Response to Bright and Geyer

I do have a bit of a disagreement with Bright and Geyer’s claim that the world is no longer in a period of globalization. I feel that globalization in it self is ever adapting with worldly updates such as trade agreements and global conflicts. The globe is really never in a state where no change is happening. Goods, services, ideas, culture, ect. are constantly being transported across the globe.

However, I do agree with the claim that the way in which globalization has occurred is due to the survival of the fittest model. With the innovation happening today, industrialized/developed nations are at a clear advantaged to under-developed countries. Countries such as the United States, China, and other have clear political and economic clout due to their actions in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

What interested me what the idea of the change in economic disparity and how poverty is now associated with the slums of cities, rather than rural areas. I think this can also be connected more to nations in themselves due to the industrial era as well as the periods of imperialism. I think that many developed countries are at a clear advantage due to the ways in which they exploited small nations. This exploitation, paired with a rapid decolonization caused great political and economic turmoil, and still affect imperialized nations today. I think the claim that the world is not in a period of catching up is correct because of the fact that the imperialist tendencies of these industrialized countries made it almost impossible for smaller nations to catch up in the first place.