North-South Divide
The North-South divide aims to outline the gap in economic development and the welfare of different regions. In general, one can argue that there is a clear divide between the wealthy and developing nations. The scholars of the 20th century conceptualized this idea, by creating the North-South divide – a geographic line between the countries that signifies the division on wealthy and emerging nations, which is also referred to as Brantd Line (Royal Geographical Society n.d.).
The North includes states such as the United States, Canada, and other members of G8 – wealthy and populous countries. Africa, Latin America, the Middle East, and some areas of Asia are a part of the global South – these are states with a larger proportion of inequalities and less wealth (Royal Geographical Society n.d.). Therefore, this divide depicts the state of economic development in the Global North and Global South.
The main idea of this concept is that the wealthy states of the North have much more significant control over the global economy when compared to the South. Notably, there are two exceptions of this rule – Australia and New Zeland, both located in the Southern hemisphere, yet with substantial Gross Domestic Product (GDP) indicators (Royal Geographical Society n.d.). While some evidence supports this model, over time, more examples arise, suggesting that it is overly simplistic and does not consider the varied economic and political factors that may affect wealth. For instance, according to the Royal Geographical Society (n.d., para. 10):
“Countries such as Argentina, Malaysia, and Botswana all have above global average GDP (PPP) per capita, yet still appear in the ‘Global South.’ Conversely, countries such as Ukraine appear to be now amongst a poorer set of countries by the same measure.”
Arguably, globalization affected states both in the North and South by affecting various political, economic, and security systems. Parjanadze (2009) notes that trade, communication, intercultural relationships, as well as democracy and security principles, are the primary elements of globalization. The main implication is the establishment of a unified economy that would allow trade across different nations.
Additionally, for example, according to Mayer (2007), this enabled the development of standardized policies that aim to help nations achieve collective welfare. From a political perspective, societies became more aware of the standards they should follow and the enhanced understanding of the local and global development. Additionally, Mayer (2007) notes a lack of a state that would have significant control over other nations, meaning that there is no secure political system, which would enable such impact. Moreover, such a political domain would be able to provide protection and enable security for the global community, which is impossible considering the given conditions.
Next, globalization is often examined from an economic viewpoint, since this process enables better access to international markets, aiding businesses, and increasing competitiveness. However, the less wealthy nations can suffer from this, since their businesses will be disadvantaged when compared to efficient and well-developed companies operating within the global North. Alternatively, globalization provides the South with access to products and services, the technology and know-how that was developed in the North. Mayer (2007) notes the technical and professional expansion enabled by globalization.
One downside is the possible explanation of cheap labor and the lack of laws that would protect workers from the South. Parjanadze (2009) notes that the herbalist approach views globalization as an establishment of a unified open-market system or global capitalism. This, however, threatens states because it redefines their political organization in the context of free trade and global competition.
In conclusion, it is evident that there is a global divide between the poor and rich states. However, the geographical approach alone, which was discussed above, does not explain all the variations of the model, since several states that are located in the Southern part are wealthy. From the perspective of globalization, the lack of political authority and, therefore, as a security system is the main issue that the global community faces.
Flat Earth Concept
One can argue that the world is flat since globalization allows companies to compete on a different level, mitigating geographical barriers. The concept of a flat earth is an idea based on the continuous process of globalization. It was introduced and developed by Thomas Friedman in his book “The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century” (SuperSummary, 2019). The main idea is that companies have to compete with each other on a global level, and they have an equal opportunity to succeed and earn substantial profits. However, this concept refers not only to businesses but also to countries and individuals, since similarly to for-profit organizations, this entity’s place, importance, and impact shifts based on the flat world concept.
In order to understand this idea, it is necessary to examine the competition and its main drivers, which existed prior to globalization. Most businesses competed on a regional level, meaning that they sold goods or services to a predefined number of people in an area (Raido, 2019). In order to expand, they would have to invest in the establishment of branches in different regions. This development supports the flat world concept across different levels, since the cooperation of businesses, individuals, and even states is simplified in the globalized world.
Currently, it is possible for companies to compete on a global level due to technological advancements and the development of global culture. The communication means and the advances of logistics and transportation allow shipping products to any state and communicating with branches more effectively. As a result, even small organizations have to compete on a global level, since consumers have access to a wider variety of offers.
Parjanadze (2009) argues that globalization enables the unification of many policies in order to adhere to global trends. This suggests that societies and political systems in many countries change and become similar to each other. This process also helps simplify accessibility on different levels, supporting the idea that the world is flat.
From a system-level perspective, states adjust their policies and approaches and leverage the best practices utilized by others. For instance, Parjanadze (2009) states that the hyperbolist approach would imply that the education systems would be no longer controlled by states. Alternatively, they would represent cultural hybridization and multinational interactions. Similar unification or hybridization would affect other systems of different states if the world, in fact, was flat. However, the majority of states rely on their unique political and security systems. It should be noted that many of them, especially countries that belong to the North, cooperate to enable more efficient existence (SuperSummary, 2019). Despite this, one can conclude that only some elements that support the flat world concept are currently well-developed.
From another perspective, one can argue that the contemporary world is not flat. It is because Friedman examines the idealistic example of free trade and access to global markets (SuperSummary, 2019). However, in reality, borders and trade agreements, as major political factors obstruct the enforcement of this concept. On an individual level, in some states, people cannot travel through borders without visas or other documents.
From a systems perspective, unified education does not currently exist as each country has a unique system controlled by the government. Moreover, according to Paradzadze (2009, p. 88), “in the era of global interconnectedness sustaining statehood and national identity has become more vulnerable and education has to play a special part.” On a state level, arguably, countries aim to preserve their systems by supporting borders and policies that help them sustain their cultures and societies.
Therefore, one can conclude that contemporary globalization trends allow for the development of a flat world and its establishments, but currently, this is not the case. Moreover, Parjanadze (2009) notes that education has been vital and helped many states develop. This suggests that systems-level transformation towards a flat world is more complex when compared to other aspects of it.
In summary, globalization enabled essential changes in the structure and organization of different states, as well as in the way they communicate with each other and exchange goods. However, this essay suggests that the world is not flat, despite some elements of this concept being present within the global community. However, borders and other barriers, including resistance, obstruct individuals, systems, and states in their efforts to create a hybridized and unified approach to cooperation.
References
Mayer, John. 2007. “Globalization: Theory and Trends.” International Journal of Comparative Sociology 48 (4): 261-273. Web.
Parjanadze, Nikoloz. 2009. “Globalisation Theories and Their Effect on Education.” IBSU Scientific Journal 2 (3), 77-88.
Raido, Vanessa. 2016. “Translators as Adaptive Experts in a Flat World: From Globalization 1.0 to Globalization 4.0?” International Journal of Communication 10 (2016): 970–988
Royal Geographical Society. n.d. “The Global North/South Divide.” Royal Geographical Society. Web.
SuperSummary. 2019. Study Guide: The World Is Flat by Thomas L. Friedman. New York: Super Summary. Kindle.