The example of the Argentinian tanners charging their fellow Argentinian shoe manufacturers a higher price at a lower quality regarding leather just demonstrates the inseparability of the economy from globalization. While globalization helps the tanners in Argentina generate income, it hurts the local economy by further discouraging the shoe manufacturers in Argentina from making shoes with only a local reach. Is it possible for a local economy to exist in the presence of globalization? If so, is it only possible in some areas and countries?
Another idea that I thought was interesting was how the idea of "competitive collectivism" was able to establish Brazil as an intermediary between producers to consumers. This makes me wonder if it's better to promote sectors as a whole, rather than individual businesses within a sector.
While I believe that this article only touches upon the idea of GCN's and doesn't really elaborate more on how globalization affects the subjects in the network, I know that diasporic workers play a large role in the GCN. Though this article provided a macroeconomic framework of the GCN, it would be interesting to see an article from the micro- level. Some questions that I had were: Is it possible for a local economy to exist in the presence of globalization? If so, is it only possible in some areas and countries? Can an agro-extractive sector or industrial sector be a consumer sector as well, and vice versa?
Workers in a Nike shoe factory, an example of the production sector of a GCN. |
Korzeniewicz, Miguel. “Global Commodity Networks and the Leather Footwear Industry: Emerging Forms of Economic Organization in a Postmodern World.”
http://www.stevespence.org/courses/global-contexts/images/nike-factory.jpg
No comments:
Post a Comment