Globalization and the Environment2
Sunday, April 30, 2006
Globalization is usually thought of as an economic phenomenon of global movements of capital and trade in goods and services. However there are environmental dimensions of globalization that are equally important both for the future of the life support system of the planet and for their impacts on human society.
As the human population has grown, our impacts on the environment have reached the global scale.
Such impacts include:
-We have released enough carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to have a measurable effect on global climate.
-Chlorofluorocarbons and other man-made gases have attacked and depleted the stratospheric ozone layer as well.
-A number of pesticides and other persistent organic pollutants are now distributed globally, and may threaten hormonal balances and the immune system in man and other animals.
-Some toxic chemicals used in the tropics evaporate in the heat and are transported in the air to the poles, where they condense out in the cold and accumulate in the food chain, in a global distillation process.
The globalization of trade puts pressure on natural resources around the world, helping to drive the rapid depletion of tropical forests, the collapse of many ocean fisheries, and even the global impoverishment of biological diversity.
We travel so much that we are becoming more vulnerable to epidemics, helped along by the global spread of antibiotic resistance.
A number of recent studies have developed scenarios of possible futures in a globalizing world. For example, there is an increasing risk of major flows of environmental refugees.
-One underlying cause of the Rwandan tragedy was high population growth that overshot the carrying capacity of the limited land area. In many places, water shortage, resource depletion, climate change, or sea level rise could displace large numbers of people.
-Another nuclear accident like Chernobyl, or the release of biological warfare agents like anthrax, perhaps by terrorists, could contaminate large areas and make them uninhabitable.
Where will all these people go? If climate change drives farmers off the land in some regions and makes Siberia cultivable, can the displaced farmers move to the newly opened lands? The movement of capital has been globalized and free trade in goods and services is the aim of governments through the World Trade Organization. Yet no one wants to address the politically-sensitive subject of the global movement of people.
Why should one be able to move and not the other? From an ecological perspective, allowing the free movement of people to live and work where they wished would be a true balancing factor in the world system, working against unjust extremes of wealth and poverty. People do not usually like to leave their homes unless they have to. There would be a strong global motivation to redistribute wealth so that most people would prefer to stay at home. This issue is highly complex and controversial, but it raises fundamental ethical questions that cannot be ignored in a discussion of globalization. We may postpone thinking about it, but it will be thrust upon us by future environmental changes.
One challenge in a globalizing society is to empower people and institutions everywhere to respond effectively to their local environmental situations while maintaining at the same time a global perspective on their environmental impacts.
Some elements of a constructive response to achieve this empowerment include:
- More participation should be encouraged at all levels in environmental observing, assessment and management. People can observe their own environment, assess the consequences, and adjust their actions accordingly.
- Everyone must learn to recognize that human systems are part of natural systems and all must be viewed in an integrated and dynamic perspective. The Western intellectual tradition tends to classify things in static compartments, yet the natural world and human society are constantly changing and interacting, requiring more holistic systems thinking. This will have to including the internalization in the economic system of environmental and social dimensions that are presently treated as externalities.
Ultimately, at the most fundamental level, a successful response to globalization will require fundamental changes in human values, both as individuals, and as incorporated in the governmental, corporate and economic structures of society.
brought to you by: xiu (health and environment expert)
Posted by xiu at 10:37 pm
Globalization and the Environment
Globalization, logically, has the greatest impact on global issues. And the original "global" issue is nature itself. Long before humans invented "environmentalism" -- and long before humans -- the planet was chugging along as a well-balanced if brutal eco-system. Fresh oxygen was pumped into the atmosphere by huge rainforests; the big fish culled the little fish; and natural fires managed the prairies.
Now humans are increasingly aware of the way the Earth's environment has been changed by human activity. And we are also aware that nature pays no attention to national borders. While laws attempt to control the flow of capital, goods, and labor around the globe, no legislature, committee, or king can control the way winds blow greenhouse gasses or where ocean currents carry oil or waste.
One nation might pass strict environmental protection laws. But they will have little affect if neighboring countries don't pass similar laws. Only global agreements, therefore, can truly get all nations to act together to improve the environment. Because of this, some of the first truly global civil movements have been those which intend to protect the environment.
brought to you by: xiu (health and environment expert)
Posted by xiu at 10:16 pm
Globalisation: Major Changes in the Economy
Saturday, April 29, 2006
Unbridled Capitalism Will Lead to Very Real Problems (Second Half of Interview)
Full interview here.
Harvard economist Kenneth Rogoff (Economic Counsellor and Director of the Research Department for the International Monetary Fund (IMF) from 2001 to 2003, current professor at Harvard University) discusses the dangers of unbridled capitalism, the greed of corporate CEOs and a fundamental problem with the United States economy, with German news provider Spiegel.
SPIEGEL: Are Western corporate CEOs driven by globalization, or do they themselves use the situation to their advantage?
Rogoff: We react to market forces and we try to protect jobs -- that's the image many managers have of themselves. They have no idea why people are so furious with them. Look at corporate takeovers where outgoing CEOs get a $50 million settlements and 5,000 workers are let go. That kind of thing happens all the time. On the one hand, it shows that we have a flexible economic system and we permit change. On the other hand, it's completely naive to think that this doesn't create tensions.
SPIEGEL: But don't companies and countries that oppose globalization end up hurting themselves?
Rogoff: There are no easy answers. Of course it would be suicidal to nationalize our industries, for example. But those who say the economy is growing and everything's just great are simply unwilling to acknowledge these cracks in the system. Incidentally, this gap is much bigger in China. It's the 21st century along the coastline, but if you travel to the interior, where two-thirds of all Chinese live, you'll experience the 18th century. These are incomprehensible inequities. They have an extremely raw form of capitalism.
Major Change #1: Globalisation has somewhat contributed to discrepancies in levels of opportunities available, in a country itself. As seen from Rogoff's quoted examples of both the United States and China, globalization has created economic gaps within a society. This is due to the fact that globalization may have affected only some parts of the country. For example, in the case of China, its coastlines may have been modernized quite a bit, but within its interior, not much may have been changed. Thus, we can see that in certain circumstances, globalization has widened economic gaps within a country.
SPIEGEL: According to the 19th century English economist David Ricardo, free trade is good for everyone. According to his theory, the wealthy industrialized nations would simply have to concentrate on becoming even more technologically advanced to make up for their outsourcing losses in certain industries.
Major Change #2: The shift in direction that economies have to take, especially developed economies, is mainly due to globalization. They have to evolve from just being efficient mass-producers to technologically advanced entities, in order to remain competitive. Developed countries have to advance themselves technologically, in order to retain an edge over developing countries which are able to provide cheaper labour for the means of mass production (factory employees). Globalisation has made it no more the Industrial Age, but the Technological Age, for some countries.
Rogoff: Ricardo was never right. Sure, there are more winners than losers, and winners profit to a greater extent than the losers suffer. But the assertion that everyone benefits simultaneously from free trade is simply incorrect.
SPIEGEL: Protectionism ...
Rogoff: ... is not a solution. We can't turn back the clock. But unbridled capitalism will lead to some very real problems. We will see that ever-increasing deregulation can lose political support among the population in the long term.
Major Change #3: And because of Major Change #2, protectionism sometimes arises, due to the need to protect certain sectors of the country's economy from globalization. For example, Japan has a protective automobile industry, obliging its residents to purchase locally-produced automobiles, and not foreign ones. At first, this was due to the temporary need to protect their budding automobile industry from competition from the foreign-made automobiles, but as time passed and these local industries matured, the government was attracted to the profits garnered through protectionism, and so it stayed, dismissing demands from other countries, for the trade sanction to be lifted, especially those from the European and North American continents. We can thus see how and why protectionism arises due to globalization.
SPIEGEL: If entire industries are shifted to the Far East, how can new jobs be created in the West?
Rogoff: Our high-tech industries are raking in tremendous profits, but for 50-year-old steelworkers or people in the aviation industries, it's difficult or impossible to improve their situations. The problem -- at least in the United States -- is not that people can't find jobs. The problem is that they're no longer finding jobs that provide them with dignity and decent social status. This tremendous downward pull for unskilled laborers has been around for a long time. But now outsourcing is also beginning to affect people in mid-level and higher-level jobs -- those who had felt secure in their positions.
Major Change #4: The job sector for some countries, especially developed ones, are revolutionised, due to outsourcing, and other phenomena that take place due to globalization. Outsourcing is defined as, the management and/or day-to-day execution of an entire business function by a third party service provider. Simply put in this context of globalization, it simply means, the job is going to someone else who can do it comparatively well, and who usually accepts lower wages doing it, i.e. more bang for the buck. Thus, this creates a vacuum in the job sector, and more often than not, attractive jobs are the ones being outsourced, leaving "undesirable" job opportunities behind, like unskilled labour, as mentioned above by Rogoff. We can thus see how globalization may affect job sectors in certain countries.
SPIEGEL: Are you saying that not even a first-class education can protect against competition from the Chinese?
Rogoff: You know, I was a chess pro in my younger days. Back then, the best player in New York could earn a pretty good living. But now the Indians and Chinese have become brilliant chess professionals. They get on a plane and play all over the world. This has led to dramatic pressure on incomes. Nowadays, the best chess player in Argentina can no longer make a living playing chess.
Major Change #5: Globalisation has also made it such that people from different countries have almost equal economic opportunities. Although there may still be plenty of discrepancies in the level of economic opportunities among other countries, the situation has much improved over the last few decades, due to the advent of globalization. This phenomenon has led to increasingly intense competition for higher-paid jobs around the world, such as managerial positions offered by multi-national corporations. We can thus see that globalization has leveled much of the playing field of knowledge and opportunities on the global level.
SPIEGEL: What's Germany's place in the globalized world?
Rogoff: Even if your economy grows a little this year, the trend is pointing downward. You need reforms in the labor market, in the tax system, in the area of corporate governance and in the education sector. Your school system is very good compared with the US, but your universities are not competitive.
Major Change #6: In the eyes of the governing bodies, globalization could most probably be the biggest cause for economic reforms all over the world. The main thing that causes change to be constant is competition. Be it any area of society, competition, more often than not, is the cause of change. The team manager wants to change the game strategy, so as to have an edge over the other team. The political party changes team line, to appeal to more voters to win the election. In the same way, globalization induces competition, be it in prices or jobs. We can thus see that globalization enacts economic changes.
SPIEGEL: You've already written off one of the world's biggest economies?
Rogoff: Please don't misunderstand me. If Berlin would finally enact some decisive reforms, it could surpass the United States in growth for 20 years. Germany has such incredible wealth --with its culture, its education and its highly qualified population. It would just have to flex its muscles a little to achieve growth rates of four to five percent in the coming years and turn itself into an economic miracle, as it did in the 50s and 60s. But that won't happen as long as you have this political paralysis.
Major Change #7: As seen in Major Change #6, globalization induces economic change due to its competitive factor. Here, we see that countries have to embrace Major Change #6 in order to remain relevant to the global economy, thus, they have to actively engage in pursuits that may enable them to search out the best changes to make to their respective economies. There are various platforms for them to do so, like in the form of international organizations, for example, the World Trade Organization, which facilitate such pursuits. Therefore, we can see that globalization, due to its nature, has initiated the creation of such bodies, thus enabling various economies to keep up with globalization.
This post is unique (and rightly so), in the sense that I used an interview as reference source for my analysis on economic globalization. Hopefully, besides my analysis, the interview will be able to effectively present the interviewee's views on globalisation, thereby enlightening readers about what globalization actually does to the global economy, and the individual economies of different countries. The first half of the interview, which is not really relevant to globalization, is available in the link I provided at the start of this post, anyway.
Marc, the Economic 'Expert'
Posted by cram at 11:45 pm
Friend request!
The world is linked.
The world is linked because we've shrinked it.
Technology has shrinked the world so much that every single individual in the world is interrelated.
How? Well, simple. We have managed to create softwares/programmes that allows all of us to know how we are linked to one another. Welllll, using these programmes, we not only can see HOW are we linked/related, we can change our relationships too!
Alright, for example, FRIENDSTER. I am sure all of us are aware of this clever website that links everyone together.
Friendster aims to shrink the world by connecting people (just like nokia. oh well, more about communication another day!). And so far, 27+ million people have created accounts there. It is also proclaimed to be the best way to stay connected to friends and meet NEW people who share similar interests.
Friendster makes it possible for us to find old classmates and co-workers easily, we are able to view the profiles of our friend's friend's friend's friend, simply anyone! This enables us to make enlarge our social circle. Friendster groups also allow people with similar interests to gather and makes friends.
Now you have an idea on how Friendster, a single website, can shrink the world. Yes, it enlarges our personal social circles, and at the same time, reduce the size of the globe. Welll, acutal displacement is always zero on the internet anyway!
This photo here gives a very very clear example on how friendster shrinks the globe by linking everyone. I randomly clicked on someone's name... and Tadaa! I discovered that she is so closely linked to me. Not only that, she is linked to me in more than one ways. So, if the friend of my friend is a friend, all of us are friends! Like the food chain, we are all connected through one another.
Amazing. And this is only one website that provides such a service. Of course, there's more!
Here's another example. Hi5! It offers the same services. But, sadly (for the production team), it is not as widely used as friendster.
The internet is fascinating. All hail to the inventor of the internet! And this is just one way how some services on the internet work to reduce the size of the globe. In the next few entires, I will be blogging about Internet Gaming (how that isn't affected by physical boundaries), and how technology improves communication/transport. Stay tuned!
Ziye, the technological 'expert'.
Posted by leaf at 7:20 pm
How Sushi Went Global
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
After today's Social Studies class, I was just so inspired. I just had to go and search for more articles, and this time it's on the cultural aspect of globalization, seeing as I am the cultural expert for this group.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/globaliz/cultural/2001/1201sushi.htm
This article tracks the progress of sushi, as it went from something that westerners turned up their noses at because it was raw fish, to becoming somewhat of a health food in Europe and America. This shows that cultural globalization is not one-sided at all, and that Asia does influence other countries very much too.
"And so, from an exotic, almost unpalatable ethnic specialty, then to haute cuisine of the most rarefied sort, sushi has become not just cool, but popular. The painted window of a Cambridge, Massachusetts, coffee shop advertises 'espresso, cappuccino, carrot juice, lasagna, and sushi.' Mashed potatoes with wasabi (horseradish), sushi-ginger relish, and seared sashimi-grade tuna steaks show Japan's growing cultural influence on upscale nouvelle cuisine throughout North America, Europe, and Latin America. Sushi has even become the stuff of fashion, from 'sushi' lip gloss, colored the deep red of raw tuna, to 'wasabi' nail polish, a soft avocado green. "
Also, the article talks about how sushi has become a symbol for all things Japanese in the western world. Yet, sushi remains authentic to the Japanese themselves.
"Just because sushi is available, in some form or another, in exclusive Fifth Avenue restaurants, in baseball stadiums in Los Angeles, at airport snack carts in Amsterdam, at an apartment in Madrid (delivered by motorcycle), or in Buenos Aires, Tel Aviv, or Moscow, doesn't mean that sushi has lost its status as Japanese cultural property. Globalization doesn't necessarily homogenize cultural differences nor erase the salience of cultural labels. Quite the contrary, it grows the franchise. In the global economy of consumption, the brand equity of sushi as Japanese cultural property adds to the cachet of both the country and the cuisine. "
An interesting article about sushi, I felt.
Your cultural expert,
Wendy.
Posted by Wendy! at 10:57 pm
Globalization: Threat or Opportunity by IMF
Monday, April 24, 2006
This article by the International Monetary Fund provides an interesting view of globalization, from the point of view of a financial expert.
http://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/ib/2000/041200.htm
Not only does the article introduce the word "globalization", it also tries to answer the frequently asked question "What is globalization?". Besides that, the article discusses whether globalization increases poverty and inequality in the world. I thought that was an interesting question to address, and I felt that the IMF's answer is pretty good too.
"During the 20th century, global average per capita income rose strongly, but with considerable variation among countries. It is clear that the income gap between rich and poor countries has been widening for many decades. The most recent World Economic Outlook studies 42 countries (representing almost 90 percent of world population) for which data are available for the entire 20th century. It reaches the conclusion that output per capita has risen appreciably but that the distribution of income among countries has become more unequal than at the beginning of the century.
But incomes do not tell the whole story; broader measures of welfare that take account of social conditions show that poorer countries have made considerable progress. For instance, some low-income countries, e.g. Sri Lanka, have quite impressive social indicators. One recent paper 2 finds that if countries are compared using the UN's Human Development Indicators (HDI), which take education and life expectancy into account, then the picture that emerges is quite different from that suggested by the income data alone.
Indeed the gaps may have narrowed. A striking inference from the study is a contrast between what may be termed an "income gap" and an "HDI gap". The (inflation-adjusted) income levels of today's poor countries are still well below those of the leading countries in 1870. And the gap in incomes has increased. But judged by their HDIs, today’s poor countries are well ahead of where the leading countries were in 1870. This is largely because medical advances and improved living standards have brought strong increases in life expectancy.
But even if the HDI gap has narrowed in the long-term, far too many people are losing ground. Life expectancy may have increased but the quality of life for many has not improved, with many still in abject poverty. And the spread of AIDS through Africa in the past decade is reducing life expectancy in many countries."
I feel that the IMF did not really answer the question, the answer seemed very politically correct. The International Monetary Fund did explain what was happening on the globe financially, but I would have liked to see a definite yes or no answer, but I guess as an international body, the IMF is unable to do so.
Wendy.
Posted by Wendy! at 9:04 pm
Globalisation: The Irony In Economics
Suddenly, it is not easy being rich in Asia
Rising prices in first-world cities are a sign of strength, but could also prove to be an Achilles' heel
ANYONE doubting Japan's revival should check with a real-estate agent in the country. It is there you will find evidence the nation is shaking off eight years of deflation. Average commercial land prices in Tokyo, Osaka and Nagoya rose 1 per cent last year, the first gain in 15 years and one of the clearest signs yet that deflation is ending. Nationwide, land prices saw their smallest fall since 1991.
That, as just about any Japan investor will proclaim, is stellar news for the world's No 2 economy. Now for a contrarian question: Will rising prices brighten or dampen Japan's outlook?
Full article here.
____________________________________________________________________
Because this article, in itself, is somewhat already an analysis of the effects of globalization, I will not regurgitate this article's views, but attempt to provide another point of view on it, while still remaining true and relevant to the topic.
As mentioned in the article, globalization does present a setback to developed countries, especially in Asia, like those of Singapore, Hong Kong, and so on. This is due to the lower costs involved in investment in less developed countries, like China and India, than in more developed countries, like Singapore and Hong Kong. The disparity between these two economies in different stages of development, is creating a paradox. As quoted from the article, "Rising prices used to be a sign of progress. Now they may be an Achilles' heel for some of Asia's most developed economies."
The main reasons for this phenomenon are already stated in the article, but for the sake of posterity, I will go through them again. These reasons range from globalization, the somewhat homogeneous nature of economies in Asia leading to price-led economic competition, to the many different stages of economic development Asian countries individually possess. But somehow, one or the other, it all boils down to globalization.
Globalization, in itself, is an irony. In the case of Asia, globalization has helped Singapore and Hong Kong to be economically ahead of their time, to be "gateways of Asia", the first few countries to receive the first taste of Western economies. Given this, they naturally economically advanced a fair bit quicker than their other neighbours like China did, thus assuming a head-start.
However, as little as around ten years ago, globalization has turned its back to these now-developed economies. Up and coming, are what you would call these economies. Though rather developed, these economies are still somewhat in their infancy, and have plenty of investment potential, what with the low cost of land and development, and the considerably cheaper labour than those of more developed economies. Furthermore, these economies, which are characteristic of China's and India's, have a huge market, signaling the probable breakthrough of foreign goods and services into the local market, if investments were made in such developing economies. Thus, as can be seen, it is hardly any wonder why such economies attract so many investments now.
Therefore, at least from this article, we can already see that, globalization, in the economic arena; can be both a good, and a bad thing. Depending on the circumstances, like wars (Japan), globalization would work either for or against certain countries.
It is then mentioned in the article, that for the economies that are already developed, they should start specializing in niche, high-quality services, and empowering entrepreneurs, encouraging innovation, and thereby exploring more ways to fight for a piece of the global dollar. However, what if all countries eventually reach the state of a fully developed economy? Are they all supposed to focus on such services and empowerment of entrepreneurs? Surely, when this is done, wages would be extremely high, hyperinflation a real possibility, and there would be hardly any food left for anyone, for all the countries would have abandoned the fields, and left for the brilliant prospects of a developed economy. Perhaps then, the ones with the less developed economies, still focusing on mass production and agriculture, would be the ones considered the economic superpowers. Again, an irony in globalization.
Overall, we can see that the definitions of an economic superpower, whether those that specialize, or those that mass-produce, are based on the whims of globalization. Globalization, at least in the economic context, is what keeps change constant. I will be exploring this in greater detail, depth, and scope, in my later posts.
- Marc, the Economics 'Expert'
Want to know more about globalization in general? Go here.
Posted by cram at 1:02 am
Feminism
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
This is a picture, taken from Temasek Junior College's track, of the all-female touch rugby team partaking in a game of touch rugby. And globalization had a part to play in it.
Once, females were not allowed to participate in competitive sport at all. In the Ancient Olympic Games, women were forbidden to take part in the games. Even when the Olympic Games were revived in 1896, even the founder himself, Baron Pierre de Coubertin, did not agree with women's participation in the Games. However, all these have changed.
Today, there are more competitive sports open to women for participation than ever before. So too, have the opportunities for participation in competitive sports in educational institutes for girls greatly increased, as demonstrated in the picture above. This is true almost all over the world.
The status of women has risen significantly, elevating the woman from being only a domestic homemaker to that of near or equal that of men. This is especially so in the Americas and most parts of Europe. However, it is only so in some parts in Asia. Nevertheless, the picture above is representative of the phenomenon of globalization. The means through which globalization has employed in this case, is mainly that through media. All forms of media have played a huge part in the globalization of values, be they print or visual media.
Without globalization, there would not have been the advent of Western social attributes in Asian countries, such as Singapore.
How so? Well, it is known that most Western countries are ahead of most Asian countries in terms of liberal views and openness. Western countries have mostly accepted women's importance in society, and are increasingly giving opportunities, which were once only available to men, to women too. However, without globalization, this social phenomenon would not have traveled to countries in Asia, and the transformation from a typical conservative Asian society that believes in the domestic role of the woman to a more liberal society that accepts gender equality, would not have happened as rapidly.
- Marc, the Economics 'Expert'
Posted by Wendy! at 11:48 pm
Culture
The word culture comes from the Latin word "colere" which means to inhabit, to cultivate or to honour. Culture refers to human activity in general. Culture could also mean a certain group of people's tastes in art and manners.
Singapore is so influenced by other countries, especially the United States of America and England. These two countries have spread pop culture to the rest of the world. Pop culture began last century with the rise of rock 'n' roll, The Beatles, mini-skirts, big hair, and all things groovy. Since then youths all over the world have looked to other countries for fashion ideas, music and all things hip. Teenagers around the world today dress alike, think alike, and feel the need to carry the same things, for example, teenagers all feel the need for a pair of jeans, an mp3 player, as well as many other material things.
Before the western influence in Asia became so powerful, Asians would usually scrimp and save for everything they wanted to buy. Today, banks have different schemes for customers to pay for things without money touching their fingers at all, and people find this extremely easy to do with the numerous credit cards and debit cards, under various names, like UOB's "Lady's card". This allows people all around the world to spend without really knowing how much they are actually spending, and how much money they have left, because all transactions are done electronically. That is also an example of the spread of technology around the world.
People not only spend much more now, but also prefer to splash ot on foreign brands, such as Nike, FCUK and Guess. Guess and Nike coming from America, and FCUK, which is actually French Connection UK, coming from the United Kingdom. These brands have become a status symbol. For example, everyone who wants to show that they exercise, or want to look like they do, would wear clothing from international labels like Nike, Adidas, Reebok and Fila. Not only do these brands sell sportswear, they also sell the equipment needed for the sports, be it shoes, or rackets, or bags. Also, once people have accuired products from these international labels, it seems as if they are able to afford something other people do not have.
Shopping, and brands are just one small part of the phenomenon that has taken over the globe. People are working hard not just for their families anymore, but now, the money earned helps to pay for peoples' want for material possessions.
Not only has the western world influenced people in the way they dress, think and act, it has also influenced the world on how people should look, and beauty has come to be defined as slim and fit young women and men who have no extra fat on their bodies, who always seem to have a radiant glow about them. Even though people know that everyone is different and no one can ever be perfect, they still strive for the "perfect" body which, to many people around the world, is what they see in advertisments. For example, this advertisement from the American brand Guess.
Western countries have not only influenced what teenagers do, but also what people around the world eat. Now, fast food outlets such as McDonald's and KFC can be found in almost every country. This is a product of America's spreading influence around the world. Ten years ago, McDonald's was not known in China at all, and yet today, it is one of the most popular food chains in the country.
Besides food, there is also sport. Games which orginated in Europe and especially England have made their way to Singapore. For example, tennis. Tennis came from England, and was originally a sport which only the rich and royalty could play. Tennis has now become a sport quite widely played in Singapore, however not as widely as basketball or badminton. I believe the arrival of tennis in Singapore was because of the British colonial masters who came to colonise Singapore. The sport then spread to the Singaporean public, first with the rich playing it, and only recently has tennis become a game where everyone can play and not just the well-to-do.
Western influence can be seen in the houses people live in, the clothes people wear, the stationary they use, the technology they use, where people work and play, and almost everything else.
I'll talk about Asian influence on the rest of the world another time.
- Wendy
