Исследование переводческих трансформаций
Дипломная работа - Иностранные языки
Другие дипломы по предмету Иностранные языки
fluence, creating an imbalanced playing field.
Engagement
Some corporations and think tanks argue that their actions can actually be positive. Their constructive engagement allows the spread of democracy, new technologies, human rights and so on to those regions, which, over time, would allow more positive benefits to be realized.sounds nice and comforting and there are certainly cases where this happens. With globalization in general, cross cultural communication is occurs far quicker than ever before. Often those countries which have been dictatorships are often regimes that have been placed in power, or supported, by western nations and the larger corporations have benefited from the dictatorships ability to control their own people.some countries, large corporations have even funded media suppression or military activities against workers, themselves.rights conditions have hardly improved due to corporate activities and the technologies brought in are usually still owned by the company itself, so that the self-empowering benefits of technology transfer is less than what it could be., some public pressure has forced certain large companies to address their human rights issues. Such companies include large oil corporations like BP Amoco and Statoil. The constructive engagement argument is then seen as a nice cover to continue exploitative practices.
тАж As governments spend resources on EPZs [Export Processing Zones], they foresake the opportunity to create more jobs for the same amount of money by investing in and supporting small enterprises serving the local market. EPZs require government funds which could be used elsewhere for projects that directly help the poor. Their growth is coming at the expense of the poor.respect to tourism foreign exchange earnings for developing countries are often lower than the income figure might lead one to believe, says a UN report. The difference is due to leakages-the percentage of the tourists money which does not stay in the country being visited, but which goes instead to the foreign-owned airline, tour operator and hotel. These figures are significant. They show that a great deal more foreign exchange stays in a country when hotels are locally owned.hear more and more about philanthropic organizations set up by mega-successful business elites, where millions of dollars are donated to seemingly worthy causes. However, the fact that such donations are needed also serves as an indication that development policies and globalization policies in their current form are not sustainable! The following quote summarizes this notion quite well:is all very well for Bill Gates to charitably donate $750m to pay for immunization programmes for certain diseases, as he recently announced he would do, and for James Wolfensohn to urge transnational companies setting up in poor countries to contribute financially directly to local education services. Societies which depend on such largess to meet their basic health and education needs are neither sustainable, democratic nor equitable-yet new dimensions of power are ceded to large companies.
Economic Power also wields Political Power
While the drive for efficiency is always a good thing (as it should help prevent wasting resources), oftentimes, the goal of keeping these costs down also leads to reducing wages, working conditions and often the basic rights of people.occurs because these corporations and even some nations seek out places where poor labor regulations can be taken advantage of in an unfair way, or by not supporting-or even opposing-international or national bodies and policies that could help to ensure fairness.regarding the notion of efficiency, there is a difference between an industry or corporation driving towards efficiency for maximizing profits, versus driving towards efficiency that would benefit society.highlight this point further, take for example the illegal drug or tobacco industries. They, like other industries need to operate efficiently and minimize unnecessary costs. However, their impact on society is negative to say the least.
Точно также, другие отрасли промышленности, такие как автомобильная/транспортная промышленность, отрасли здравоохранения. Некоторые транснациональные корпорации делают продажами больше, чем ВВП (Внутренний валовой продукт) многих стран. Из 10000 самых дорогих объектов, 51% принадлежит корпорациям. В то время как это может восприниамться как успешное заявление с некоторых точек зрения, другие предполагают, что эти и другие большие корпорации в значительной степени не несут ответственности за многие социальные проблемы и проблемы окружающей среды, которые они за собой оставляют, а их их размер означает, что их влияние заслуживает внимания.
In the same way, other industries, such as the automobile/transportation industries, health industries. Some transnational corporations make more in sales than the GDPs (Gross Domestic Product) of many countries! Of the 100 hundred wealthiest bodies, 51 percent are owned by corporations. While this can be seen as a success story from some viewpoints, others suggest that these and other large corporations are largely unaccountable for the many social and environmental problems that they leave in their wake, and that their size means that their effects are considerable.is not that every single corporation is inherently bad or greedy or something like that, but oftentimes, the very large, multinational corporations who naturally have vested interests in international development and trade policies (like any group) are able to deploy enormous financial resources in an attempt to get favorable outcomes. The political power that is therefore held by such a small number of people impacts the planet significantly. As a result a few of these corporations make up some of the most influential sources of political and economic power.its prominence in political debate, corporate power and its systems of checks and balances are not well understood. Corporate power at its current level was not foreseen by early lawmakers and constitutional scholars, and its foundation in law is uneasy and inconsistent. But it is clear that the question of the legitimacy of corporate power in the United States has been transformed.
Originally, the government had to review and specifically approve each corporate charter as being essential for a specific purpose that was in the public interest. Now one does not ask so much as notify the state that a corporation has been created. Anyone can incorporate for any activity that is not illegal. And the corporation, granted at least some of the constitutionally protected right of free words originally contemplated for individual citizens, has now been accorded the right to question and challenge whether government is acting in the public interest.fact, government is now as much a creation of business as the other way around. Businesses grew so fast that there was no opportunity for other national institutions to develop adequate power to filter the impact of commerce on civil life. So Big Business begot Big Government. Because the goals of business are not always identical to the goals of society (which is partially a failure of the corporate governance system), some institution was needed to harmonize the undoubted benefits of active commerce with the various needs of other constituencies. In the United States, this organization was the federal government, the only other major national institution.influencing governments, larger multinational companies especially, with their enormous resources wield significant political as well as economic power as also highlighted by the above quote as witnessed by the 2000 Presidential Election in the United States, where corporate donations to both Bush and Gore were in the millions of dollars.
Corporations Rule the World?
For all the vivid examples of modern corporate power, such as the annual income of Motorola being equal to the annual income of Nigeria's 118 million people, it is folly to believe that big business on its own is shaping the new world order. This allows the argument against globalisation to be depoliticised, reducing it to single issues of ethical trading and codes of conduct, and inviting its co-option. Above all, it misses the point that state power in the west is accelerating.
John Pilger: A common perception is that due to the enormous influences and power of many major multinationals, corporations are therefore going to rule the world; that corporations will reduce the need for a government and will dismantle the state. Yet, this is not completely true.still require the state to provide them the environment conducive to their needs.state may reduce its functions and obligations and thus roll back its commitment to its people, but that doesn't mean that they won't be needed and become obsolete.rollback will also enable decision-making (and therefore control) to be further concentrated.rollback happens both in the North and the South.South has been structurally adjusted to open up the economy and roll back the functions of the state, and even concentrates further the decision-making. That is, these IMF-, World Bank-prescribed policies have reduced democracy. In the North, in countries ranging from New Zealand, to th