February 2012, TS7 (Chapel and Kolago)
Geography Test – Globalization
Doc. 1 – The Economist, Oct. 9th 2004
In the minds of many Americans, globalisation is to blame for the weak labour market, as good American jobs
are “outsourced” to cheap workers in India and China. [...] China, especially, is now cast as the villain of
trade. [...]
This popular picture bears little resemblance to economic fact. Only a fraction of the job losses in recent
years can be traced to outsourced jobs. The real reason for the slack employment figures is strikingly high
growth in productivity. Nor does China deserve blame for America’s trade deficit, which is caused by not
enough saving at home rather than unfair trade practices abroad.
Still the popular picture explains why trade policy has loomed far larger in the 2004 campaign than it did four
years ago. The race is often presented as a contest between a protectionist (John Kerry) and a free-trade
candidate (George Bush). [...]
The truth is more complex. [...] The two candidates do indeed offer competing visions. But they are about how
best to cope with globalisation, not whether to reject it.
[...] Mr Bush’s negotiators boast that they have completed free trade agreements (FTAs) with 12 countries,
including Australia, Morocco, Bahrain, Chile, Singapore and Jordan. John Edwards, Mr Kerry’s choice for vicepresident, has a much clearer record of hostility to free trade. [...]
Whoever wins in November, America will not retreat into serious protectionism, nor will it pursue a blemishfree trade policy.
Doc. 2 – Cartoon from The New York Times, “As the World Turns”, July 9th, 2005
Doc. 3 - A cartoon by Chappatte, International Herald Tribune, May 20th, 2005
Correction du contrôle - Globalisation
Introduction
 Presentation
Definition of Globalization as the increase of interactions between the different parts of the World,
characterized by more intensive World-scale flows (goods, capitals, people, information and knowledge),
allowed by advanced technologies of information and communication and by mass transport. Some consider it is
led by Western countries, and that it is synonymous with Americanization.
 Presentation of the two documents
 Key question
If the USA is the leader of the Globalization process, can the latter threaten its first / leading position? Can
Globalization threaten the American hyperpower? More precisely, is raising China responsible for the slump
in American economy?
 Outline
I – America’s first position at stake
A – Threatening China
Doc. 1 focuses on China (lines 2 and 6), which is the most emerging of all the developing countries. Indeed,
its average economic growth reaches 10% per year. Would China be the new leader of Globalization then?
Doc. 2 pictures China at the top of the globe, raising triumphantly. It is pictured as a chubby / plump man,
wearing a suit and a tie (he is apparently a business man, maybe a CEO or Hu Jintao himself), sitting on an
imposing armchair, self-confident, beaming widely, doing a victory sign with his hands. The USA is drawn on the
right, pictured as Uncle Sam (strips and stars on the hat), he is slim and badly-dressed (rags). He is trying to
stick to his chair which is sliding down. His face is strange: he seems to be scared. Both characters are very
different and contrasted.
Doc. 3 pictures a man selling Chinese textiles. All the T-shirts display European or American motifs: we
recognize the Simpsons, the American flag, catch phrases you can find on American T-shirts… There is even
one displaying “no to Chinese textiles”. The discrepancy between the shop and the T-shirts makes the irony:
China is able to adapt and does not care about ideology or beliefs. If, to sell its products, it has to display antiChinese catch-phrases, it is no problem. The irony also comes from the weariness of the two European and
American representatives. China is properly unbeatable and is flouring the competitors.
This drawing pictures the end of the American era, the end of the American century, as the title confirms.
A new power is raising, while America is declining.
B – Why would China and the other emerging countries threaten the supremacy of the USA? The impact
of relocation
The author of doc. 1 mentions India and China (line 2): they are the emerging countries which threaten the
leading position of America. Why? Because they benefit from relocation. The latter takes advantage of their
cheap labour force (line 2) and of their abundant and therefore docile population (China: 1.3 billion people;
India: 1 billion people). Relocation mostly concerns unskilled jobs, while conception remains in the country of
origin (headquarters don’t move). The aim is to cut production costs. The production is confided to subsidiary
firms located in cheaper countries.
But is Globalization, and more precisely emerging China, really threatening America’s leading position? What if
China was not the “villain” to blame in the end?
II – Would emerging countries be an unfounded threat?
A – Is China the guilty one?
It is easy to blame China for the economic problems America encounters, and especially for the American
economic slump (as we know, America is now witnessing an economic recession). China embodies the “villain”
that America needs in order to settle its supremacy. It is a popular and easy target, China is the scapegoat. Two reasons are given in doc. 1: the first one is that China steals jobs (thanks to outsourcing) and is
therefore responsible for the “weak labor market” (line 1), and the second is that China has recourse to
“unfair trade practices” (line 6), that is an allusion to the flooding of Chinese products on the World market.
China, as an emerging and therefore threatening country, is highly promoted through the media.
B – Other internal problems explain America’s declining position
If China is not the villain, who is it then? According to doc. 1, the one to blame is the USA itself. Two reasons
are given:
 Higher productivity (line 6) leads to job losses. Productivity is the ratio between the production and what
you need to reach this production. Productivity increases thanks to mechanization for instance, and is
synonymous with a loss of unskilled jobs because workers are replaced by machines.
 The second reason is American’s trade deficit (line 6), i.e. exports are less important than imports. The
national debt of the USA is very high (over $15,000 billion). Consumption is too high, the USA lives beyond
its means.
C – How to cope with this decline?
Doc. 1 was published in a very particular context: the 2004 presidential campaign that opposed G. W. Bush to
J. Kerry. The almost manichean opposition between both candidates concerning the attitude to face
Globalization shows how burning the issue is. On the one hand, J. Kerry advocated a protectionist attitude,
to which the USA already resorted after the 1929 crash: protecting the internal market from foreign
competition in order to avoid the bad effects of Globalization and emerging China. On the other hand, G. W.
Bush advocated an open economy so as to remain competitive, and his administration boasted that the USA
had already reached free trade agreements with countries all over the World (North Africa, Latin America,
Middle-East, Asia), not to be left aside.
The author wants to show that no one has the answer to cope with the American economic slump.
Globalization is something you have to deal with, and not something that can be avoided. The debate is too
manichean to be really beneficial.
Conclusion
Is Globalization really threatening America’s supremacy? These documents show that Globalization preoccupies
America which is looking for an external factor to explain its own economic slump. The fault to emerging
countries or to internal problems? A mixture of both for sure.
Our conclusion may consider another aspect: is the USA really on the decline? Is China really emerging, and
is China really threatening America? When one considers that the US GDP per capita reached $47,000 in 2010
(IMF) while it did not even reach $4,500 in China, when one consider the internal political difficulties that
China encounters and which were highly broadcast with the 2008 Olympic Games, we may wonder if the
threat really exists.