Over 150 years ago, Charles Dickens (1859) began a book with a line that, strangely, describes modern globalization in Mexico very well. It read as follows: “It was the best of times. It was the worst of times”. Like the conflict between values during the mid-1800’s, people are fighting for globalization with people who oppose this movement just as passionately. Can something be both right and wrong at the same time? Of course! Electricity can cook your dinner, light your home, run your television. On the other hand, it can kill a man sentenced to die in an electric chair. One strike in a storm can cause failures that disrupt homes and businesses by the tens of thousands (Heinrichs, 2013, par.2). Therefore, we should consider both sides of the coin. In this paper I am going to compare arguments for and against globalization in Mexico.
Numbers do not lie. Between 1980 and 1992, Mexico’s national economy improved. Globalization had led to economic growth within Mexico. To be clear about what qualifies as improvement, the GDP (gross domestic product) in Mexico tripled during these 12 years. Who would oppose a highly significant improvement in Mexican business and industry, which resulted from globalizing actions like signing the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with the United States and Canada? After all, the USA is Mexico’s largest trading partner with some 14.1 billion dollars (USD) transacting annually. Canada, whose population roughly equals the number of people in New York state, represents about 3.1 % of trade with Mexico, compared to the 76.5% of trade with Americans for Mexico. Yet trade with the Canadian partner is important, as Canada is the second largest trade business associate, followed by China, a country much larger than both North American partners in both size and population (Heinrichs, 2013, par.3).
Could such massive trade partnerships not make everyone richer, including Mexico? How can tripling the GDP give rise to protests? The problem, according to those who oppose globalization, is that it benefits only part of Mexico. There is not only no universal benefit within the country as a whole, but what is worse is the negative impact globalization has on the southern Mexican states. In the south, for example, there are many corn farmers. They cannot possibly compete with global corn prices on the open market. In other words, they can farm, but they cannot sell their product, so the work to raise corn is wasted. The result is tragic poverty in even greater proportions (Heinrichs, 2013, par.4).
This direct quote from Forbes sums up an interesting dark side for more than just farmers: “Labor can move from country to country to market their skills. True, but this can cause problems with the existing labor and downward pressure on wages” (Collins, 2015, par.17). First of all, globalization is supposed to produce favorable results for developing countries, financially, of course, but also socially. The results differ from the theory of what should happen. Comparing information from Heinrichs and Forbes, we see disastrous economic impact on rural Mexico, and what should be mutual increase for both Mexico and developed countries among their top trade partners actually negatively results developed cities primarily with loss of jobs. Therefore, if only a portion of Mexico benefits, while the southern half suffers worse than ever, and Americans complain about loss of jobs, is it possible results other than money are so greatly improved that globalization remains front and center as a number one controversy concerning Mexico?
Forbes reveals a great deal about social impact of global market for Mexico, and for other developing countries as well this brings us to the second and third points, both social consequences of globalization (Collins, 2015, par.5). Forbes writes about some experts who say some of the communicable diseases on the rise have been attributed to globalization. Specifically, deadly diseases like HIV/AIDS are mentioned. But much opposition rests on a far more obvious result that contradicts the supposed purpose of globalization. It is supposed to make things better, raise the standard of life, ease abject poverty. Globalization is supposed to equalize the playing field. In reality, laborers are being exploited more than ever, forced to work in terrible conditions. Safety is completely ignored for many. Finally, human trafficking, the ultimate exploitation, has increased (Collins, 2015, par.6).
It is impossible to deny the positive economic impact of globalization across a decade and more, as Kat Heinrichs points out, although only for some northernmost states. On the other hand, it is equally impossible to negate the negative impacts on southern states and on developed partner countries alike. Furthermore, the horrific social results cannot be denied. Both major sources agree that the major complaint about globalization is that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. This is not a new thing. To be fair, that cannot be strictly blamed on globalization, because rich getting richer, leaving poor people with less and less threads human history worldwide. It is reasonable, however, to unveil globalization for what it is by simply looking at the results. Theory is not reality.
References
Collins, M. (2015). Points Out Two Other Troubling Facts. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikecollins/2015/05/06/the-pros-and-cons-of-globalization/#7ca2ee60ccce
Dickens, C. (1859). A Tale of Two Cities, Chapter 1, The Period. Retrieved from https://www.gutenberg.org/files/98/old/2city12p.pdf
Forbes (2015). The Pros and Cons of Globalization. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikecollins/2015/05/06/the-pros-and-cons-of-globalization/#4ec59ca9ccce
Henrichs, K. (2013). Globalization in Mexico, Business and New Markets. Retrieved from https://www.borgenmagazine.com/globalization-in-mexico-part-1-economic-and-social-effects/