Economic globalization is an ongoing process that creates both opportunities for the growth of big cities with their corporations and problems for smaller businesses and citizens. Such an outcome is complemented by the emergence of the so-called centrality. This concept explains the prevalent role of cities in the matter and devalorizes the significance of other regions for the global economy (Sassen, 1996). Such an approach seems to be beneficial only from the perspective of capital formation and international finance. However, its practical implementation in the present-day world implies not only accompanying profits but also the unfair attitude towards undereducated workers, uneven distribution of technology throughout the country, and the neglect of people’s culture.
The consideration of economic centers or, in other words, major cities as the principal actors in the area of globalization leads to the change in perception of the role of employees. It is clear that such strategic places in the national economy require the involvement of educated professionals in their day-to-day operations (Sassen, 1996). Nevertheless, this circumstance does not indicate that only these specialists are useful for further development. Moreover, this situation poses a threat to undereducated people and increases the disparities between them and other workers (Sassen, 1996). In turn, it leads to their exclusion from the list of ultimate beneficiaries, whereas the very definition of globalization implies the provision of benefits to all categories of people.
Another factor that adds to the insubstantiality of the current centralized system is the difference in the perception of big cities and other regions of the country and the resulting inequality in technology distribution. It is apparent that they both define the success of economic development on a global level (Sassen, 1996). Therefore, the sole orientation on cities undermines the work of the country’s regions with smaller enterprises. This situation is unfavorable for all participants in the process since the operations of bigger companies would not be as successful without the help of smaller ones who partially take on their tasks. It allows us to conclude on the need to reassess the distribution of technology in order to ensure the even progress of all businesses and, consequently, the rapid expansion of the country’s economy.
The last circumstance that is usually neglected by the centralized system is the diversity of people in big cities. Since immigration is one of the essential processes of globalization, the inclusion of this factor in the assessment of the current situation is the key to economic growth (Sassen, 1996). Its importance is defined by the fact that multiculturalism in big cities resulting from the continuous movement of people in the world is as important to globalization as international finance (Sassen, 1996). Therefore, all strategic places should be considered from the perspective of people’s culture. This approach will allow not oneliminateing the disparities between population groups but will also boost the national economy.
Finally, the centralized approach focusing only on the development of major cities in contrast to the attempts to improve the situation in the country as a whole leads to negative consequences for its citizens. They are explained by the failure to meet the needs of all participants due to the provision of unequal opportunities to them. This problem is connected to the neglect of specific population groups’ contributions to the economy, people’s culture, and technology distribution solely to strategic centers. The importance of the issue is also emphasized by the fact that, after all, globalization is not about providing benefits for the elite but ensuring the equality of people.
Reference
Sassen, S. (1996). Whose city is it? Globalization and the formation of new claims. Public Culture, 8, 205-224.