Example collocations logo

Globalization in sentence

2352 examples of Globalization in a sentence

Globalization and the United NationsAfter the disastrous month of September, when terrorist attacks and retaliation contributed to storm clouds over the global economy, November demonstrated the resilience of globalization.
Academic scholars and political observers debate whether globalization is a real phenomenon or a slogan; whether globalization is beneficial or harmful; and whether globalization is a fragile process that could be reversed or a robust process likely to gather force in the coming years.
My view is that globalization is a powerful and generally positive force.
Of course globalization requires international governance and rules.
UN agencies will have a critical role to play in future years in helping Africa's impoverished countries (and those elsewhere) to derive larger benefits from globalization.
The prize is a fitting measure of the role that the UN now plays and must continue to play in promoting a successful and peaceful globalization.
China, for its part, has become a major workhorse of globalization – an assembly hub for inputs produced by multi-country supply chains and an offshore efficiency solution for hard-pressed Western multinational corporations.
But Islamic Salafism (fundamentalist religious radicalism) is above all a consequence of the globalization and Westernization of Islam, and of the decoupling of culture and religion more generally.
They are the product not of Western or Middle Eastern history, but the fusion of all histories, of globalization.
But, given that the welfare state makes wages “sticky,” an increasing level of mass unemployment is the most likely consequence of globalization.
Europe’s welfare system based on replacement incomes and minimum wages will not survive globalization.
Consider Gordon Brown, Britain’s new prime minister, according to whom globalization strips the European project of any meaning, a form of political autism that in fact will prevent the EU from adapting to change and from being able to find solutions to globalization’s challenges.
And yet it is also the proverbial canary in the coalmine, signaling a broad populist/nationalist backlash – at least in advanced economies – against globalization, free trade, offshoring, labor migration, market-oriented policies, supranational authorities, and even technological change.
Politically, the strains of globalization are twofold.
First, establishment parties of the right and the left, which for more than a generation have supported free trade and globalization, are being challenged by populist, nativist/nationalist anti-establishment parties.
But they also included workers – both blue- and white-collar – who were among the losers from globalization, but who nonetheless remained loyal, either because they were socially and religiously conservative, or because center-left parties were formally supporters of unions, workers’ rights, and entitlement programs.
The rise of Donald Trump – anti-trade, anti-migration, anti-Muslim, and nativist – is a reflection of an uncomfortable fact for the Republican establishment: the party’s median voter is closer to those who have lost from globalization.
But, despite the growing number, organization, and mobilization of globalization’s losers, globalization itself is not necessarily doomed.
For starters, it continues to yield net benefits for advanced and emerging markets alike, which is why the losers still tend to be a minority in most advanced economies, while those who benefit from globalization are a large – if at times silent – majority.
In fact, even the “losers” benefit from the lower prices of goods and services brought about by globalization and technological innovation.
Finally, economic theory suggests that globalization can be made to benefit all as long as the winners compensate the losers.
The backlash against globalization is real and growing.
They claim to be reformers, but why should voters believe leaders who appear no different from the previous crop of politicians who oversold them the gains from globalization and pooh-poohed their grievances?
But putting aside these headline numbers, a retreat from globalization by the world’s two largest economies would nonetheless entail significant costs.
The Case for Compensated Free TradeLONDON – Almost all liberals support globalization and oppose economic nationalism.
They ignore the mounting evidence that, in its current form, globalization is dangerously incompatible with democracy.
In his 2011 book The Globalization Paradox, Harvard’s Dani Rodrik says that the nation-state, democracy, and globalization are mutually irreconcilable: we can have any two, but not all three simultaneously (he calls this a “trilemma”).
All over the world, the “nation” has been revolting against globalization in the name of democracy.
In a nutshell, it overcomes the Rodrik trilemma: one can have the nation-state, democracy, and globalization at the same time.
And the facts indicate that, despite decades of globalization, US multinationals continue to make significant contributions to US competitiveness – and to locate most of their economic activity at home, not abroad.
BackNext