Skip to main content

To what extent are trading blocs an effective and realistic response to globalization?

Trading blocs respond to certain specific problems raised by globalization. The first problem they address is that globalization does not necessarily involve free markets or balanced trade. A global trade organization such as the WTO has limited ability to solve such problems, and its sheer size can limit its ability to achieve consensus. Trade blocs such as NAFTA can create limited trade agreements that facilitate limited trade in goods and services without requiring global agreement. They can also address the global imbalance of small, poor countries having less leverage in creating trade agreements than large, rich countries. For example, the EU can negotiate from a position of power as a large market in the way that Portugal or Estonia alone could not.


A trade bloc can also create strategic alliances among countries with common diplomatic or military aims. For example, several countries are nervous about the increasing power and militarism of China, especially with respect to control of the South China Sea. The TPP is an effort in many ways to promote globalized trade in a manner that excludes China for now, but might eventually be able to negotiate as a bloc to force China to greater reciprocity in opening up markets to foreign countries, maintaining the yuan at fair market value, and following international law rather than acting at times as a despotic regional hegemon. 


Although trading blocs are not a comprehensive solution to all aspects of globalization, and while addressing economic inequality between countries will do little to alleviate economic inequality within countries, such blocs are an important economic and diplomatic tool, especially when larger organizations end up being ineffectual due to size and competing interests.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.
Post a Comment
Read more