Globalization And Its Effect On Movement Across - amazonia.fiocruz.br

Globalization And Its Effect On Movement Across Video

Sorry, that: Globalization And Its Effect On Movement Across

Essay Philosophy. Does the globalization of the economy inevitably imply a lowering of our social protections? As Jean-Fabien Spitz shows, this would mean considering them as a mere luxury that we must give up during a period of crisis, whereas they are really and more deeply what gives a democratic society the basis for its own legitimacy.

Much more than documents.

What are these effects? Social protection costs a lot and hampers the competitiveness of enterprise, and this clearly means that the fact that French employees benefit from decent pensions, free please click for source, and access to medical care — and in principle remain so equally — enters into the costs of goods and services produced in France, which thereby cannot compete in the market with products and services coming from countries where social protection is non-existent.

Therefore the sole solution must be to cut social expenditure, to reduce the public deficits they entail, and by these painful but indispensable means to restore the competitiveness of our country on the world market. But things are less obvious than they appear. First, a few words on vocabulary. They belong to the blessings and advantages that the paternalist patronage of the 19 th century granted to workers out of a spirit of charity as well as out of a desire for social peace. But when the survival of the enterprise and of employment is in play, this benevolence is out of Globalization And Its Effect On Movement Across.

However, the market naturally polarizes wealth, and when the spontaneous play of contractual agreements and voluntary transactions acts alone, then the inequalities that result are considerable, under the double impact of differences in the natural qualities of individuals and the effects of chance. The redistribution of a part of the produced wealth in the form of the welfare state is thus an anomaly in relation to this default situation; it resulted — after the Second World War — click here a set of political factors, among which Globalization And Its Effect On Movement Across rise in power of the democratic idea and the pressure from socialist ideas played essential roles.

The result is that in the mid s, the division of wealth produced between capital and labor had considerably modified to the benefit of the latter.

Navigation menu

The reality is very different: any structure for distributing wealth — the one that supposedly results from the sole play of EEffect initiatives, like the one that exists when the social state is in place — is the product of an institutional system, of an ensemble of legislative and legal provisions that are political choices and that have the effect of dictating the capacities Globalization And Its Effect On Movement Across various economic and social actors to attract a more or less large share of the wealth.

When Annd welfare state exists, then employees, by means of their unions, create for themselves advantages that are instituted and defended by law: a check this out wage, pensions, family allowances, social security, etc. If the legislation changes in favor of deregulation and a diminution in the scope of the social state, then the owners of capital are in turn able to give sanctuary to their income by means of laws that free them from certain obligations and protect their gains. But in either case, the distribution of resources is an effect of legislation, and there exists no society without institutions, no society that is just a series of private accords without collective and constraining rules that require them to be respected.

The effects in terms of prosperity and resultant flows of resources are certainly different, but nobody can claim that one of these two situations should be the norm by which we should judge the advantages and disadvantages of the other — as occurs nowadays. One might object that this is only a theoretical view, since there is a total difference between redistribution and its absence.

Uploaded by

When the social state exists, the collective intervenes to transfer wealth that belongs to some in order to benefit others, whereas when only the market is in play and there are no blocked transactions or obligatory transfers, then each remains the master of what he has produced with his labor and his energy. But if there is a purely theoretical view, it lies precisely Onn this objection, for nobody is master of anything without Gloobalization help of a rule that attributes it to him, without a collective decision that rules here someone possesses an exclusive right over some element of the wealth produced, which requires that others submit to the conditions that he would have chosen in order to have access to it.

Voluntary transactions, in this sense, are no more legitimate than enforced transactions, since they are just as dependent on the legislative and coercive framework that gives them force and requires that they be respected. In the latter enforced case, a legal constraint is exercised on holders of resources who cannot exercise an exclusive right over them; Globalization And Its Effect On Movement Across in the former voluntary case, the legal constraint — just as real — is exercised for the benefit of those who have these resources in hand and confers an exclusive right over them. Any attempt to Adn the contribution of any individual to any social production by reflecting on what it would be without that person is doomed to failure; consequently, the idea that there exists a distribution of resources that is able to recompense people justly or in just proportionfor the merit or contribution each has made, is an illusion.

Nota Bene:

And claiming that the current distribution of wealth might Globalization And Its Effect On Movement Across the reflection of the initiatives Acroxs various actors is quite simply inconceivable, for the value of goods is a function of factors that have nothing to do with the activity of individuals, like scarcity, the state of the demand, the phenomenon of private income, etc. Is the owner of an apartment whose value has quadrupled in the course of thirty years in possession of a commodity that represents his labor? Moreover, this reasoning leaves out essential questions that strengthen such negative conclusions: supposing it might be possible to measure the merits of each person, why should individuals be the sole proprietors of the advantages that they are thus able to produce, when they are certainly not the authors of the natural qualities that are within them?

Why should it be legitimate for individuals to be able to profit from the Itts chances offered to them, in terms of both internal qualities and external luck? Why, inversely, should it be legitimate for others https://amazonia.fiocruz.br/scdp/blog/gregorys-punctuation-checker-tool/how-did-civilization-influence-ancient-civilization.php have to bear alone the negative consequences of unfortunate circumstances, once again meaning both lacking productive qualities and encountering external bad luck?

Not to mention doubts about the naturalness of a distribution of resources in which some actors participate by bringing manifest extrinsic advantages like inheritance or a high quality education. However, as the founders of liberalism showed, markets indeed possess a miraculous property that sets them apart as systems of resource allocation: they are able to realize the harmonization of thousands or millions of individual actions and judgments by the law of supply and demand, which enables a constant adaptation of production to needs.]