Globalization has become a « cliché », though users of the word disagree about its consequences. Many believe that it had lifted, or potentially can lift, millions of people out of poverty permanently. On the opposite side, some believe that it already has driven millions deeper into poverty.
The worldwide movement toward economic, financial, trade, and communications integration would define the globalization.
It implies the opening of local perspectives to a broader outlook of an interconnected and interdependent world with free transfer of capital, goods, and services across national frontiers.
It is a process that can affects the sector of income, health, environment, employment and human rights in different ways. Indeed, for some of them it could be positive and for others, definitly not that good.
Generally speaking, globalization is considered to promote global economic growth and social progress but in the meantime, it is blamed for growing income inequality and environmental degradation. But, this is not necessarily true.
Indeed, the opening of international trade allowed the development of poor countries even if they certainly are less active than other countries in terms of international trade. In most developed countries, more trade it is, more the GDP increases. Countries that lower trade barriers concentrate their national energies in industries they are good at, where they have an international advantage. Integration in the world economy contributes to environmental improvements by promoting growth, increasing incomes, improving property right and allowing the efficient use of resources.
There is evidence that developing countries that erect barriers to imports have slower growth in incomes than those that are open to trade. Companies of all sizes are involved in world trade – the benefits do not just flow to large multi-nationals.
Globalization is transforming not only trade, finance, science, environment, it is also influencing health and medical care.
In 1997, a report by the US Institute of Medicine stated, “Distinctions between domestic and international health problems are losing their usefulness and are often misleading.”
In addition to domestic problems, all national health systems must now deal with the international transfer of health risks and opportunities.
The best example of the blurring of health frontiers is the dissemination of communicable diseases.
The most recent additions to the list of global epidemics include HIV/AIDS and H1N1 or swine flu.
The global spread of infectious diseases is related to major changes in our environment and lifestyles. Smoking and obesity are the exemplars of emerging health risks linked to globalization.
Furthermore, the globalization of health goes beyond diseases and risk factors to also include health products.
Careful regulations on access to prescription antibiotic drugs in one country, for example, may be subverted when its neighbors allow the unrestricted purchase of antibiotics.
In conclusion, the global trade in health services is offering opportunities both for exporting developing countries and importing developed nations. The former can benefit from an increasing amount of foreign currency, an improvement in the standards of local medical care, and the repatriation of qualified health workers. High-income countries, in turn, can benefit from a reliable supply of services that are being offered at a lower price and with similar standards of quality.
The environment is closely concerned by the phenomenon of globalization. It has had a positive impact on the environment to some extent but there are still some crucial negative impacts of globalization at stake.
The negative impacts are mainly export-orientated destruction on the environment while the positive impacts are increase awareness and…