small and medium enterprises in the US’, vol. 5, no. 23, p. 1-22, retrieved 1 August, <http://www.aeaweb.org/annual_mtg_papers/2007/0106_1015_2101.pdf>

Americanisation.

Globalisation is seen as having many negative consequences but very few positives. It has taken the blame for farmers’ debts, workplace unemployment, outsourcing of jobs and industrial decline. Globalisation has also resulted in the rise of Americanisation and what could be called the homogenisation of world cultures to a more American set of norms, products or discourses.

These American products and discourse are seen as being severely detrimental towards the maintenance of other cultures, their economic longevity (Meunier 2010, p. 214). It may be true that America is an incredibly powerful media producer and although they dominate most markets, we as consumers make the choice to buy their products, watch their films and TV shows and listen to their music. We can just as easily choose not to do the aforementioned and seek our entertainment and products from elsewhere. Americanisation is a result of the dominant hegemonic position presented by American media and political organisations. We as audiences agree with this position or oppose it and as a result we will decide if we are going to consume this product, TV show, film, etc.

When an audience interprets a message as it was intended by the producers they are adhering to this dominant hegemonic position. However, this assumes that all audiences are passive sponges for information, soaking up everything we hear. Quite the opposite in fact. As suggested by Stuart Hall and his audience reception theory, each different audiences will actively interpret media messages in their own individual way and decide whether they agree or disagree. Americanisation is a result of this dominant hegemonic discourse being accepted by the masses. If something is being so readily accepted by millions of people, it can’t be all bad.

References.

Meunier, S 2010, ‘Globalization, Americanization and Sakozy’s France’. European Poltical Science, Vol. 9, Issue. 2, p. 213-222, retrieved 26 July, <http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=ea00bc49-07fd-439c-98b7-7b77e67dfd52%40sessionmgr112&vid=2&hid=120>

What's Missing?

One thing that I’m sure most people studying globalisation will agree with is that there are far to many varying definitions on what globalisation actually is.

Theorist, Martin Albrow wrote that ‘Globalisation refers to all those processes by which the people of the world are incorporated into a single world society, global society’ (Rantanen 2005, p. 7).

To me, this definition is rather dystopic and inaccurate as it considers globalisation to be a singular dominant discourse to rule the world. This definition also omits several key factors that have contributed to the rise of globalisation; chief among which being the roles of the media, mass communication and the advancement in technology.

As improvements in computer hardware, software, and telecommunications were developed in the early 1990’s we acquired access to new ways of gaining and sharing information. Not to mention the massive economic potential that came with it.

The establishment of the internet changed the way in which people communicated yet again. A world’s worth of knowledge (and some rubbish) literally became at the end of ones fingertips and could be accessed almost completely instantaneously.

In my opinion however, media is not the major driving force behind globalisation. At its absolute roots, I believe globalisation is about human desires. Nayan Chanda from the Yale Centre for the Study of Globalisation suggests that ‘globalisation stems...from a basic human urge to seek a better, more fulfilling life’ (Chanda, 2007, p. 8). Desire for greater products and desire for profit. The desire to spread religious beliefs, desire to travel and seek out new experiences in new lands. Globalisation is a result of our human desires to which the media cater perfectly.

I found this video to be semi-interesting. Quality isn’t great though. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7vPC8KNzIQ

However, Nayan Chanda’s book is super-interesting.

http://site.ebrary.com.ezproxy-m.deakin.edu.au/lib/deakin/docDetail.action?docID=10210264>

References

Albrow, M 1990, in Rantanen, T 2005, The media and globalization, Sage, London, pp. 1–18.

Chanda, N 2007, Bound Together: how traders, preachers, adventurers, and warriors shaped globalisation, retrieved 19 July, <http://site.ebrary.com.ezproxy-m.deakin.edu.au/lib/deakin/docDetail.action?docID=10210264>

What is Globalisation?

A globalised world is one in which certain social, political, economic and cultural events become more interconnected and, by association, more influential. Cultures and societies around the globe are affected more easily and more extensively by the events of other societies (Baylis, Smith & Owens 2011, p. 8). 

Globalisation has been around for centuries in one form or another. The spice trade was a global trade system formed by ancient Asian, North African and European civilisations. Spices were readily used as a form of currency by Eastern cultures and, at their most valuable, were a higher priced commodity than gold (McGrath 2011).

Christopher Columbus famously discovered America while looking for a new, faster passage to India. It could be reasonable to suggest that the entire nation of America was established as a result of Globalisation. 

The English and the Dutch spent much of the 16th century warring over the nutmeg tree covered islands of Indonesia. The Dutch, keen to maintain their monopoly of the nutmeg trade, brokered a deal with local farmers to have exclusive rights to their spice but were quickly angered by some farmers who were still selling to other international traders (McGrath 2011). After a speedy massacre, the Dutch promptly imported their own farmers from Holland. Outsourcing at its finest. 

Meanwhile, the English had control of the major nutmeg producing island of Ran. In an attempt to curb hostilities between the two nations, the English offered the island to the Dutch in exchange for another small island in America, now known as Manhattan (McGrath 2011).

Modern day Globalisation happens in the same way. Advancement in technology paired with desire for products, services, skills, entertainment and money creates a global market place. Globalisation wouldn’t happen if people didn’t desire these new products, skills etc.

References:

Baylis, J, Smith, S, Owens, P 2011, The Globalisation of World Politics, Oxford University Press, New York.

McGrath, J 2011, Did the Dutch really trade Manhattan for nutmeg?, How Stuff Works, retrieved 12 July, < http://history.howstuffworks.com/american-history/nutmeg-new-netherland3.htm>