Globalization: the good, the bad and the ugly

Globalization is about (increasing) de-territorialization of business and production. In other words, it increasingly is irrelevant where goods are produced, where they are traded and where they are sold, as long as they are produced, traded, and sold in a competitive manner (this even applies more and more to services).
Globalization has been has been going on for many centuries and it is not likely to stop now. It may change in character, though. One reason for that may be that the issues covered by ‘sustainability’ will presumably have an effect on its further development.

The good
Globalization can have various consequences for the good, if you like. It may create livelier markets, which would involve more choice for all parties in the markets and more efficient determining of price and quality. Also, it might lead to more contact between people and empower them more in their options.

The bad
Globalization might bring a new dimension to alienation. It used to be that alienation meant that those active in production processes were separated from the results of their work, with all sorts of negative consequences for them. Now, with globalization, it can also mean that they are separated from the origin and destination of their products, which would reinforce the consequences of alienation that can already be discerned.

The ugly
Globalization means often that de-territorialization of business and production goes much faster than the development of cooperation of governments and international bodies. This means that opportunities arise to do in other countries what in one’s home country is not in fact allowed (think about dumping of toxic waste, child labor, sweat shops, etc.)

The moral aspects of globalization
Do globalized markets involve other moral responsibilities than the ‘old style’ markets do? Perhaps. But at least, they show an intensification of impacts on other people, who often are far out of sight, which has responsibility as its compliment, ideally. Not really new, but now much more relevant, is that we have to be aware of differences in culture and the responsibilities this brings. Also, consequences of actions often have a much larger scale than before.

One aspect of a healthy market is infroamtion, which empowers those active on the markets to make informed decisons. But is that not much more difficult now? Sure, there is the world wide web, but that mean that I have reliable information about a sweatshop in India or pesticides in a banana plantation in Guatamala?
And the livelier markets, as a result of globalization, will result in casualties. Do they remind us of responsibilities?