International System

There is a distinctive challenge facing many of the countries that make up the international system, and it can have both a diabolical and paralyzing effect on a country, regardless of its’economic development, if doesn’t successfully achieve financial stability, economic growth and higher standards of living. Many countries are plagued with such adverse economic conditions which consequently cause them to become an unambiguous, inferior player in the international system. What is the solution to such a complex and multifaceted dilemma that decision-makers from various forms of governments battle with on a consistent basis? Staff members of the International Monetary Fund believe that liberalized international economic interchange, the core principles of globalization, seem to underpin greater prosperity. However, advocates to globalization and its supposed positive implications come accompanied with a rising populace of opposition. Nancy Birdsall, founding president of the Center for Global Development, argues that globalization is not benefitting all and that a major challenge of the twenty-first century will be to address persistent and unjust inequality, which global markets alone cannot resolve. In the following paragraphs, I am going to summarize each groups arguments and offer my own critique on globalization and the implications it has on both advanced economies and developing/emerging economies around the world.
Sarah Burrow, General Secretary to the International Trade Union Confederation, once said that “globalization was the solution to all of the world’s intractable problems.” It is a presumptive view that is shared by many and vehemently by the staff members of the International Monetary Fund. To them, globalization is viewed as a vehicle towards achieving efficiency through competition and division of labor. Global Markets offer the opportunity for consumers to tap into a wider more diverse market in the world. They can have access to