Critical analysis of ‘Nike’s voice looms large. Social policy’ by Ballinger Jeff
Ballinger focuses his work on one company that has been known to exploit its workers. This is a tactic by Ballinger to ensure that his work is effective. Nike is a rich U.S. company that had been infamous for exploiting its workers. By using it as his target in his work, Ballinger was able to draw out worldwide attention for his book. An author writes his work with the aim of reaching out to his readers to make them aware or educate them about something. Ballinger as a labor activist had the aim to inform people of how rich companies used cheap labor in third world countries to maximize profit.
Ballinger advocates for the banning of outsourcing saying that it endangers the lives of those in the host country. He targeted Nike to bring out this message. Nike underpaid its workers in developing countries as compared to their counterparts in the developed country (Ballinger 2002).
He wanted to bring to people’s attention the gap in wage between laborers in developed countries and those in developing countries. Ballinger achieved this through his book. It is not enough to write a book; the title has to be catching just like Ballinger’s book’s title was. This is not the only tactic employed by the author; he was able to target his audience. Low-wage labor was a menace in developing countries, and this were the countries that Ballinger targeted for his work. He was also able to catch the attention of the media, and his book became popular.
Ballinger in his book used a very sensitive topic at the time-cheap labor. This was able to sway the readers to purchase his book. His book caught international attention because it touched on a subject that concerned the international society (Segerlund, 2010). There is also the issue of timing; Ballinger’s arguments coincided with strikes that swept the Indonesia. These strikes made his work catch the eye of both Indonesian governments and U.S. firms.
Critical analysis of Kripalani’s ‘Ban outsourcing? Bad Idea’
Banjeet Kripalani an Indian is in support of outsourcing. Despite the adverse effects of outsourcing, Kripalani is in support of the U.S. outsourcing in India. He states that the U.S. is in a position to benefit if India changes its approach to creating jobs. Outsourcing has been rebelled by corporate social responsibility activists. Multinational companies especially from developed countries have a way of causing damage to the society. Governments such as India have thus taken it upon themselves to protect the society from these adverse effects by imposing high tariffs on multinational companies. This, however, has not helped in improving their economies.
Kripalani’s article seeks out to show that outsourcing has more advantages than disadvantages (2004). By allowing multinational companies to invest in India, Kripalani says that this move will benefit India and the U.S. Multi-national companies create employment for the people in their host country.
Kripalani uses facts and gives examples to support his claims (2004). By providing evidence, he lures his readers into agreeing with the fact that outsourcing is healthy and banning it is not a wise move.
In Kripalani’s article, he states that outsourcing helps transform closed economy into an open economy. He uses figures to show globalization in India contributes to the Gross Domestic product of the country in a positive way. He also uses figure to show how India has a huge market potential for multinational companies to invest.
References
Ballinger, J. (2001). Nike's voice looms large. Social policy, 32(1), 34-37. Kripalani, M. (2004). Ban outsourcing? Bad idea. Businessweek, (3876), 64.
Segerlund, L. (2010). Making corporate social responsibility a global concern: Norm construction in a globalizing world. Farnham, Surrey, England: Ashgate.
