Globalization is that the spread of products, technology, information, and jobs across national borders and cultures. In economic terms, it describes an interdependence of countries round the globe fostered through trade. On one hand, globalization has created new jobs and economic process through the cross-border flow of products, capital, and labour. On the opposite hand, this growth and job creation isn’t distributed evenly across industries or countries. Specific industries in certain countries, like textile manufacturing within the U.S. or corn farming in Mexico. All of them have suffered severe disruption or outright collapse as a result of increased international competition.

Globalization motives are idealistic, likewise as opportunistic, but the event of a worldwide free market has benefited large corporations based within the Western world. Its impact remains mixed for workers, cultures, and tiny businesses round the globe, in both developed and emerging nations. Globalisation has been an advantage for corporations in respect to multiple fronts. They’ll reduce operating costs by manufacturing abroad. They’ll buy raw materials more cheaply thanks to the reduction or removal of tariffs. Most of all, they gain access to countless new consumers.

Globalization could be a social, cultural, political, and legal phenomenon. Socially, it results in greater interaction among various populations. Various aspects like that of exchange of ideas, values and expression among cultures represent globalisation. It also represents a trend toward the event of single world culture. Politically, globalization has shifted attention to intergovernmental organizations just like the world organisation (UN) and also the World Trade Organization (WTO).

Legally, globalization has altered how law of nations is made and enforced. Globalization has sped up to an unprecedented pace since the 1990s, with public policy changes and engineering innovations cited because the two main driving factors. China and India are among the foremost samples of nations that have benefited from globalization. One clear results of globalization is that an economic downturn in one country can create an issue through its trade partners.


Proponents of globalization believe it allows developing countries to catch up to industrialized nations through increased manufacturing, diversification, economic expansion, and enhancements in standards of living. In developing countries jobs and technology are brought by outsourcing. By removing supply-side and trade-related constraint, cross-border trading increases which results in increase of trade initiatives. Globalization has advanced social justice on a global scale, and advocates report that it’s focused attention on human rights worldwide.


One clear results of globalization is that an economic downturn in one country can create a consequence through its trade partners. for instance, the 2008 financial crisis had a severe impact on Portugal, Ireland, Greece, and Spain. Of these countries were members of the ecu Union, which had to step in to bail out debt-laden nations, which were thereafter known by the acronym PIGS. Globalization detractors argue that it’s created a degree of wealth and power within the hands of tiny low corporate elite which might shovel in smaller competitors round the globe. Globalization has become a polarizing issue within the U.S. as entire industries have been disappeared abroad in a new location. It’s seen as a significant think about the economic squeeze on the centre class. Globalization has also increased homogenization, for better and worse. Starbucks, Nike, and Gap Inc. dominate commercial space in many nations. The sheer size and reach of the U.S. is now a one-sided affair among nations.

READ  Judicial Review under Administrative Law


The fanning fears of foreigners and providing legitimacy for national restrictions on global trade and flows of individuals, all this has created corona virus crisis and has highlighted the downsides of intensive international integration. All forms of businesses have suddenly realized the risks of wishing on complex global supply chains that are specific not just to China—but to particular places like Wuhan, the epicentre of the pandemic. Much of this disruption could also be temporary. But the corona virus crisis is probably going to own a long-lasting impact, especially when it reinforces other trends that are already undermining globalization. It should deal a blow to fragmented international supply chains, reduce the hyper mobility of world business travellers, and supply political fodder for nationalists who favour greater protectionism and immigration controls.

The rise of the liberal international order has been a serious considering the growing movement of individuals across borders, whether for purposes of supply chains and distribution networks, international finance and therefore the flow of cash, employment, study or tourism. But this globalization has also allowed the complete world to be way more awake to the spread of the corona virus, and it should ultimately be a strong force for its own undoing. There are two sides to the globalization coin. On the positive side, there is goods, money, knowledge that creates new wealth and opportunity and the cross-border flow of individuals. On the negative side, though, it can exacerbate global disparities, enable terrorist act and cross-border crime, and permit for the rapid spread of disease. We saw this latter effect with the SARS outbreak in 2003, but compared to the beginning of this century, the cross-border movement of individuals has increased dramatically, and therefore the speed of the spread of this novel corona virus has been of a wholly different order.

Impositions has been put by various countries around the globe by restricting the movement of individuals, blocking the entry of individuals from countries particularly hard hit by the corona virus or requiring inbound travellers to self-quarantine for a period of your time. The restrictions will surely be removed once the pandemic has eased.  But with this new awareness of the risks related to the free movement of individuals, there are some who may avoid future life, business or leisure plans that need crossing borders.

Companies and businesses that have benefited from economic interdependence supported by cross-border supply chains are now facing devastating repercussions because of corona virus pandemic. China is that the world’s largest production base, and lies at the centre of the many supply chains. Since the outbreak of this corona virus, many companies that had come to rely upon China were hard hit. Meanwhile, the tourism sectors of Japan and plenty of other countries that had profited from the massive influx of Chinese tourists in recent years are severely impacted by plummeting inbound numbers. The challenge for the manufacturing and tourism industries in many countries is to see to what extent dependence on China and Chinese people may be reduced.

READ  Case Analysis: Klaus Mittelbachert v/s East India Hotels Limited

In fact, the need may transcend China. From a risk analysis perspective, there is very least rapid trend towards moving from globally dispersed production bases back in favour of domestic facilities. Of course, it’s unlikely that the tourism industry will stop looking to international arrivals. But many within the industry should start functioning on initiatives to increase domestic demand. In short, national borders may recede porous in terms of industry and so the movement of people when put next to the 30 years of globalization seen since the highest of the conflict, with sharper lines drawn between domestic and foreign and a move off from dependence on international relationships. What’s ominous is that this trend towards strengthening national borders was already manifesting in an exceedingly number of states. Brexit, the rise of populism within the midst of anti-foreigner sentiment in multiple European countries, and so the America First policy of the Trump Administration were spurred by how of increased disparity and so the rising burden on certain segments of the population from advances in globalization. The liberal international order has already taken some body blows, and physical and psychological national borders became more rigid than before.

Even in Asia, domestic pressure is increasing, with rising nationalism that emphasizes the prevalence of the ethnic and spiritual majority of a given country, as seen within the increased oppression of the Uyghurs and other minorities and so the attempts to dam the free flow of information in China or in rising Hindu nationalism in India. These trends – less porous borders and rising nationalism – and now joined by the closure of borders outright thanks to the spread of the corona virus. The result’s also a move towards a more closed-off world, one within which national borders limit the scope of event. The challenge is to need the liberal international order in an exceedingly healthy direction by regulating and attenuating the burdens of globalization. And in fact this might require stronger international cooperation. The threat of the corona virus has created a rare situation, but once we have got recovered, it’s crucial that we create mechanisms to reply to disease through effective international cooperation, without falling victim to short-sighted ethnocentrism within the method of once more returning to normality.


There are several channels through which the COVID-19 outbreak may affect Indian economy (or any economic for that matter), of which the disruption of supply chains is that the major one. Job loss is on the increase together with the slowdown in manufacturing and services activities. Workers are back to their target faraway places, thereby leaving the approaching harvest in uncertainty. Lack of orders may eventually cause massive trade contraction. Further fall in rupee isn’t remote. Besides, disruption in travelling, fall in travel and tourism, contraction in outdoor entertainment industries, rise in bankruptcy and NPAs. While these are short-term effects, rise in death and destabilisation, complicated diseases and continuation of the pandemic, etc., can’t be ruled out. Via trade and production linkages these shocks can spill over to other sectors and economies. Decoupling of economies, particularly between China and also the remainder of the planet may arise, forcing China to concentrate more on domestic consumption.

READ  Alcohol or Music CDs?

Opportunities may expand manifolds in crypto currency, Fintech, computer science and Machine Learning (AIML), Blockchain technology, to say some. Countries will explore for faster, cleaner, safer transportation, rather than a standard FTA, which talks nearly trade liberalisation and ‘shallow’ trade facilitation. Countries may choose safe and secure trade than “free” trade. New “pandemic” related trade barrier(s) (can be classified as another NTM) may replace the standard quota and other tariff and non-tariff barriers. The new global order also will create new jobs and skills. Global institutions require reforms to house the emerging situation. At the identical time, countries shall undertake reform to strengthen the digital economy and e-commerce not only to manage the pandemic but also to facilitate trade. Trade barriers mustn’t be allowed to happen in change goods and services particularly those feed the health science. Among other measures, what South Asia countries shall kill the post-pandemic period is to produce additional solatium. As an example, exporters and importers could also be waived from customs bonds till the case improves and trade obtain the momentum or faster payment of incentives to exporters or waving the interests on bank loans, etc. India’s SWIFT may be a great example here. India’s trade partners shall work on interoperability of trade transaction digital interfaces like SWIFT.

This is the time of a medical emergency. Crisis time entails togetherness and partnership. Countries need to work together while handling the crisis, particularly for the post-crisis recovery. India’s advantage is its leadership. Stable and robust leadership is in command. No event better demonstrates why a stronger network between countries is so vital to style a technique for the complete Asian region. People who are ill with Corona virus need doses of recent medicines, which then persist building antibodies, save lives, improve oxygen levels and speed up recovery. Within the same way, countries today need “economic antibodies” to avoid wasting the economies from further disasters.

Gradual opening of the economies and adjusting in “New Normal” is that the need of the hour. Stimulus works well when it’s well coordinated. India must boost up its diplomatic strength in South and Southeast Asia as there are new scope and opportunities. as an example, the RCEP is gone, but India can pick up if we follow up our pending tasks in trade, physical and digital connectivity, health and non-traditional security areas. Activating the Indo-Pacific this point may return high dividends within the post-pandemic period. India’s diplomacy has played major role in managing the crisis on a 24×7 basis, be in lifting the distress people from several parts of the planet or following the pandemic minute by minute or settling immediate and complex queries. Indian diplomacy shouldn’t stop here. India must still play a bigger role in building a cohesive neighbourhood during this “New Normal” at a time when the partnership are going to be guided by new ethics, challenges and responses.


Author: Niharika Tiwari

Lloyd Law College

Internal at Lawportal


Leave a Comment