Patel, Anokhi Week 7: The Promise of Development

     One of the author's key point's she makes in the article is the impact of globalization and government intervention in a country's market if it is taken advantage of, without it letting take advantage of the country. Moreover, she makes a comparison between those developing countries under a free-market system opposed to well-developed countries under a more autocratic, government intervention market system. The conclusion she draws is that Eastern Asian countries have vastly benefited from globalization, and have industrialized at a great due to their approach.
     From the evidence the author provided, I can see where she draws this conclusion. Some countries that benefited from international markets to increase productivity were China, Vietnam, Korea, Taiwan, and Malaysia. Yet, they wouldn't have been able to do this without government intervention. This brings me to that previous point, "Letting globalization being taken advantage of without letting it take advantage of the country." The way, the Eastern Asian countries did this is through the use of its people.
      The people were still the central force to improving the economy of these countries, as they provided the labor; therefore, the goal of the Eastern Asian countries was to educate its people, providing them with real stability, by ensuring new job opportunities. Only then, the government would intervene to provide the resources to help meet the industrialization of the countries. The government did this, through providing infrastructure to make it easier to help transport exports, and ensuring a price cut of doing business and shipment, benefiting the economy positively, as the countries saved more that way. Additionally, the government was crucial in advancing technology in these countries, as many high tech companies are still outsourced in Asia today. Through these actions, it's no doubt that the prices stabilized naturally, as people were aware of the ins and outs of the labor market.
      Yet today, many developing countries are still struggling due to their lack of understanding of globalization. Moreover, India is one such example, being run by private sectors. Additionally, it has one of the highest poverty rates, where the government seems to not be doing anything about. As the article mentioned, much of the Karnataka, India population lives on a minimum wage of $2.70 a day. On the other hand, just outside the premises, in Banglore people are living a well-off lisestyle. The point is, unlike Eastern Asian countries, India isn't even making an effort to bring about labor stability to its nearly 800 million poor individuals.
       A place, where government intervention is crucial, India, seems to ignore public welfare, education, and government aid. Though in many other countries even the U.S. there are so many resources available to the struggling working class, yet in India, even the littlest measures like infrastructure aren't equipped to help the poor. This is why much of its population is seen doing intense labor work, perhaps even soul crushing just to get by. Honestly, it's heartbreaking, and it kills me that the government isn't doing anything about it, and considering such a class, "the untouchables."

     
      The theme I want to further discuss is globalization's impact on poor societies, opposed to developing countries. Can a group of struggling individuals come together to change its society, through their personal efforts and maybe a little help from a mayor? Is that possible in a country where the government doesn't seem to be involved with the poor?