Read this off my feed reader this morning - While the writer makes several good points I can't help but feel that he makes a tactical mistake with this comment - "Small- and medium-sized domestic operations have created most of the jobs. But globalization has meant that for a local business to flourish, it must invariably be connected to world markets, credit, and technology. That's why multinational corporations must play a critical role."
I suppose I agree to a certain extent - however, it seems that there are other alternatives. If we succomb to the model of globalisation as a business model what he says follows - if we opt for a more localized view then perhaps his comments are erroneous.
I suppose it depends on what products we are talking about - I guess where I am tracking with this is that gloablisation has created a market where small to medium sized business can't flourish in underdeveloped countries is precisely because multinational companies already corner the market on so many industries and retail opportunites. Gone are the days that every community had a butcher a baker and a candlestick maker.
Not sure that I have the answer - but it seems to me in many ways, that while globalisation has made us aware of the need - the globalisation of business has continued to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

Bookmark and Share