For a considerably long time today, globalization has been described variously as one among the most significant forces shaping the international arena with regard to politics, business, social events and other major sectors (Kawachi et al, 2007). While this s the case, countries and individuals have experienced both positive and negative effects of the phenomenon to different degrees. The difference in the degree of the effects depends greatly on the state of the economy, and whether or not the country is vulnerable and capable of being molded by international forces. While this is the case, the developed and developing countries gain or lose differently – and this means that everybody should be concerned about the inequalities that rise out of the differential effects of globalization (Jomo & Baudot, 2007).. This paper is an endeavor to explain the inequalities associated with globalization with special regard to global energy consumption and natural resources depletion and the globalization of healthcare and family wellbeing, using the United States (Developed) and Nigeria (Developing) as the case study countries.
As can be seen from figure 1, below, Nigeria, a low income economy is a portrayal of the inequalities brought about by the globalization of healthcare and family well being. For the purposes of this paper, I elect to compare the amount of money allocated to the healthcare development in the 2012 budget. From the figure, it is clear that Nigerian authorities allocated 284.96 billion naira to healthcare. This, weighed against the total planned expenditure of 4.877 trillion naira is far too low compared to the 22% (see figure 2) allocated by the United States government to the same endeavor. This essentially means that the United States prioritizes healthcare, and is likely to offer better family well being. On the contrary, Nigeria, a growing economy offers low quality care.
Figure 1: the Nigerian 2012 budget allocation
http://tekedia.com/31528/breakdown-2012-nigeria-budget-doubled-allocations-technology-2011/nigerian-budget-2012/
Figure 2: The United States Federal Outlays 2012
http://www.usfederalbudget.us/federal_budget_detail_fy13bs12012n
Much like in the healthcare sector, the energy consumption differs greatly between the two countries, the USA and Nigeria. Notably, from figure 3, Nigeria, in the year 2010, relied on traditional and biomass sources to cater for 82% of the energy needs. This is a way of guarding against the depletion of natural resources. Secondly, it is associated with the inability of most people to afford alternative sources. Ironically, the United States, which imports oil from Nigeria relied upon petroleum to meet 39% of the energy needs (see figure 4). Globalization has thus enabled the developed nations to deplete the resources of the third world, while they protect their own. This will be problematic in the long run with the third world being the victims of this phenomenon dubbed globalization.
Figure 3: The Energy Consumption in Nigeria, 2010
Source: http://www.eia.gov/countries/cab.cfm?fips=NI
Figure 4: energy consumption in the US by source, 2007
Source: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US_Energy_Consumption_by_Source_2007.PNG
Perhaps the most potent step that the United States government and other governments from the developed nations should do is to strategize on how to alleviate poverty in such countries as Nigeria. They should come up with international policies that will enable the third world nations to make the best out of globalization (Dinello, 2005). The international policies could touch on such matters as the reduction in the amount of oil exploited in a year in certain countries. As the sole superpower, the United States has the obligation to ensure that the international scene is punctuated by equality. As an individual, there is much that I can do. As much it may not make much sense in the short run, it certainly, will in the long run. Perhaps what I can do is to endeavor to push for change through participating in such political processes as elections and voting. It is all rooted in the leadership (Kennett, 2008). With poor leadership, it is unlikely that the international agenda will be attained. I therefore opt to make a change through championing for the right policies and choosing good leaders as well as sensitizing people to vote for good leadership.
The main reason why I was convinced that I need to make a change is the fact that, besides being a citizen of a developed economy, I am human first of all – and this makes me an international citizen. Global citizenship means that every human being is a citizen of the world – and by extension, a brother’s keeper for all other human beings (Lane, 2008). Another reason why I felt convinced is the fact that globalization is mysterious, the impacts it may have one country will, in one way or another, be felt by others – whether developed or not. As such, leaving countries such as Nigeria to wallow in poverty will affect the United States in one way or another.
Works Cited
Dinello, N. (2005). Globalization and equity: Perspectives from the developing world. Cheltenham, UK [u.a.: Elgar.
Jomo, K. S., & Baudot, J. (2007). Flat world, big gaps: Economic liberalization, globalization, poverty and inequality. London: Zed.
Kawachi, I., Wamala, S. P., & NetLibrary, Inc. (2007). Globalization and health. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kennett, P. (2008). Governance, globalization and public policy. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Lane, J.-E. (2008). Globalization: The juggernaut of the 21st century. Aldershot, England: Ashgate.
