For good or ill, globalization has become the economic
buzz-word of the 1990s. National economies are undoubtedly becoming steadily
more integrated as cross-border flows of trade, investment and financial capital
increase. Consumers are buying more foreign goods, a growing number of firms now
operate across national borders, and savers are investing more than ever before
in far-flung places. Whether all of this is for good or ill is
a topic of heated debate. One positive view is that globalization is an unmixed
blessing, with the potential to boost productivity and living standards
everywhere. This is because a globally integrated economy can lead to a better
division of labor between countries, allowing low-wage countries to specialize
in labor-intensive tasks while high-wage countries use workers in more
productive ways. It will allow firms to exploit bigger economies of scale. And
with globalization, capital can be shifted to whatever country offers the most
productive investment opportunities, not trapped at home financing projects with
poor returns. Critics of globalization take a gloomier view.
They predict that increased competition from low-wage developing countries will
destroy jobs and push down wages in today’s rich economies. There will be a race
to the bottom as countries reduce wages, taxes, welfare benefits and
environmental controls to make themselves more competitive. Pressure to compete
will erode the ability of governments to set their own economic policies. The
critic also worry about the increased power of financial markets to cause
economic havoc, as in the European currency crises of 1992 and 1993, Mexico in
1994~1995 and South-East Asia in 1997. According to the positive view, globalization can ______.
A. allow low-wage countries to use workers in more productive ways
B. help low-wage countries get rid of labor-intensive economy
C. enable firms to exploit bigger economies of scale
D. cause capital to shift to countries where there is greatest fund
shortage