Impact of Globalisation (Revision Essay Plan)

Here is a suggested answer to a question on the impact of globalisation on developed

Introductory Context
An estimated 9 percent of the global population still lives below the international poverty
line of US$1.90 PPP a day. Success in reducing poverty in East Asia is clear with 7
percent of the population in the region living below the US$3.20 PPP line and 25
percent living below the US$5.50 PPP poverty line in 2018. However, almost 70 percent
of Sub-Saharan Africa’s population lives on less than US$3.20 per day. Progress in
cutting extreme poverty has been halted by the pandemic. The World Bank estimated
that the pandemic pushed between 119 and 124 million people into extreme poverty
around the globe in 2020. Many developing countries have limited resilience to the
impact of economic shocks and threats from climate change.”.
(Source: Adapted from the World Bank Poverty Report, 2021)
Question
To what extent have the economic benefits of globalisation favoured developed over
developing countries? (25 marks)
KAA Point 1
Globalisation involves deeper integration between countries through networks of trade,
capital flows, ideas, technologies and movement of people. One argument that
globalisation has favoured high-income countries lies in the growing dominance of
TNCs from advanced nations. TNCs base their manufacturing, assembly, research and
retail operations across several countries, and many have become synonymous with
globalisation namely Nike, Apple, Amazon, Google (Alphabet) and Samsung. Some
have annual revenues many times higher than the GDP of smaller low-income countries
and there has been fierce criticism of numerous TNCs for following tax avoidance
strategies such as transfer pricing. This has reduced tax revenues for governments in
developing nations which then hampers their ability to use fiscal policy to fund public
services such as education and basic health care. The effect is to limit progress in
reducing extreme poverty and improving human development outcomes.
Evaluation Point 1
A counter argument is that globalisation is associated with a steady reduction in import
tariffs around the world which has then improved access to high-income markets for
businesses from emerging countries. Many nations in east Asia have achieved
reductions in extreme poverty driven by export-led growth. The extract says that only 7
percent of this region’s population now live below the US$3.20 PPP poverty line and
continued high growth – as economies recover from the effects of the pandemic - will
lead to improvements in per capita incomes and living standards. Indeed, sixty percent
of the value of world GDP now comes from emerging market and developing economies
and several countries have their own TNCs operating on a global scale. The recent
success of countries such as South Korea, India and Vietnam is testimony to the
opportunities that globalisation has offered developing nations who have developed
competitive advantage across a range of industries.
KAA Point 2
A second argument supporting the question is that nations succeeding in a globalizing
world have diversified economies, a workforce with flexible skills and governments with
fiscal resources to overcome external shocks such as the pandemic. In contrast, poorer
low-income countries rely heavily on the production and export of primary commodities
or incomes from tourism, both of which have been hit by the global recession in 2020-
21. Many poorer nations also haveinadequate infrastructure which increases the costs
of trade and their direct tax revenues as a share of GDP are low because of sizeable
informal economies and persistently low per capita incomes. This means that national
governments rely heavily on external debt, and many have low currency reserves. They
are therefore more exposed to economic, financial and public health shocks. This is
evidenced by the differences in vaccination rates between rich and low-income
countries. As of January 2022, only 9% of people in low-income countries have received
at least one dose and per capita incomes may take years to reach pre-2020 levels.
Evaluation Point 2
In evaluation, the globalisation process has been a catalyst for economic reforms in low
and middle-income countries. Consider the example of Vietnam which has transitioned
to a socialist oriented market economy and successfully attracted inward FDI from
companies such as LG and Samsung. FDIhas flowed in helped by low unit labour costs
costs, improving infrastructure and human capital and a deregulated business
environment whilst the Vietnamesegovernment has moved to a managed floating
exchange rateto help reduce some of the risks from regional and global economic
shocks. Vietnam is a good example of a country that has successfully progressed from
a low income to a low-middle income nation over the last two decades. The valueof their
external trade accounts for roughly 180% of national output, more than any other
country at its level of per-person GDP. And their educational scores on standardized
tests are on a par with Germany and Austria.
Final Reasoned Comment
Overall, it is hard to reach a firm view on this question because globalisation as a
process is uneven and not inevitable. Before and during the pandemic, there was
evidence of a switch towards “regionalisation” rather than full-throttled globalisation. For
example, most sub-Saharan African countries have joined the African Continental Free
Trade Area which seeks to boost intra-regional trade and investment and encourage
economies of scale among African businesses so that they can better compete against
the dominance of Western TNCs. Developing nations often struggle to compete with
developed countries, therefore it is argued free trade benefits high-income economies
more. Gains from globalisation will never be equitably distributed.And this sense of
deepening inequality and opportunity risks a further shift to tariff and non-tariff barriers
to trade and moves towards economic nationalism.
Does globalisation lead to rising income and wealth inequality?
Level:
AS, A-Level, IB

Board:
AQA, Edexcel, OCR, IB, Eduqas, WJEC
Last updated 11 Oct 2023
Share :
 Share on Facebook
 Share on Twitter
 Share by Email
Does globalisation lead to rising income and wealth inequality?
Globalization has a complex and multifaceted relationship with income and wealth
inequality. Its impact on inequality can vary depending on a range of factors, including
the policies in place, the specific circumstances of individual countries, and the way
globalization is managed. Here are some key points to consider:
1. Positive Effects on Inequality:
o Economic Growth: Globalization can stimulate economic growth by
promoting trade, investment, and innovation. Increased economic activity
has the potential to raise overall living standards and reduce poverty in
many countries.
o Consumer Benefits: Access to a global market can lead to lower prices
for consumers, benefiting those with lower incomes. Globalization can
make products and services more affordable, improving the standard of
living for many.
o Job Opportunities: Export-oriented industries can create job
opportunities, especially in developing countries. These jobs can provide
better income and working conditions than alternative employment
options, such as subsistence farming or informal labor.
2. Negative Effects on Inequality:
 o Income Disparities: Globalization can exacerbate income inequality in
some countries. Skilled and educated workers in industries connected to
the global economy may benefit more, while low-skilled workers in
declining sectors may see stagnant wages or job loss.
o Wealth Concentration: In some cases, globalization can contribute to
wealth concentration. Those with the resources and access to global
markets can accumulate wealth more quickly, while those without such
access may struggle to keep up.
o Tax Avoidance and Evasion: Wealthy individuals and corporations can
exploit globalization to evade taxes by shifting income and assets to low-
tax jurisdictions, further contributing to wealth inequality.
o Race to the Bottom: In a competitive global environment, some countries
may lower labor and environmental standards to attract foreign investment
and remain competitive, which can lead to worse working conditions and
environmental degradation.
3. Institutional and Policy Factors: The extent to which globalization impacts
inequality depends on how it is managed. Government policies, labor regulations,
taxation, and social safety nets can either mitigate or exacerbate the inequality
caused by globalization.
4. Global Perspective: Globalization can also contribute to global income inequality
by benefiting wealthier countries and individuals more than less developed ones.
Developing countries often have a more difficult time fully participating in and
benefiting from the global economy.
In summary, globalization's effect on income and wealth inequality is not universally
positive or negative but depends on a variety of factors. While it has the potential to
stimulate economic growth and improve living standards for many, it can also
exacerbate inequality if not managed properly. Policymakers play a crucial role in
ensuring that the benefits of globalization are broadly shared and that measures are in
place to address any resulting inequalities.
What are Transnational Corporations?
Introduction – Definition and Scale of TNCs
Transnational Corporations are businesses that operate across international borders,
though most of them have their headquarters in the USA, Europe and Japan.
According to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development there were an
estimated 77 000 Transnational Corporations in the world in 2007, that’s the most
recent data I could find! That had almost doubled since the late 1990s when there were
37 000.
The key characteristics of TNCs are:
 They seek competitive advantaged and maximization of profits by constantly
searching for the cheapest and most efficient production locations across the
world
 They have geographical flexibility – they can shift resources and operations to
any location in the world
 A substantial part of their workforce is located in the developing world, but often
employed indirectly through subsidiaries.
 TNC assets are distributed worldwide rather than focused in one or two countries
– for example, 17 of the top 100 TNCs have 90% of their assets in a different
country from their head office.
The Huge Economic Power of TNCs
TNCs are economically very wealthy and thus potentially more powerful than many of
the world’s nation states.
According to Oxfam, of the top 100 ‘revenue collectors’ in the world, 70 are corporations
and only 30 are countries, or nation states. For example, BP is bigger than Finland,
while Chevron is bigger than Ireland, and the combined annual revenue of the 200
largest TNCs exceeded those of the GDP of the 182 nation states containing 80% of the
world’s population.
Critics remind us that GDP and annual revenue measure different things, so these
figures may not show actual differences in economic power, but this aside, the relative
economic power of TNCs has grown in relation to nation states over the last few
decades, and today TNCs wield much more economic power than they did in the past.
Fobel et al (1980) note that from the 1970s TNCs set about investing significantly in the
developing world because of high labour costs and high levels of industrial conflict in the
West, which reduced profits. The investment was greatly helped by developing
countries, which actively sought TNC investment by setting up special areas called
Export Processing Zones, or Free-Trade Zones, in which TNCs were encouraged to
build factories for export to the West.
Free Trade Zones offered incentives such as infrastructure provided by the government
(transport links), few planning controls on building, and low taxation. There are now over
5000 free or export processing zones in the world today which employ over 43 million
workers, the majority of which are based in China’s territories.
SignPosting
Transnational Corporations are one of the global organisations students study if they
choose the most excellent globalisastion and global development option in their second
year of A-level sociology.
Immediately after reading this introductory post, you should read the following two posts
which explore the impacts of TNCs in developing countries….
Arguments for Transnational Corporations in Development
Modernisation theory saw TNCs as playing a positive role in helping societies to
develop. Rostow (1971) saw the injection of capital as essential in the pre-conditions for
take-off phase of development, and he thought TNC’s were one of the institutions which
could help kick start the process of development by investing money, technology, and
expertise that the host country did not possess.
It is neoliberals, however, who have historically been the real champions of TNCs as the
most efficient institutions to kick-start and carry through development in poor countries.
In neoliberal theory, economic success is proof of competence – the fact that TNCs
have been making goods efficiently at a profit on a global scale for decades, if not
centuries, mean that these are the institutions best placed to kick start economic growth
in poor countries.
Neoliberals argue that the governments of developing countries need to pull down all
barriers in order to create a ‘business-friendly’ environment in order to encourage
inward investment from Transnational Corporations.
In Neoliberal theory, corporations will help a country develop in the long term by
providing jobs and training. The money earned will be spent on goods and services at
home and abroad creating more money to invest and (limited) tax revenue for further
development.
A summary of the supposed benefits TNCs can bring to developing countries
 TNCs bring in investment in terms of money, resources, technology and
expertise, creating jobs often where local companies are unable to do so.
 TNCs need trained workers and this should raise the aspirations of local people
and encourage improvements in education
 Jobs provide opportunities for women promoting gender equality.
 Encourage international trade which could increase economic growth, access to
overseas markets
 All of the above means that wealth generated from TNC investment and
production should eventually trickle down to the rest of the population.


Arguments and Evidence that Transnational Corporations Harm Developing Countries

Dependency Theorists are generally critical of the role of TNCs in developing

countries. They basically argue that they are part of the neo-colonial project and their
main focus is to maximize profit by extracting resources from poor countries as cheaply
as possible, paying workers in poor countries as little as possible and externalising as
much of the costs of production of possible (basically not cleaning up after themselves.
Criticisms of Transnational Corporations
Bakan (2004) argues that TNCs exercise power without responsibility. Bakan makes
several criticisms of Corporations including:
1. They pay workers low wages – as with sweat shop labour
2. They pollute the environment – as with the case of Shell in Nigeria.
3. They take risks with health and safety, which can result in worker injury and
death – as with the case of Union Carbide in Bhopal
4. They profit from human rights abuses – as with Coca Cola in Columbia.
Transnational Corporations pay workers low wages
This is probably the best known criticism to be leveled at well-known Corporations such
as Nike, Adidas and Primark is that they profit from ‘sweatshop labour’ – with the
workers who manufacture their products working extremely long hours in poor
conditions and for extremely low wages.
In chapter 5 of The Corporation, one researcher calculates that workers at one of Nike’s
factories in Indonesia were earning 0.3% of the final selling price of the products they
were making. Now, I know there are middle men, but in classic Marxist terms, this is
surely the extraction of surplus value taken to the extreme! The anti- sweat shop
campaigns are several years old now, but still ongoing.
Of course sweat shop labour is not limited to the clothing industry – the BBC3 series
‘Blood Sweat and T shirts/ Takeaways/ Luxuries’, (3) in which young Brits travel to
developing countries to work alongside people in a wide range of jobs, clearly
demonstrates how workers in many stages of the productive process, including rice
sowing, prawn farming, gold mining, and coffee packing, suffer poor pay and conditions.
Many of the goods focused on in this series end up being bought and the sold in the
West by Transnational Corporations for a huge mark up, and it is extremely interesting
to see the Brits abroad struggling with the injustice of this.
The Daily Mail recently conducted some undercover journalism in a Chinese factory that
makes the i-pad – where the report they ‘encountered a strange, disturbing world where
new recruits are drilled along military lines, ordered to stand for the company song and
kept in barracks like battery hens – all for little more than £20 a week.’ Apparently
workers have to endure shifts up to 34 hour s long, and the factory has been dubbed
the ‘i nightmare factory’.
Corporations are responsible for causing ecological decline and damage
The evil Coca-Cola corporation is a good example of a company causing environmental
decline in India:
It takes 2.72 litres of water to produce 1 litre of coca cola. Now this may sound like a
reasonable ratio for such a deliciously sweet beverage, but not if you happen to be a
farmer living close by to Coca Cola’s Kaladera plant in Rajasthan, North East India.
According to recent independent report, commissioned by coca cola, “[the factory’s]
presence in this area would continue to be one of the contributors to a worsening water
situation and a source of stress to the communities around,” concluding that the
company should find alternative water supplies, relocate or shut down the plant.
The result of coke’s presence in the water depleted region is that local farmers who
have lived in the area for decades now have inadequate water supplies to keep their
crops watered and there appears to be a clear link between the coca cola Corporation
moving into the region and the destruction of the livelihood of the farmers living nearby.
Coca Cola, which had an advertising budget of $2.6 billion in 2006, is clearly in a
position to compensate these farmers, or relocate to a more water rich area, but
chooses not to. Coca Cola’s priority clearly lies in maintaining its sickly sweet image
while generating famine and poverty for those living in proximity to its factory.
Another example of a company causing environmental damage is Shell in Nigeria.
Watch the brief clip from the Video ‘Poison Fire’ and note down the scale of
environmental damage caused by Britain’s biggest company.

Corporations cause illness and death in the pursuit of profit

Union Carbide in Bhopal India is easily the most horrendous example of this…..
In December 1984, an explosion at a pesticide plant in Bhopal India, then owned by the
American multi-national Union Carbide, lead to deadly gas fumes leaking into the
surrounding atmosphere and toxic chemicals into the ground. That was more than 25
years, but, according to the Bhopal Medical Appeal (1), a toxic legacy still remains. In
addition to the 3000 people that died almost immediately, over the last two and a half
decades, there have been a further 20,000 deaths and 120 000 cases of people
suffering from health problems, including severe deformities and blindness, as a result
of the toxic seepage into the surrounding area from the plant.
Since the disaster, survivors have been plagued with an epidemic of cancers, menstrual
disorders and what one doctor described as “monstrous births” and victims of the gas
attack eke out a perilous existence – 50,000 Bhopalis can’t work due to their injuries
and some can’t even muster the strength to move. The lucky survivors have relatives to
look after them; many survivors have no family left.
apparent root cause of the accident was that the plant had not been properly maintained
following the ceasing of production, although tons of toxic chemicals still remained on
the site.
It wasn’t until 1989 that Union Carbide, in a partial settlement with the Indian
government, agreed to pay out some $470 million in compensation. The victims weren’t
consulted in the settlement discussions, and many felt cheated by their compensation -
$300-$500 – or about five years’ worth of medical expenses. Today, those who were
awarded compensation are hardly better off than those who weren’t.
TNCs profit from human rights abuses
In 2003 the Trades Union movement pushed for a boycott of Coke because of the
company’s alleged use of illegal paramilitaries to intimidate, threaten and kill those
workers who wished to set up a Trades Union at a bottling plant in Colombia.
Campaigners for the Killer Coke campaign have documented a ‘gruesome cycle of
murders, kidnappings and torture of union leaders involved in a daily life and death
struggle’ at these plants. The bosses at some of Coke’s factories in Columbia have
contacts with right wing paramilitary forces, and use violence and intimidation to force
unionised labour out of work, and then hire non-unionised labour on worse contracts for
half the pay. There have been more than 100 recorded disappearances of unionised
labour at Coke’s factories.
Now the Coca Cola Corporation is obviously not directly to blame for this, as Columbia
is one of the more violent countries on the planet, and this culture of violence and
intimidation is widespread. The company is, however, responsible for making the
conscious decision to choose to invest in a region well known for such practices, and
failing to either pull out or protect its workers.
The Role of TNCs in Development – Conclusions
It is clear that TNCs are not particularly interested in helping poor countries to develop.
However, it is not the moral responsibility of these corporations to do so; their primary
commitment is to maximize profit for their shareholders.
However, we must be careful not to tarnish all TNCs with the same brush – not all of
them are as bad as each-other, and some do have ethical codes of conduct which they
apply globally. TNCs are also sensitive to their public reputations, and boycotts
supported by well-known charities such as Oxfam have the potential to damage
corporate profitability.
It would also be a mistake to dismiss all TNC investment in the developing world as
exploitative. TNCs can bring innovation and efficiency into developing countries, and the
wages they pay are often more than the wages in local industries.
Finally, there is the fact that TNCs probably aren’t going to diminish in power any time
soon, so instead of criticizing them, it might be better to focus on what steps we might
take to make the immoral ones behave better.
The following barriers exist to making TNCs work more effectively for
development
1. There is a lack of global control by national governments and agencies such as
the United Nations. Quite simply, there is no international body or law in place to
regulate the activities of these corporations on a global scale, there is no
international minimum wage, for example.
2. Corporations are globally mobile. Local populations are not. Governments are
often reluctant to hold Corporations to account because they will simply move
their operations to other countries.
 3. Leaders of governments across the world are part of the same global-political
elite circle as the CEOs who run TNCs, so it is not in their interests to regulate
them.

Global social movements and attempts to oppose globalization

What is anti-globalisation?

Anti-globalisation is the umbrella term for a group of

different protest causes, including
 environmentalism
 third world debt
 animal rights
 child labour
 anarchism, and
 anti-capitalism and opposition to multinationals
Globalisation has really accelerated since the break-up of
the Soviet Union.
It includes the increasing integration
of countries' individual economies,
the rise in world trade, the impact on Under attack in
ordinary people of multinational Seattle
companies and the effect of large
sums of money moving in and out of economies.
It also includes the increasing number of cross-border
social, cultural and technological links.

The targets of anti-globalisation protests have been

meetings of the
 World Trade Organisation (WTO) which promotes
free trade between countries
 International Monetary Fund (IMF) which gives
countries loans when their economies are in crisis
 World Bank, which among other things gives longer
term loans to countries for development
Other meetings of national leaders and businesses have
also been hit, such as the Summit of the Americas in
Quebec, and the World Economic Forum in Davos.

May Day (originally a pagan festival, now the day of workers

and international socialism) is often a target for these
protests.

Protests have often resulted in violence, eg the scenes in

Quebec (see picture). But most of the protesters are
supporters of non-violent direct action, and have used
tactics such as guerrilla gardening (which saw Winston
Churchill's statue getting a turf mohican), and Feed the
Birds (giving pigeons in Trafalgar Square food when
authorities are trying to remove them).

Opponents of globalisation say it leads to exploitation of the

world's poor, workers, and the environment. They say it
makes it easier for rich companies to act with less
accountability. They also claim that countries' individual
cultures are becoming overpowered by Americanisation.
Several of the largest US brands (eg McDonald's and
Starbucks) face particular opposition.
Those in favour of globalisation say increasing world trade
should make everyone richer, and say global phenomena
like the internet can help those who are oppressed. Trade
links can encourage countries to respect human rights, they
say.

Article 20: Freedom of association and assembly

Read this article in full

Case Study: ANTI-GLOBALISATION PROTESTS

 By organising mass demonstrations at key international meetings, anti-
globalisation activists are taking advantage of the universal right to freedom
of association and assembly in an innovative way.
 While the majority of protestors are non-violent, there is a small camp of
radical protestors who actively incite violence at demonstrations by hurling
missiles or destroying property.
 During anti-globalisation demonstrations, police in several US and European
cities have reacted to the violence of these few protesters by allegedly using
excessive force in non-violent situations.

Context

Peaceful demonstrations are one of the key means by which citizens can protest the
actions of their leaders, making them more responsive to their wishes.

Until recently, demonstrations were overwhelmingly local or national in scope.

However, the nature of demonstrations has changed since the emergence of
globalisation.

Nowadays, protest itself is increasingly transnational in character. People are

assembling all across the globe to protest the actions of international institutions
rather than individual governments.

Ironically, it is the anti-globalisation movement that has best applied the universal
right to freedom of assembly to a global scale.

One of the most international and broad social movements of recent times, the anti-
globalisation movement is made up of a variety of causes, including
environmentalism, debt forgiveness, animal rights, the protection of children,
anarchism and anti-capitalism.

Most of the movement's adherents believe that globalisation leads to exploitation of

the world's poor, workers and the environment.

Mass Demonstrations

The movement's key mode of organising is mass demonstrations. It first came to the
attention of the international media in 1999 when 100,000 demonstrators marched
on the opening ceremony of the World Trade Organisation's (WTO) third ministerial
meeting in Seattle, Washington.

Although the majority of protesters were peaceful, a minority overturned newspaper

stands and smashed shop windows.

Police fired pepper gas, tear gas and plastic bullets into the crowd and arrested 500
people. A state of civil emergency was declared. Damage to buildings and business
losses were valued at 12.5m.

In 2000 and 2001, large-scale demonstrations modelled after the so-called ‘Battle of
Seattle' were organised by anti-globalisation protestors.

Other protests have occurred at the meetings of the World Bank and the
International Monetary Fund (IMF) in Washington, DC. and Prague; the World
Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland; the Summit of Americas in Quebec City;
May Day events in London and Berlin; and the European Union summit in
Gothenburg, Sweden. The most recent protests occurred at the World Trade Summit
in Cancun, Mexico; there were wild celebrations amongst those opposed to
globalisation when the talks collapsed.

Excessive Force
The police's reaction to the demonstrations has often been heavily criticised by civil
liberties and human rights organisations. They have been charged with denying
some protestors their right to freedom of assembly and using excessive force on
non-violent protestors.

The most violent demonstration occurred in July of 2001 at the G8 Summit in

Genoa, Italy when one Italian demonstrator was shot dead by the police, and
several hundreds were beaten.

Amnesty International (AI) claims that at least 200 protesters were tortured in
Genoa.

According to AI, police raided a school being used to train anti-globalisation

campaigners.

Police have defended their actions by arguing that they thought the protestors were
members of a violent anarchist organisation known as the Black Block.

The allegations of police brutality in Genoa have led to a formal judicial inquiry.

Types of Protesters

Human Rights Watch has condemned the destruction of property and violent acts by
some protesters.

Anti-globalisation protestors tend to fall into one of three camps.

The first group contains those protestors who are unwilling to break any law. The
majority of demonstrators fall into this category.

The second is made up of those who engage in peaceful civil disobedience in the
tradition of Gandhi and Martin Luther King.

Finally, there is a small camp of radical protestors who actively incite violence by
hurling missiles or destroying property such as barricades, newsstands and shop
windows.

Many would argue that they have effectively surrendered their right to assembly
under the terms of the Universal Declaration, which only protects peaceful
assemblies.
Alternatives to Demonstrations

Many anti-globalisation activists believe that violence takes the focus away from the
movement's agenda. They have instead advocated organising constructive, non-
violent alternatives to the explosive mass demonstrations.

Activists organised the World Social Forum, which meets annually in January. It is
held in parallel with the business and government-led World Economic Forum. The
last meeting was in Bombay, India.

The 100,000 attendees to the event discuss alternatives to global capitalism,

opposition to militarism, and support for peace and social justice.

The role of nation states in handling global environmental concerns

Nation states are too small to fix global problems
Chris Huhne
We need a debate about tackling international problems, rather than hankering for some
mystic past in which country was king
Jean-Claude Juncker may not be the right answer, but his candidacy for the presidency
of the European commission is at least a response to the right question. The process by
which he rose to lead the European People's party list – which then emerged as the
largest group in the European parliament – was an attempt to engage voters in the
European decisions taken in their name. As such, it confronted the central political issue
of our times.
We live in a world of increasingly global problems, ineffective national solutions, and
consequent disillusion with democratic politics. These tensions will ultimately prove as
great a threat to our democracy and our values as the totalitarian regimes of the 20th
century. Who cares about pretentious, powerless politicians? Powerlessness is stealthy,
insidious and corrosive to our belief that politics matters. At least Europe has attempted
to respond by electing its supranational legislators.
It is, though, a work in progress. Europe is full of talk of the "democratic deficit", even
though EU institutions are the only transnational bodies with any elected component.
Nor are the voters impressed. Even in Europe, there is scant understanding of the new
transnational realities. The European parliament elections showed a yearning for
simple, nationalist solutions.
Nigel Farage, Geert Wilders and Marine Le Pen are tribunes of nostalgia for national
certainties. Yet scarcely any problem that people care about passionately is any longer
susceptible to a purely national solution, even by a country as big, powerful and
besotted with the perfume of sovereignty as the US. Yesterday's American hubris is
today's Iraqi disaster.
Conflict resolution? Most recent conflicts have begun within societies, not between
them. Last week's UN report noted that there are now 51 million refugees and internally
displaced people across the world, half of them children. This was the highest level
since the second world war, and mainly due to internal conflict in Syria, South Sudan
and the Central African Republic.
Yet the UN is no nearer to developing a legitimate template that can impose order in the
increasingly common phenomenon of the failed state. Afghanistan, Yemen and Sudan
have all been horrible warnings of what can follow from internal collapse, all with
consequences far beyond their own frontiers. Ominously, Pakistan is on many experts'
danger list, and it is a nuclear weapons state.
Even an issue like wealth and income inequality, once the meat and drink of class-
based national politics in the old democracies, is not immune. Inequality is likely to
grow, as Thomas Piketty has argued. National solutions will not work. High tax rates in
one country are liable to be undercut by competitor countries, sometimes gleefully and
deliberately, as in the case of George Osborne's explicit decision to cut corporation tax
rates. The only solution is international agreement on tax avoidance, evasion and
minimum tax rates. Goodbye nation state.
Take the prosperity brought by large-scale mass production. The US is so rich in part
because of its huge domestic market. If we want our European companies to produce at
scale, they have to be able to make the same product for the whole European market.
For such a single market to work, every national market has to have similar consumer
safety, health and environmental standards. That means at least Europe-wide – and
maybe soon transatlantic – rule-setting. Goodbye nation state.
Then there is clean water and unpolluted air. Climate change alone makes the case for
international action: without it, we are heading inexorably for such extreme weather
events that our prosperity will be cataclysmically undermined. Ask the insurers: one
group of private companies only too aware of the rising costs and damage of climate
change.
Take even an area traditionally central to the nation state, such as crime. The European
arrest warrant and speedy extradition are responses to the easyJet age. Cybercrime
disrespects frontiers as readily as air or sea pollution. Fraud in London may begin in
Singapore, and involve counterparties in Zurich. Policing is international, or it is flat-
footed.
If we cannot grasp these global issues – fundamental to our future prosperity and to our
belief in the efficacy of the public realm – the disillusion with national politics will fester.
When problems are global, solutions must match. Power is increasingly going to be
wielded supranationally. That, in turn, brings the challenge of how to make politics work
across language and cultural barriers.
This is not a counsel of despair. We have solved global problems such as the hole in
the ozone layer. There are also examples of successful, multilingual democracies that
provide a model for the public accountability of international power: India, Switzerland
and Canada. (I could add Belgium and Luxembourg, but that is more contentious.)
Language barriers may even melt as voice-recognition technology gives everyone a
hand-held interpreter.
But we need a public debate about where the real problems in our democracy lie, rather
than hankering for some mystic past in which powerful nations resolved simple
problems with the smack of firm government. David Cameron needs to spell out some
home truths to his own party, and start to provide some answers himself.
The greatest democratic problem today is the weakening power of the nation state
faced by threats stretching beyond its borders. The nation's weakness is fatally
wounding the prestige of its political elites. Pity the mediocre Juncker, for he carries all
the expectations of this new and frightening world.
Topic: The role of transnational organisations in tackling global inequalities and
the extent to which they have been successful
 Define what is meant by the term transnational organisations.
 Explain the term Non-Government Organisations (NGOs) with examples to
illustrate. Assess the impact of transnational organisations in tackling global
inequalities.
 Make reference to the Davos Project and the UN’s Millennium Goals.

Project Davos: what's the single best way to close the world's wealth gap?
As political and business leaders gather for their annual summit on the global economy,
we want to know what key step you think they should prioritise to tackle inequality
Donald Trump and Angela Merkel will join 2,500 world leaders, business executives and
charity bosses at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, Switzerland which kicks
off on 23 January. High on the agenda once again will be the topic of inequality, and
how to reduce the widening gap between the rich and the rest around the world.
The WEF recently warned that the global economy is at risk of another crisis, and that
automation and digitalisation are likely to suppress employment and wages for
most while boosting wealth at the very top.
Quick Guide
What is Davos 2020?
Show
But what ideas should the great and good gathered in the Swiss Alps be putting into
action? We’d like to know what single step you think governments should prioritise in
order to best address the problem of rising inequality. Below we’ve outlined seven
proposals that are most often championed as necessary to tackle the issue – but which
of them is most important to you?
Provide free and high quality education
Proponents of government funded free education argue it opens up opportunity to all,
improving social mobility and reducing inequality. Namibia had the highest levels of
inequality in Africa in the 1990s, but reduced its gap between richest and the rest after
devoting the world’s second-highest percentage of overall budget to education -
enabling it to provide free secondary school to all students.
Raise the minimum wage
With stuttering average wages in the private sector, some say raising the minimum
wage is the only way workers can keep pace with inflation and rising costs, preventing
those at the bottom of the economic scale from being cast further adrift.
Raise taxes on the rich
As those at the top capture an ever greater share of national wealth, proponents of
raising income or wealth taxes on the rich say a massive redistribution of wealth is
essential to halt the rise of inequality.
Fight corruption
If the game is rigged in favour of those with power and capital, then any measures to
improve equality will prove futile, some argue. A level playing field is the primary
requirement for social mobility and diversity to thrive.
Provide more social protection for the poor
This includes policies and funding to mitigate the risks of unemployment, ill health and
disability, supporting the most vulnerable in society and promoting workers rights.
Providing a strong social safety net prevents communities being cast adrift when social
or economic changes occur.
Stop the influence of the rich on politicians
Inequality of access to power leads directly to greater inequality overall, some would
argue. Politicians will inevitably be more inclined to enact policies to the benefit of those
who fund their campaigns and have their ear.
Provide jobs for the unemployed
Proponents of providing state jobs for anyone who can’t otherwise find work - instead of
offering welfare payments, or simply ignoring the problem - argue it reduces inequality
while also offering purpose to people’s lives and creating utility for the state.
Using the drop-down menu below, please tell us which one step you think is most
important for tackling inequality – and then explain why, in as much detail as possible, in
the box provided. If your preferred strategy is not included in our list of seven, select
“other” before explaining what your preference is in the text box.

Global Stratification and Inequality

Sociological Theories and Global Inequality
The Functionalist Perspective: Motivating Qualified People
From a functionalist point of view, inequality plays a role in holding society together and
encouraging efficiency.

Learning Objectives
Review the functionialist perspective on inequality

Key Takeaways
Key Points
 According to a functionalist perspective, differences in power, wealth, and other
rewards within the social structure are justified, because they motivate the most
qualified people to exercise their talents in the most important jobs.
 Society is unequally structured because of people's inherent inequality in
functional importance.
 A problem with this view is that it is difficult to determine the functional
importance of any job.
 Another problem with this view is that it assumes that the current system of
stratification is fair and rational, which is not always the case.
Key Terms
 social stratification: The hierarchical arrangement of social classes, or castes,
within a society.
 functional importance: The degree to which a job is unique and requires skill.

The structural-functional approach to stratification asks the same question that it does of
the other components of society: What function or purpose does it serve? The answer is
that all aspects of society, even poverty, contribute in some way to the larger system's
overall stability.

According to structural-functionalists, stratification and inequality are inevitable and

beneficial to society. The layers of society, conceptualized as a pyramid, are the
inevitable sorting of unequal people. The layering is useful because it ensures that the
best people are at the top and those who are less worthy are further down the pyramid,
and therefore have less power and are given fewer rewards than the high quality people
at the top. The Davis-Moore hypothesis, advanced by Kingsley Davis and Wilbert E.
Moore in a paper published in 1945, is a central claim within the structural functionalist
paradigm, and purports that the unequal distribution of rewards serves a purpose in
society. Inequality ensures that the most functionally important jobs are filled by the best
qualified people. In other words, it makes sense for the CEO of a company, whose
position is more important functionally, to make more money than a janitor working for
the same company.

A job's functional importance is determined by the degree to which the job is unique and
requires skill, meaning whether only a few, or many other people, can perform the same
function adequately. Garbage collectors are important to public sanitation, but do not
need to be rewarded highly because little training or talent is required to perform their
job. For example, according to this theory doctors should be rewarded highly, because
extensive training is required to do their job. It is logical that society must offer greater
rewards (e.g., income, vacations, promotion) to motivate the most qualified people to fill
the most important positions

Critiques of the Functionalist Perspective

There are several problems with this approach to stratification. First, it is difficult to
determine the functional importance of any job, as the accompanying specialization and
inter-dependence make every position necessary to the overall operation. According to
this critique, the engineers in a factory, for example, are just as important as the other
workers in the factory to the success of a project. In another example, a primary school
teacher in the U.S. earns $29,000 per year, whereas a National Basketball Association
player can earn as much as $21 million per year. Are basketball players more essential
to society than teachers? Are basketball players more functionally important than
teachers? In 2009, comedian Jerry Seinfeld earned $85 million. Do his earnings
demonstrate his contribution to society? If NBA players or famous comedians went on
strike and decided not to work, most people would not notice. However, if teachers, bus
drivers, nurses, cleaners, garbage collectors, or waitresses stopped working, society
would close down. Thus, functionalism can be critiqued on the basis that there is little
connection between income and functional importance.

Second, functionalism assumes that the system of social stratification is fair and
rational, and that the "best" people end up on top because of their superiority. But in real
life, the system does not work so easily or perfectly. For example, some would argue
that former U.S. president George W. Bush was not the smartest or most politically
talented individual, but he was well connected and born at the top of the stratification
system (white, male, wealthy, American), and therefore was elected to a position with
great power—the U.S. presidency.

The Legal Field: Lawyers and judges tend to work very long hours and are often
subject to high stress situations; for example, as they determine the fate of individuals'
freedom and the allocation of large sums of money. Functionalists hold that the high pay
and status granted to lawyers acts as incentive to motivate qualified people to accept
these drawbacks.
The Conflict Perspective: Class Conflict and Scarce Resources
Conflict theory of stratification holds that inequality is harmful to society because it
creates a fixed system of winners and losers.

Learning Objectives
Compare the conflict theory of inequality to the funcionalist theory of inequality

Key Takeaways: Key Points

 According to conflict theory, capitalist economic competition unfairly privileges
the rich, who have the power to perpetrate an unfair system that works to their
advantage.
 "Losers" who are at the bottom of the social stratification have little opportunity to
improve their situation, since those at the top tend to have far more political and
economic power.
 Functionalists argue against the conflict theory approach by contending that
people don't always act out of economic self-interest, and that people who want
to succeed can do so through hard work.
Key Terms
 conflict theory: A social science perspective that holds that stratification is
dysfunctional and harmful in society, with inequality perpetuated because it
benefits the rich and powerful at the expense of the poor.
 social stratification: The hierarchical arrangement of social classes, or castes,
within a society.
 tax break: A deduction in tax that is given in order to encourage a certain
economic activity or a social objective.
Conflict theorists argue that stratification is dysfunctional and harmful in society.
According to conflict theory, social stratification benefits the rich and powerful at the
expense of the poor. Thus, it creates a system of winners and losers that is maintained
by those who are on the top. The people who are losers do not get a fair chance to
compete, and thus are stuck on the bottom. For example, many wealthy families pay
low wages to nannies to care for their children, to gardeners to attend to their rose
gardens, and to maids to pick up their dirty socks. These low wage workers do not
make enough to move beyond a paycheck-to-paycheck lifestyle, and have no means to
move ahead. Therefore, conflict theorists believe that this competitive system, together
with the way the game is "fixed", ends up creating and perpetuating stratification
systems.

According to conflict theory, capitalism, an economic system based on free-market

competition, particularly benefits the rich by assuming that the "trickle down"
mechanism is the best way to spread the benefits of wealth across society.
Governments that promote capitalism often establish corporate welfare through direct
subsidies, tax breaks, and other support that benefit big businesses. They assume that
the market will allow these benefits to the rich to make their way to the poor through
competition. For example, the Walton family, the owners of Wal-Mart, receives
enormous tax breaks. Whether the benefits of these tax breaks have made their way
down to ordinary people through better business practices or better working conditions
for Wal-Mart employees is questionable. Conflict theorists would argue that they
haven't, but rather have been used by the Walton family to solidify the patterns of
stratification that keep the family rich.

Functionalists criticize this approach by arguing that people do not always act largely
out of economic self-interest. For example, Chuck Feeney, the creator of Duty Free
Shoppers, has given $4 billion to charities. Bill Gates has given 58% of his wealth to
charity. Functionalists also argue that conflict theorists underestimate people's ability to
move upward in society. They argue that if people really want to succeed, they can do
so through hard work.
Nanny with European Children: Nannies, who are often minority women, are one
example of lower class workers with little chance for upward mobility.

The Interactionist Perspective

The interactionist perspective on social inequality focuses on the way that micro-
interactions maintain structural inequality.

Learning Objectives
Design a scenario which illustrates the interactionist perspective on inequality in action

Key Takeaways: Key Points

 Interactionists often consider the question of how power is exchanged in a
situation.
 The interactionist perspective on inequality looks at how certain social roles have
more power or authority than others.
 Micro-interactions all have the ability to reinforce or undermine power and status
differentials. Thus, social stratification is a result of these individual interactions.
Key Terms
 Social Roles: One's position and responsibilities in society, which are largely
determined in modern developed nations by occupation and family position.
 Interactionist Perspective: An approach to inequality that focuses on how
micro-interactions reflect and create unequal power dynamics.

The interactionist perspective on inequality focuses on how micro-interactions reflect

and create unequal power dynamics. Interactionists consider the question of how power
is exchanged in a situation. For example, when a child and an adult engage in
conversation, the adult establishes their power by claiming knowledge and authority that
the child cannot. When considering larger systems of inequality, interactionists look at
the inequality between social roles. Social roles refer to one's position and
responsibilities in society, which are largely determined in modern developed nations by
occupation. The interactionist perspective on inequality looks at how certain social roles
have more power, or authority, than others.

An example using real social roles can help illustrate the interactionist perspective: A
CEO has more power than a receptionist. Macro-sociologists may explain this disparity
by pointing to the unequal education of the two employees, the unequal salaries they
earn, or the differing skill levels required to fulfill each job. Interactionists, on the other
hand, would focus on the way that day-to-day exchanges demonstrate and reinforce the
gap between the CEO and receptionist. When the receptionist hangs up the CEO's
jacket, he takes on a subservient position; when the receptionist makes excuses for the
CEO missing a deadline, he accepts responsibility for the CEO's mistake; when the
receptionist laughs at jokes that he does not find funny, he flatters the CEO because he
recognizes that his job depends on doing so. All of these micro-interactions, which may
seem trivial at the time, add up to status inequality, according to the interactionist.

Wal-Mart's CEO: Interactionalists would argue that Walmart's CEO maintains his status
and power through the accumulation of interactions with others.
Lenski's Synthesis
In Lenski's view, inequality is a natural product of societal development.

Learning Objectives
Paraphrase the process which led to inequality, according to the Gehard Lenski's
theory, including different levels of society

Key Takeaways: Key Points

 As societies moved from hunter/gatherer to pastoralist/horticulturalist to
agricultural to industrial and then to post-industrial structures, more surplus
goods were created.
 Surplus goods created the possibility for some people to accumulate more
possessions than others.
 Individuals with more goods have an economic advantage relative to those with
less good because they have greater bargaining power, creating social inequality.
Key Terms
 Societal Development: The process of transitioning from a hunter/gatherer
economic model to an industrialized one.
 surplus: That which remains when use or need is satisfied, or when a limit is
reached; excess.
 Hunter-gatherer: Describes societies with no division of labor in which people
hunt and gather food and materials to meet their basic needs.

In sociologist Gerhard Lenski 's view, inequality is a product of societal development.

Lenski differentiated societies based on their level of technology, communication, and
economy. Human groups begin as hunter-gatherers, move toward pastoralism and/or
horticulturalism, develop toward an agrarian society, and ultimately end up
industrializing (with the potential to develop a service industry following
industrialization ). While this is a common progression, not all societies pass through
every stage.

Hunting, Gathering, Subsistence

The origins of inequality can be found in the transition from hunter/gatherer societies to
horticultural/pastoralist societies. In hunter/gather societies (around 50,000 B.C.), small
groups of people gathered what they could find, hunted, and fished. People collected
enough food to satisfy all of their needs, but no more—there was no surplus of goods.
There was little trading between the groups, and there was not much inequality between
groups because everyone possessed basically the same goods as everyone else.
Division of labor was virtually non-existent—people working for subsistence completed
all steps of each job. Food gathering and food production were the focus of work.

Horticulture, Pastoralism, Surplus

In horticultural/pastoralist societies (around 12,000 B.C.), groups grew very large, and
humans began to settle in one place. For the first time, people had more time to do work
other than producing food, such as making leather and weapons. This new division of
labor led to surplus goods and the accumulation of possessions. Groups traded these
surplus goods with each other, and trade led to inequality because some people
accumulated more possessions than others. As societies developed more advanced
technologies and underwent industrialization, more surplus was created, increasing the
potential for social inequality. According to Lenski, inequality is the result of increasing
surplus—some individuals will have ownership of surplus goods, others will not. Those
with more goods have an economic advantage relative to those with less goods
because they have greater bargaining power, creating social inequality.
Modern-day Hunter/gatherer Societies: Nearly all societies have become
industrialized to varying extents, but a few continue to function based on hunting and
gathering. In these societies, there are few surplus goods. According to Lenski, this
means that such societies do not exhibit inequality.

Marx's View of Class Differentiation

In the Marxist perspective, social stratification is created by unequal property relations,
or unequal access to the means of production.

Learning Objectives
Diagram the relationship between the owners of production, the proletariat, the
substructure and the superstructure according to Marx's view

Key Takeaways: Key Points

 In capitalist societies, the bourgeoisie class owns the means of production while
the proletariat class sells their labor to the bourgeoisie.
  The bourgeoisie have power and status, which they use to maintain the society's
superstructure —it's values, ideologies, and norms.
 In an ideal Marxist communist society, everyone would share access to the
means of production and social stratification would be nonexistent.
Key Terms
 egalitarian communist society: A society in which the state owns the means of
production and equally distributes resources.
 superstructure: The ideas, philosophies, and culture that are built upon the
means of production.
 substructure: The base of society, which in Marxist terms includes relations of
production.
In Marx's view, social stratification is created by people's differing relationship to the
means of production: either they own productive property or they labor for others.

In Marxist theory, the capitalist mode of production consists of two main economic parts:
the substructure and the Superstructure. In a capitalist society, the ruling class, or the
bourgeoisie, owns the means of production, such as machines or tools that can be used
to produce valuable objects. The working class, or the proletariat, only possess their
own labor power, which they sell to the ruling class in the form of wage labor to survive.
These relations of production—employer-employee relations, the technical division of
labor, and property relations—form the base of society or, in Marxist terms, the
substructure. From this material substructure, the superstructure emerges. The
superstructure includes the ideas, philosophies and culture of a society. In a capitalist
society, the ruling class promotes its own ideologies and values as the norm for the
entire society, and these ideas and values are accepted by the working class.

A temporary status quo could be achieved by employing various methods of social

control—consciously or unconsciously—by the bourgeoisie in various aspects of social
life. Eventually, however, Marx believed the capitalist economic order would erode,
through its own internal conflict; this would lead to revolutionary consciousness and the
development of egalitarian communist society. In this communist society, the state
would own the means of production, and it would equally distribute resources to all
citizens. The means of production would be shared by all members of society, and
social stratification would be abolished.
Marx Memorial in Moscow: This memorial to Karl Marx in Moscow reads, "Proletarians
of all countries unite! " Marxism is associated with a view of stratification that pits the
owners of means of production against the laborers.
Weber's View of Stratification
Max Weber formed a three-component theory of stratification in which social difference
is determined by class, status, and power.

Learning Objectives
Recall the three components of stratification in Weberian theory, including their
definitions

Key Takeaways: Key Points

 Class is a person's economic position, based on birth and individual
achievement.
  Status is one's social prestige or honor, which may or may not be influenced by
class.
 Power is one's ability to get one's way despite the resistance of others.
Key Terms
 power: The ability to get one's way even in the face of opposition to one's goals.
 status: A person's social position or standing relative to that of others.
 class: A person's economic position in society, based on birth and individual
achievement.

Classic sociologist Max Weber was strongly influenced by Marx's ideas, but rejected the
possibility of effective communism, arguing that it would require an even greater level of
detrimental social control and bureaucratization than capitalist society. Weber criticized
the dialectical presumption of proletariat revolt, believing it to be unlikely. Instead, he
developed the three-component theory of stratification and the concept of life chances.
Weber supposed there were more class divisions than Marx suggested, taking different
concepts from both functionalist and Marxist theories to create his own system. Weber
claimed there are four main classes: the upper class, the white-collar workers, the petite
bourgeoisie, and the manual working class. Weber's theory more closely resembles
theories of modern Western class structures embraced by sociologists, although
economic status does not seem to depend strictly on earnings in the way Weber
envisioned.

Working half a century later than Marx, Weber derived many of his key concepts on
social stratification by examining the social structure of Germany. Weber examined how
many members of the aristocracy lacked economic wealth, yet had strong political
power. He noted that, contrary to Marx's theories, stratification was based on more than
ownership of capital. Many wealthy families lacked prestige and power, for example,
because they were Jewish. Weber introduced three independent factors that form his
theory of stratification hierarchy: class, status, and power. He treated these as separate
but related sources of power, each with different effects on social action.

Three Sources of Power

Class is a person's economic position in a society, based on birth and individual
achievement. Weber differs from Marx in that he did not see this as the supreme factor
in stratification. Weber noted that managers of corporations or industries control firms
they do not own; Marx would have placed such a person in the proletariat.

Status refers to a person's prestige, social honor, or popularity in a society. Weber noted
that political power was not rooted solely in capital value, but also in one's individual
status. Poets or saints, for example, can possess immense influence on society, often
with little economic worth.

Power refers to a person's ability to get their way despite the resistance of others. For
example, individuals in state jobs, such as an employee of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, or a member of the United States Congress, may hold little property or
status, but they still hold immense power.

US Congress in Present Times: Using Weber's theory of stratification, members of the

U.S. Congress are at the top of the social hierarchy because they have high power and
status, despite having relatively little wealth on average.
Market-Oriented Theories
Market-oriented theories of inequality argue that supply and demand will regulate prices
and wages and stabilize inequality.
Learning Objectives
Evaluate the concept of the market-oriented theory of inequality

Key Takeaways: Key Points

 When supply meets demand, prices reach a state of equilibrium and cease
fluctuating.
 According to market-oriented theories, over time the low wages earned by
agricultural laborers will induce more people to learn other skills, thus reducing
the pool of agricultural laborers.
 The supply and demand model is commonly applied to wages, in the market for
labor. The typical roles of supplier and consumer are reversed.

Key Terms
 supply and demand: An economic model of price determination in a market
based on the relative scarcity or abundance of goods and services.
 equilibrium: In economics, the point at which supply equals demand and prices
cease fluctuating.
 free market: Any economic market in which trade is unregulated; an economic
system free from government intervention.
Market-oriented theories of inequality are focused on the laws of the free market. The
free market refers to a capitalist economic order in which prices are set based on
competition. In a free market, prices are supposed to be regulated by the law of supply
and demand. According to supply and demand, if a produce or service is scarce but
desired by many, it will fetch a high price. Conversely, if a product or service is readily
available and desired by few, it will fetch a low price. When the supply of a product
exactly meets the demand for it, the price reaches a state of equilibrium and no longer
fluctuates.

The model is commonly applied to wages, in the market for labor. The typical roles of
supplier and consumer are reversed. The suppliers are individuals, who try to sell
(supply) their labor for the highest price. The consumers of labors are businesses,
which try to buy (demand) the type of labor they need at the lowest price. As
populations increase, wages fall for any given unskilled or skilled labor supply.
Conversely, wages tend to go up with a decrease in population. When demand exceeds
supply, suppliers can raise the price, but when supply exceeds demand, suppliers will
have to decrease the price in order to make sales. Consumers who can afford the
higher prices may still buy, but others may forgo the purchase altogether, demand a
better price, buy a similar item, or shop elsewhere. As the price rises, suppliers may
also choose to increase production, or more suppliers may enter the business.

Considering inequality, market-oriented theories claim that if left to the free-market, all
products and services will reach equilibrium, and price stability will reduce inequality.
For example, in countries with huge pools of unskilled agricultural laborers but limited
agricultural land, agricultural land is very poorly compensated. According to market-
oriented theories, over time the low wages earned by agricultural laborers will induce
more people to learn other skills, thus reducing the pool of agricultural laborers. With
less supply and stable demand, the wage for agricultural labor will rise to a sustainable
level. Thus, the status of agricultural laborers will rise, and inequality will be reduced.
Generally, market-oriented theories hold that when supply of labor and goods meets
demand, the economic order will reach equilibrium, and inequality will either be non-
existent or will be stable.

Dependency Theories
Dependency theory states that colonialism and neocolonialism have created unequal
economic relations between poor and wealthy countries.

Learning Objectives
Explain malnourishment and hunger in the "third world" through dependency theory

Key Takeaways: Key Points

 In the past, colonialism allowed wealthy countries to plunder their colonies for
material benefits—raw materials like rubber, sugar, and slave labor.
 Today, poor countries have taken enormous loans from wealthy countries in
order to stay afloat. Paying off the compound interest from this debt prevents
them from investing resources into their own country.
 Foreign trade gets in the way of local governments' ability to improve the living
conditions of their people by encouraging the export of food and other raw
materials to wealthy consumer markets.
Key Terms
  foreign trade: The exchange of capital, goods, and services across international
borders or territories.
 foreign debt: A debt that a country, an organization in a country, or a resident
individual in a country owes to those in other countries.
 neocolonialism: The control or domination by a powerful country over weaker
ones (especially former colonies) by the use of economic pressure, political
suppression, and cultural dominance.
 dependency ratio: an age-population measurement of those typically not in the
labor force (the dependent part) and those typically in the labor force (the
productive part)

Dependency theories propose that colonialism and neocolonialism —continuing

economic dependence on and exploitation of former colonial countries—are the main
causes global poverty. Countries have developed at an uneven rate because wealthy
countries have exploited poor countries in the past and continue to do so today through
foreign debt and foreign trade.

Historical Dependency
Historically, wealthy nations have taken a great quantity of materials from poor
countries, such as minerals and metals necessary to make automobiles, weapons, and
jewelry. Large amounts of agricultural products that can only be grown in the hot
climates of the poor countries, such as coffee, tea, sugar, and cocoa, have been
exported to and manufactured in the wealthy countries. Wealthy countries would not be
as rich as they are today if they did not have these materials. Wealthy countries
increased their own profits by organizing cheap labor through slavery.

King Leopold II, for example, who was King of Belgium from 1865-1909, forced
hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children to work as slaves in the
Democratic Republic of Congo. The invention of the bicycle tire in the 1890s and later
the automobile tire meant that rubber was in high demand; wild rubber vines were
widespread in the Congo, earning Leopold millions. The Democratic Republic of Congo
is still suffering from the plunder of natural resources, torture, and killing that was
endured during Leopold's reign.

Modern Dependency
Today, poor countries are trapped by large debts which prevent them from developing.
For example, between 1970 and 2002, the continent of Africa received $540 billion in
loans from wealthy nations—through the World Bank and IMF. African countries have
paid back $550 billion of their debt but they still owe $295 billion. The difference is the
result of compound interest. Countries cannot focus on economic or human
development when they are constantly paying off debt; these countries will continue to
remain undeveloped. Dependency theorists believe large economic aid is not
necessarily the key to reducing poverty and developing, but rather debt relief may be a
more effective step.

In addition, foreign trade and business often mitigate local governments' ability to
improve the living conditions of their people. This trade often comes in the form of
transnational corporations (TNCs). The governments of poor countries invite these
TNCs to invest in their country with the hope of developing the country and bringing
material benefit to the people. However, workers' time and energy are often poured into
producing goods that they themselves will not consume. For example, some of the land
in Cape Verde could be planted and harvested to feed local people, but it is planted
instead with cash crops for foreign exchange. Fresh produce is regularly sold or
changed to a nonperishable type such as tuna canned for export rather than consumed
by the population.

Malnutrition and Dependency

Widespread malnutrition is one of the effects of this foreign dependency. This is
common around the globe. Brazil is the second largest exporter of agricultural products,
but 50 percent of its population is malnourished. Although Ethiopia has one of the
largest populations of cattle in Africa, much of the population suffers from malnutrition
and the government continues to export large numbers of cattle to the Middle East.
Even during the peak of the infamous 1985 famine, the government was sending dried
meat to Egypt.

Through unequal economic relations with wealthy countries in the form of continued
debts and foreign trade, poor countries continue to be dependent and unable to tap into
their full potential for development.
Map of Empires and Colonies: 1800: By the end of the 19th century, most of the
Americas were under the control of European colonial empires. At present, much of
South and Central America is still economically dependent on foreign nations for capital
and export markets.

World-Systems Theory
World Systems Theory posits that there is a world economic system in which some
countries benefit while others are exploited.

Learning Objectives
Produce a map of the world that shows some countries as core, peripheral, and semi-
peripheral according to Wallerstein's theory

Key Takeaways: Key Points

 Immanuel Wallerstein developed World Systems Theory and its three-level
hierarchy: core, periphery, and semi-periphery.
 Core countries are dominant capitalist countries that exploit peripheral countries
for labor and raw materials.
 Peripheral countries are dependent on core countries for capital and have
underdeveloped industry.
 Semi-peripheral countries share characteristics of both core and peripheral
countries.
Key Terms
 peripheral: Peripheral countries are dependent on core countries for capital and
have underdeveloped industry.
 core: Describes dominant capitalist countries which exploit the peripheral
countries for labor and raw materials.
 semi-peripheral: Countries that share characteristics of both core and periphery
countries.
World Systems Theory, like dependency theory, suggests that wealthy countries benefit
from other countries and exploit those countries' citizens. In contrast to dependency
theory, however, this model recognizes the minimal benefits that are enjoyed by low
status countries in the world system. The theory originated with sociologist Immanuel
Wallerstein, who suggests that the way a country is integrated into the capitalist world
system determines how economic development takes place in that country.

According to Wallerstein, the world economic system is divided into a hierarchy of three
types of countries: core, semi-peripheral, and peripheral. Core countries (e.g., U.S.,
Japan, Germany) are dominant, capitalist countries characterized by high levels of
industrialization and urbanization. Core countries are capital intensive, have high wages
and high technology production patterns and lower amounts of labor exploitation and
coercion. Peripheral countries (e.g., most African countries and low income countries in
South America) are dependent on core countries for capital and are less industrialized
and urbanized. Peripheral countries are usually agrarian, have low literacy rates and
lack consistent Internet access. Semi-peripheral countries (e.g., South Korea, Taiwan,
Mexico, Brazil, India, Nigeria, South Africa) are less developed than core nations but
more developed than peripheral nations. They are the buffer between core and
peripheral countries.

Core countries own most of the world's capital and technology and have great control
over world trade and economic agreements. They are also the cultural centers which
attract artists and intellectuals. Peripheral countries generally provide labor and
materials to core countries. Semiperipheral countries exploit peripheral countries, just
as core countries exploit both semiperipheral and peripheral countries. Core countries
extract raw materials with little cost. They can also set the prices for the agricultural
products that peripheral countries export regardless of market prices, forcing small
farmers to abandon their fields because they can't afford to pay for labor and fertilizer.
The wealthy in peripheral countries benefit from the labor of poor workers and from their
own economic relations with core country capitalists.
11th Century World System: In the 11th century, international production and trade
was dominated by the exchange of silk, and thus countries along the silk route were the
dominant participants in the "world-system. " Today, with vast communications and
transportation technology, virtually every society participates in the world-system as
either a source of raw materials, production, or consumption.
State-Centered Theories
According to state-centered theories of inequality, the government should regulate the
distribution of resources to protect workers.

Learning Objectives
Compare socialist and communist state-centered theories

Key Takeaways
Key Points
 Socialist and communist economic systems operate on the premise that
inequality is best addressed by the state, rather than through the free-market.
  State-centered theories of inequality critique market-driven theories on the basis
that capitalists embroiled in the free-market will act to increase their own wealth,
exploiting the lower classes.
 State-centered theories propose that states should enact policies to prevent
exploitation and promote the equal distribution of goods and wages.
Key Terms
 State-Centered Theories of Inequality: Theories that emphasize the role of
governmental policy and economic planning in producing economic stratification.
These theories assert that intentional state policies must be aimed at equitably
distributing resources and opportunities.
 Market-Oriented Theories of Inequality: Economic models that assert that the
capitalist free-market will naturally regulate prices and wages.
State-centered theories of inequality emphasize the role of governmental policy and
economic planning in producing economic stratification. In contrast to market-oriented
theories of inequality, state-centered theories do not assert that the capitalist free-
market will naturally regulate prices and wages. State-centered theories assert that
intentional state policies must be aimed at equitably distributing resources and
opportunities.

Socialism and Communism

Socialism and communism operate on the assumption that states can regulate (and
potentially eliminate) inequality. Socialism is an economic and political system in which
the state owns the majority industry, but resources are allocated based on a
combination of natural rights and individual achievements. Communism operates on the
principle that resources should be completely equally distributed, on the basis that every
person has a natural right to food, shelter, and generally an equal share of a society's
wealth. Socialism includes a combination of public and private property, while under
communist systems all property is publicly held and administered by the state.

A socialist economic system would consist of an organisation of production to directly

satisfy economic demands and human needs. Goods and services would be produced
directly for use instead of for private profit driven by the accumulation of capital.
Accounting would be based on physical quantities, a common physical magnitude, or a
direct measure of labour-time. Distribution of output would be based on the principle of
individual contribution.
State-centered theories of inequality critique market-driven ones on the basis that
capitalists embroiled in the free-market will act to increase their own wealth, exploiting
the lower classes. Accordingly, these theories propose that states should enact policies
to prevent exploitation and promote the equal distribution of goods and wages.

Map of Socialist States: This map of all states to declare themselves officially socialist
at some point in history illustrates the spread of state-centered theories of inequality.
Evaluating Global Theories of Inequality
Social theorists think differently about global inequality based on their sociological
perspective.

Learning Objectives
Differentiate between the positions on social inequality taken by functionalists, Marxists,
modern liberalism, and social justice advocates

Key Takeaways
Key Points
 Functionalists are likely to believe that inequality is beneficial to societies and is
naturally regulated by market forces to foster economic growth.
 Marxists, on the other hand, are likely to see inequality as detrimental to society
and to advocate government regulation of the means of production and
distribution of property.
  In modern liberal societies, individuals tend to value human rights according to
the idea that all people are born with equal value.
 Social justice advocates generally argue that inequality is unfair, as it leaves
some individuals with greater life chances and higher standards of living than
others regardless of individual worth or merit.
Key Terms
 State-Oriented Approach: A strategy for reducing inequality in which
governments instate policies to equally distribute opportunities and resources.
 Market-Oriented Approach: A perspective on inequality that asserts that a free
market will result in prices that benefit the smooth functioning and growth of
economies.
 Functionalist Approach: An approach that asserts that global inequality is not a
problem at all, but rather benefits society as it produces an incentive structure to
motivate highly capable individuals to pursue positions of power.

There is significant debate among sociologists, other social scientists, and policy
makers over the best approach to global inequality. Some theorists who embrace a
functionalist approach assert that global inequality is not a problem at all, but rather
benefits society as it produces an incentive structure to motivate highly capable
individuals to pursue positions of power. Functionalists are likely to embrace market-
oriented approaches to inequality, on the basis that a free market will result in prices
that benefit the smooth-functioning and growth of economies. Marxists, by contrast, see
global inequality as indicative of exploitation and consider it a detriment to society.
These thinkers are likely to support state -oriented approaches to regulating inequality,
with governments instating policies to equally distribute opportunities and resources.
Interactionists recognize global inequality, but consider it only in the context of individual
relations and, therefore, see no role for state intervention.

Whatever sociological theory one adopts to explain the existence of inequality, not all
theorists consider inequality to be a problem that needs correction. The idea that all
members of a society should be equal is often associated with modern liberalism. In
modern liberal societies, individuals tend to value human rights according to the idea
that all people are born with equal value. The logic of human rights does not necessarily
imply that all people should achieve equal status, but it does assume that all should
have equal opportunities to advance, or Weberian life chances. Those who evaluate
global inequality and consider it to violate human rights may advocate for solutions to
inequality using the language of social justice. Social justice advocates generally argue
that inequality is unfair, as it leaves some individuals with greater life chances and
higher standards of living than others, regardless of individual worth or merit.

Occupy Wall Street: Protestors at Occupy Wall Street adhere to the position that
income inequality is a detriment to society. By protesting the financial institutions that
provide capital to economic enterprises, "occupiers" suggest that the market-driven
approach to inequality, embraced by financiers, has not resulted in a fair and equitable
economic order.
 Topic: Globalisation and Migration

The causes of global migration, including immigration, emigration, net migration,

push and pull factors, global labour patterns and tourism
 statistics and trends on migration, including your own country and UK for
comparison.
 Try to analyse the data consider why these trends occur.
 Define and illustrate the different terms shown in syllabus.
 Consider the causes of global migration and support with evidence.
What is the Impact of Immigration on Family Life?
This post looks at the recent increase in net migration to the UK, and at some of the
reasons for increasing immigration in particular, including push and pull factors. It also
looks at the impact of immigration on family life in the UK.
Recent Patterns of Migration to the UK
The Office for National Statistics Net migration was actually negative during the 1970s
and early 1980s, turning positive but at a relatively low level during the 1980s and early
1990s. Since 1994, it has been positive every year and rose sharply after 1997.
Social Policy and the Family
During the 2000s, net migration increased further, partly as a result of immigration of
citizens from the countries that have joined the EU since 2004. Since the mid 2000s,
annual net migration has fluctuated between approximately 150,000 and 300,000.
From 2018 Net Migration decreased from just over 300 000, coming close to 0 in the
pandemic lockdown year of 2020.
However since 2020 net migration increased rapidly to reach 600 000 in 2022.
Migration statistics to and from the UK in 2022
According to the latest migration statistics from the the ONS(1):
 1.2 million people immigrated into the UK 2022
 557,000 people emigrated from the UK
 This means that net migration to the UK in 2022 was 606,000.
 Most people arriving to the UK in 2022 were non-EU nationals (925,000),
followed by EU (151,000) and British (88,000).
 Immigration has been unusually high over the last 18 months of available
statistics, primarily due to increased numbers of non-EU people coming to the
UK for humanitarian reasons from Ukraine and Hong Kong. Immigration figures
should reduce in future years, as they did in the last quarter of 2022.
 The proportion of people immigrating to the UK has been decreasing since
Brexit.
Why do people come to the UK?
For non-EU nationals the main reasons people came to the UK in 2022 were
 Study – 39% of non EU immigrants came to the UK to study, mostly at
university.
 Work – 25% of non EU immigrants come to the UK for work,
 19% of immigrants came via humanitarian routes, such as the Ukraine
scheme.
 8% of immigrants entered the UK claiming asylum.
For EU nationals, the proportions are slightly different: 50% came for work related
reasons and a further 25% for study.
Where do people come to the UK from?
According to the Migration Observatory (2) the top birth countries for UK immigrants
are:
1. India (9.3%)
2. Poland (7.1%)
3. Pakistan
4. The Republic of Ireland
5. Germany
6. Romania
7. Nigeria
8. South Africa
9. Italy
10. China
Note that these are not just the origins of people who came to the UK in 2022. They are
the birth countries of everyone who came to the UK at some point!
Asylum Seekers Coming to the UK
In the year ending September 2022, the UK received 72,027 asylum applications from
main applicants only (3).
The UK is below the European average for asylum applications and ranks 18th among
EU countries per head of population.
Asylum seekers were around eight per cent of immigrants to the UK in 2018.
The number of asylum seekers in the UK has doubled since 2018, but this is a global
trend.
What is an asylum seeker?
An asylum seeker is someone who:
 flees their homeland
 arrives in another country , whichever way they can
 makes themselves known to the authorities
 submits an asylum application
  has a legal right to stay in the country while awaiting a decision.
The Causes of Increasing Migration to the UK
The simplest level of analysis lies in explaining increasing migration to the UK in terms
of push and pull factors:
Push Factors refer to problems which encourage a person to leave or emigrate
from their country.
Pull Factors refer to the real or perceived benefits of another country which attract
people to it, or migrate towards it.
You should be able to identify a number of push and pull factors from the material
above note down at least two push and pull factors which repel people from other
countries and attract them towards the UK.
Increasing globalisation is also fundamentally linked to globalisation, which is covered
below.
The Impact of Immigration on Family Life
There are three main effects of increasing immigration on family life:
1. Population size is increasing because net migration is increasing. If it were not
for high net migration the UK population would be shrinking due to low birth
rates, which on their own are below the fertility rate required to replace the
population, which is 2.1. babies per woman.
2. The age structure changes. Immigration lowers that average age of the
population both directly and indirectly. Directly because immigrants tend to be
younger by 10 years than the British born population. Indirectly because
Immigrant women have a higher fertility ratio – they have more babies than
British born women.
3. The dependency ratio changes. Here immigration has three effects:
 Immigrants are more likely to be of working age and this thus helps lower the
dependency ratio.
 However because they are younger, immigrants have more children and so the
immigrants’ children add to the dependent population.
 Finally, the longer a group is settled in the country, the closer their fertility rate
comes to the national average, reducing their distinct impact on the dependency
ratio.
Impacts on Public Services..
It is not possible to say with certainty what the implications of migration are for public
services, and these impacts are likely to vary by area and depending on the type of
public service.
Migrants contribute to demand for public services. If foreign-born people in the UK used
public services in the same way as demographically similar UK-born people, they would
be expected to make less use of health and social care, but greater use of education.
Migrants also contribute to financing and providing public services, and are over
represented in the health care and social care work forces.
The Political Impact of Globalisation
States now have policies that seek to control immigration, absorb migrants into society
and deal with increased ethnic and cultural diversity. More recently policies have also
become linked to national security and anti-terrorism policies.
Assimilationism was the first state policy approach to immigration. It aimed to
encourage immigrants to adopt the language, values and customs of the host culture, to
become ‘like us’. However assimilationist policies have mainly failed because of the
desire of many migrants to retain aspects of their ‘culture of origin’.
Multiculturalism accepts that migrants may wish to retain a separate cultural identity.
One consequence of multicultural policy is the emergence of multicultural education in
schools. However, Eriksen criticises such education as encouraging ‘shallow diversity’ –
so we accept the surface elements of other cultures such as Samosas and Saris, but it
fails to address issues surrounding ‘deep diversity’ such as arranged marriages.
Since September 11th many politicians have demanded a return to assimilationsim
Two further consequences include –
 A More Multicultural Society
 A divided working class and the white working class backlash.

Migration Statistics Quarterly Report: November 2018

A summary of the latest official long-term international migration statistics for the UK for
the year ending June 2018 published by Office for National Statistics (ONS). Data from
the Home Office and the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) are also included.
1.Other migration outputs in this release
As part of our ongoing work to improve bulletins, commentary on other international
migration outputs released today (29 November 2018) can be found on the following
pages:
 Population of the UK by country of birth and nationality: July 2017 to June 2018
 Long-term international migrants, UK: 2017
Back to table of contents
2.Migration is still adding to the population of the UK
Net migration continues to add to the population of the UK as an estimated 273,000
more people moved to the UK with an intention to stay 12 months or more than left in
the year ending June 2018. Over the year, 625,000 people moved to the UK
(immigration) and 351,000 people left the UK (emigration) (Figure 1).
Available data suggest that net migration, immigration and emigration figures
have remained broadly stable overall since the end of 2016
Figure 1: Long-Term International Migration, UK, year ending June 2008 to year ending
June 2018
Embed code

In this release we present the Long-Term International Migration (LTIM) and

International Passenger Survey (IPS) data with shading around the line on the charts to
represent the uncertainty of the estimates due to the number of people surveyed. The
line is the most likely value and the values towards the upper and lower band of the
shading are possible but less likely. Other sources of uncertainty are not represented.
Non-EU net migration was the highest since 2004, with 248,000 more non-EU citizens
arriving than leaving the UK and at a similar level to that seen in 2011. Increases in
immigration for both work and study have been seen in the most recent year,
particularly for Asian citizens.
The overall number of EU citizens coming to the UK continues to add to the population
as 74,000 more EU citizens came to the UK than left. This was the lowest estimate for
EU net migration since 2012 and the lowest immigration level since 2014.
The number of EU citizens coming to the UK for work has continued to decrease; in the
most recent period this was driven by a decrease in EU15 citizens coming with a
definite job. Non-EU citizens coming to work has seen a gradual increase over the last
five years.
We recommend that users look at the longer time series and broader evidence when
making comparisons over time as the increase in people moving to the UK, particularly
non-EU nationals, in the most recent rolling years is misleading. This is because the
International Passenger Survey estimates for student immigration in 2016 showed an
unusual decrease that was not seen in other data sources.
Statistician’s comment
“Net migration continues to add to the population and has remained fairly stable since
its peak in 2016, with around 270,000 more people coming to the UK than leaving in the
year ending June 2018.
“However, there are different patterns for EU and non-EU migration. Due to increasing
numbers arriving for work and study, non-EU net migration is now at the highest level
since 2004. In contrast, EU net migration, while still adding to the population as a whole,
is at the lowest since 2012.
“Decisions to migrate are complex and people's decision to move to or from the UK will
be influenced by a range of factors.”
Jay Lindop, Director of the Centre for International Migration, Office for National
Statistics.
Follow ONS Director of the Centre for International Migration @JayLindop_ONS
Back to table of contents
3.Net migration continues to add to the population as more people arrive to live in
the UK than leave
To fully understand migration, we need to consider all available data sources. On this
basis, our best assessment of all sources is that net migration, immigration and
emigration overall have remained broadly stable since the end of 2016.
Non-EU net migration was at its highest level since 2004
Figure 2: Net migration by citizenship, UK, year ending June 2008 to year ending June
2018
Embed code
Net migration estimates show that 248,000 more non-EU citizens came to the UK than
left in the year ending June 2018 (Figure 2). This was the highest non-EU net migration
since 2004. This increase was driven by a gradual increase in immigration and
decrease in emigration in recent years.
Non-EU immigration has seen a gradual increase over the last five years and was
326,000 in the year ending June 2018, similar to levels seen in 2011. The number of
non-EU citizens leaving the UK has decreased over the same time period.
EU net migration was the lowest since 2012 but we still saw 74,000 more people
arrive in the UK than leave
Figure 3: EU Long-Term International Migration, UK, year ending June 2008 to year
ending June 2018
Embed code
Despite net migration for EU citizens being the lowest since 2012, EU citizens continue
to add to the population of the UK, with an estimated 74,000 more coming to the UK
than leaving in the year ending June 2018 (Figure 3). EU net migration has now fallen to
the level seen in 2012 just before the sharp rise in numbers coming to the UK began in
2013.
The number of EU citizens who came to the UK was 219,000. This was lower than
levels seen in 2015 and 2016 but higher than in the years up to 2014.
The number of EU citizens leaving the UK has remained broadly stable over the last
year, but rose gradually since year ending September 2015.
EU15 and EU2 citizens continued to add to the population with positive net migration for
the year ending June 2018. However, some of this increase was offset as more EU8
citizens left the UK than arrived (Table 1). Net migration for EU8 citizens has seen a
sharp decrease over the last two years and it is now estimated that 14,000 more EU8
citizens left the UK than arrived. This has been driven by a decrease in EU8
immigration, particularly for work, and an increase in emigration over the last two years.
There could be several reasons for this changing pattern, decisions to migrate are
complex and people's decision to move to or from the UK will be influenced by a range
of factors.

Table 1: Immigration, emigration and net migration to and from the UK by

citizenship, UK, year ending June 2018

Thousands

Immigration Emigration Net Migration

 YE June YE June YE June
2018 95% CI 2018 95% CI 2018 95% CI

Total 625 +/-41 351 +/-28 +273 +/-49

British 80 +/-18 128 +/-14 -49 +/-23

EU 219 +/-27 145 +/-22 +74 +/-34

(of which) EU15 114 +/-19 67 +/-15 +47 +/-24

(of which) EU8 41 +/-12 55 +/-13 -14 +/-18

(of which) EU2 55 +/-13 21 +/-8 +34 +/-15

Non-EU 326 +/-25 78 +/-11 +248 +/-27

(of which) Asia 208 +/-18 43 +/-7 +164 +/-19

(of which) Rest of 104 +/-16 28 +/-7 +76 +/-18

World

Source: Long-Term International Migration, Office for National Statistics

Notes
1. EU other and Other Europe citizenship groupings are not included as separate
groups in the table but are included under the EU and non-EU totals.
2. Figures for 2018 are provisional.
3. YE = year ending, CI = confidence interval.
Download this tableTable 1: Immigration, emigration and net migration to and
from the UK by citizenship, UK, year ending June 2018
The annual change in non-EU immigration and total immigration are influenced by the
unusual decrease in student immigration in 2016. We do not recommend users make
comparisons year-on-year and instead look at the broader evidence and longer time
series, which allows a better assessment of trends. See Chart 1 TS for trends.
Back to table of contents
4.Migration for work remains the most common reason for migration
Immigration to the UK for all types of work increased between 2012 and the year ending
June 2016 to a peak of 312,000, but has been lower since and is now 242,000. The
decrease was largely accounted for by a fall in the number of EU citizens arriving
looking for work, with 37,000 in the year ending June 2018, down from 82,000 at the
peak two years earlier. However, there has also been a rise in the number of non-EU
citizens coming to the UK for work.
EU citizens coming to the UK for work continues to decrease
Figure 4: EU and non-EU long-term immigration for work-related reasons, UK, year
ending June 2008 to year ending June 2018
Embed code
The number of EU citizens coming to the UK looking for work has stabilised in the last
year for all EU groupings. This follows the decrease seen between the year ending June
2016 and June 2017 when the number arriving more than halved.
The number of EU citizens coming with a definite job was stable in the year to June
2017 while the number looking for work was falling. Since then the pattern has changed
and in the latest year, to June 2018, the number with a definite job has decreased
(down 32,000), particularly citizens of EU15 countries (down 26,000 to 34,000). The
overall number of EU citizens coming to the UK for a definite job is now back to a level
similar to those seen in 2013 and 2014, at 77,000 in the year ending June 2018 (Figure
4).
Foreign citizens require a National Insurance number (NINo) to work in the UK and
NINo registration data can be used to provide another view of work-related immigration.
International Passenger Survey (IPS) and NINo data continue to follow a similar trend,
with a decrease since the year ending December 2016 in the number of new NINo
registrations to EU citizens as reported in the last quarter. We will continue to monitor
this trend across both data sources.
Not all data sources are directly comparable. Users should be aware of these
differences before drawing conclusions.
Large fall in the number of EU nationals in employment in the UK
Office for National Statistics (ONS) also produces estimates of the labour market activity
of the resident population in the UK by nationality and country of birth.
The most recent labour market statistics show that there was a fall in the number of EU
citizens working in the UK. The IPS data have shown falling numbers of EU citizens
arriving for work-related reasons.
For the period July to September 2018 the labour market release shows:
 there were 2.25 million EU citizens working in the UK, which was 132,000 fewer
than for the previous year and is the largest annual fall since comparable records
began in 1997
 there were also 1.24 million non-EU nationals working in the UK, 34,000 more
than the previous year
The number of migrants working in the UK is not a measure of how many people
migrate to work. While the Labour Force Survey (LFS) data appear consistent with the
IPS migration flows, users should not use the LFS employment trends as a measure of
migration flows. The best measure of total migration flows into and out of the UK is the
Long-Term International Migration (LTIM) estimates. Not all data sources are directly
comparable and users should be aware of these differences before drawing
conclusions.
Non-EU citizens coming to work remains stable in recent years
Figure 5: Non-EU work-related long-term immigration trends by data source, UK, year
ending June 2008 to year ending June 2018
Embed code
Looking at all available sources (Figure 5) comparing the IPS with work visas and
NINos, we conclude that immigration of non-EU citizens for work has remained broadly
stable since 2015 and seen a small gradual increase since 2013 following a steady fall
from the early to mid-2000s.
According to the IPS, the number of non-EU citizens coming to the UK for work has
increased to levels last seen in 2006 but viewed alongside the visa data the IPS
appears to have underestimated immigration for work in 2006.
Although non-EU immigration for work has remained fairly stable since 2015, there has
been an increase in the immigration of Asian, particularly South Asian, citizens over the
last year for work-related reasons. The IPS shows an increase for those coming with a
definite job.
The latest comparable Home Office data (to the year ending September 2018) for work
visa grants for 12 months or more also saw an increase (7%). Visa grants for Tier 2
(Skilled) account for more than half of all work visas and saw an increase of 15%
compared with the year ending September 2017, in particular, there were increases for
Indian nationals.
There was also an increase in the number of certificates of sponsorship used in
applications for Tier 2 (Skilled) work in the human health and social work sector (up
45% in the year ending September 2018). This is likely relating to an increase in the
number of doctors and nurses coming to the UK following the removal of doctors and
nurses from the Tier 2 cap.
Back to table of contents
5.Non-EU long-term student immigration remained broadly stable from 2013 to
2017
Our assessment based on reviewing data from all sources is that non-EU long-term
student immigration remained broadly stable from 2013 to 2017. Based on evidence
from Home Office visa data and Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) data, we
produced an illustrative revised trend (reported further in July 2018) for the International
Passenger Survey (IPS) non-EU student immigration estimate (Figure 6).
Non-EU long-term student immigration remained broadly stable from 2013 to 2017
with an increase in the last year
Figure 6: Non-EU long-term student immigration trends by data source, UK, year ending
June 2008 to year ending June 2018
Embed code
The most comparable Home Office visa data for the year ending June 2018 show there
was a 7% increase in the number of study visas issued over the year. The latest Home
Office data, for year ending September 2018 suggest this trend has continued as there
was a 10% increase in the number of Tier 4 (Sponsored Study) visas issued for 12
months or more, the highest level since 2011. This increase was driven by visas issued
to Chinese and Indian nationals.
The IPS estimate of EU citizens coming to the UK to study over the last 10 years has
remained relatively stable.
Not all data sources are directly comparable. Users should be aware of these
differences before drawing conclusions.
The UK granted asylum, alternative forms of protection, or resettlement to 15,170
people in the year ending September 2018
Home Office data show that this comprised:
 6,904 grants of asylum (down 1,250, or 15% over the year), driven predominantly
by falls in grants to Eritrean (down 988), Iranian (down 560) and Sudanese
(down 458) nationals
 2,272 grants of an alternative form of protection (more than doubled), driven
predominantly by an increase in grants of humanitarian protection to Libyan
nationals (up 742)
 5,994 people provided protection under resettlement schemes (down 6%)
Back to table of contents
6.Migration data
Office for National Statistics long-term international migration statistics are estimated
based on two main sources:
 the International Passenger Survey (IPS), which captures migration intentions
 Long-Term International Migration (LTIM) estimates, which are based on IPS
data, but with adjustments made for migrants not included in the survey, such as
asylum seekers
Provisional Long-Term International Migration estimates
Dataset | Released 29 November 2018
Estimates with confidence intervals for the year ending June 2018 are available. These
include data on:
 immigration, emigration and net migration by citizenship over time in Table 1 and
Chart 1TS
 immigration and emigration by reason for migration in Table 2 and Charts 2a and
2b
 immigration and emigration by reason for migration and citizenship in Table 3 and
Chart 3a and 3b
Home Office Immigration Statistics release
Release | Released 29 November
Includes both short-term and long-term visas (including dependants) for non-EEA
nationals and is available for year ending September 2018. The release includes more
detailed statistics by visa category, citizenship and industry sector. The release also
includes data on citizenship, asylum and resettlement, detention and returns.
National Insurance number allocations to adult overseas nationals
Release | Released 29 November 2018
Includes both short-term and long-term migrants for year ending September 2018. The
summary tables provide more detail by nationality and location of registrations in the
UK.
Estimates of long-term international migration, by quarter, derived from the International
Passenger Survey
Dataset | Released 29 November 2018
Estimates of international migration, by individual quarter, can be derived from the IPS
as a “by-product” of our IPS annual processing. They are not official statistics, but we
are making them available in response to user requests for the information.
It is important to note that estimates by quarter are not as robust as our estimates for
rolling years and are not official statistics. This is due to the small sample sizes involved
and because the complete methodology applied to our estimates for full years cannot
be applied to our estimates for individual quarters.
We recommend users do not use these data and instead refer to the rolling years
quarterly tables. Due to the seasonal nature of international migration and the small
sample sizes involved for individual quarter data, users should be cautious with any
interpretation of individual quarter estimates, especially where the corresponding
confidence interval is large in comparison with the estimate.
Differences between the data sources are described in Comparing sources of
international migration statistics.
Back to table of contents
7.Glossary
Long-term international migrant
Office for National Statistics (ONS) migration statistics use the UN recommended
definition of a long-term international migrant: “A person who moves to a country other
than that of his or her usual residence for a period of at least a year (12 months), so that
the country of destination effectively becomes his or her new country of usual
residence.”
EU citizenship groups
EU estimates exclude British citizens. Citizens of countries who were EU members prior
to 2004, for example, France, Germany and Spain, are termed the EU15; Central and
Eastern European countries who joined the EU in 2004, for example, Poland, are the
EU8; EU2 comprises Bulgaria and Romania, who became EU members in 2007.
Work-related migration
In the International Passenger Survey “Work-related” migration includes those people
who migrate with a “Definite job” to go to already and those who migrate “Looking for
work”.
Full details of ONS terms and definitions can be found in the International Migration –
terms, definitions and frequently asked questions.
Back to table of contents
8.Measuring these data
The sources of data included in this release are not directly comparable but taken
together provide a better indication of trends than any single source alone. This
approach is explained in the Report on international migration data sources: July 2018,
which sets out our latest understanding of the quality of International Passenger Survey
(IPS) migration estimates.
The Government Statistical Service Migration Statistics Transformation Programme is
working towards putting administrative data at the core of international migration
statistics. In December 2018, Office for National Statistics (ONS) will publish their
findings from the feasibility research on using linked administrative data to provide
international migration flows and be seeking feedback on user needs across the
international migration evidence base.
Office for National Statistics data
ONS publish International Passenger Survey (IPS) and Long-Term International
Migration (LTIM) estimates.
The Migration statistics first time user guide describe these data and the Long-Term
International Migration (LTIM) estimates methodology details the method used to
calculate LTIM.
All of the LTIM and IPS estimate changes discussed in the release are statistically
significant at the 95% confidence level unless specifically stated otherwise.
For more detailed information on our migration statistics methodology please
see International migration methodology.
ONS produce estimates of the labour market activity of the resident population in the
UK by nationality and country of birth from the Labour Force Survey up to July to
September 2018. Statistical significance testing is not available for the labour market
EU and non-EU breakdowns.
Home Office data
Home Office immigration statistics provide the numbers of people who are covered by
the UK’s immigration control and related processes, based on a range of administrative
and other data sources. Where direct comparisons are made to the IPS data, Home
Office visa data are for main applicants only and for long-term visas (one year or more).
The User Guide to Home Office Immigration Statistics provides more details.
Department for Work and Pensions data
The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) National Insurance number (NINo)
statistics count the volume of NINos registered to adult non-UK nationals. Further
information including detail on data sources, uses and limitations of the series is
provided in the background information.
Differences between the data sources are described in Comparing sources of
international migration statistics.
Back to table of contents
9.Strengths and Limitations of ONS international migration data
The International Passenger Survey (IPS) and the Long-Term International Migration
(LTIM) estimates are currently the only sources of data to provide both long-term
immigration and emigration and so net migration estimates for the UK.
The IPS is a sample survey and as such provides estimates. When the estimates are
broken down beyond the headline figures they are subject to greater levels of
uncertainty.
To ensure confidence in our estimates we review all available data sources to make the
best assessment of migration in the UK. For example, Home Office administrative data
on non-EU citizens travelling is more detailed and do not have the known possible
variability present in estimates made from sample surveys.
The accuracy of long-term migration estimates
Surveys gather information from a sample of people from a population. It’s not possible
to ask every person travelling in and out of the country to fill out a survey. This means
we have to estimate total changes, which can be affected by the group of people we
sample. We use confidence intervals to measure uncertainty around the estimate.
Users are advised to be cautious when making inferences from estimates with relatively
large confidence intervals.
The Migration statistics first time user guide summarises the reliability of the long-term
international migration estimates. For further information on confidence intervals, the
accuracy of these statistics, comparing different data sources and the difference
between provisional and final figures, please see International migration methodology.
Revisions to net migration estimates in light of the 2011 Census were made in April
2014. The report, a summary and guidance (PDF, 56KB) on how to use these revised
figures are available.
Uncertainty in ONS migration statistics
In this release we present the LTIM and IPS data with shading around the line on the
charts to represent the uncertainty of the estimates due to the number of people
surveyed, based on 30%, 60% and 95% confidence intervals. The line on the chart is
the most likely value and the values towards the upper and lower band of the shading
are possible but less likely.
Other sources of uncertainty are not represented, a few examples of this include:
limitations of the survey methodology, potential misunderstandings of the questions,
accuracy of interviewees’ answers and uncertainties caused by combining data from
different sources.
Adjusting the LTIM and IPS estimates
Because of the unusual pattern in student migration reported in July 2018, we produced
an illustrative revised trend for the IPS non-EU student immigration estimate. For the
year ending September 2016 estimates onwards, we have taken the year-on-year
percentage change in Home Office non-EU long-term student visa data and applied this
rate of change to the IPS estimates for non-EU immigration for study. The illustrative
revised trend shows a relatively stable pattern over this time period for IPS non-EU
student immigration.
As non-EU student immigration feeds into overall immigration and net migration
estimates, we have also produced illustrative revised trends for these estimates. These
are for illustrative purposes only and we have not made any changes to the published
IPS or LTIM figures. We plan to review this and consider whether a formal adjustment
should be made.
Quality and methodology
The Long-Term International Migration Quality and Methodology Information
report contains important information on:
 the strengths and limitations of the data and how it compares with related data
 uses and users of the data
 how the output was created
 the quality of the output including the accuracy of the data
Global migration figures higher than previously thought, study finds
US researchers reveal that up to 87 million people migrate every five years
Over a five-year period, about one in 80 people around the world migrate to another
country, researchers have revealed, in a study that shows more than a quarter of that
movement is down to people returning to their country of birth.
Global migration is difficult to measure, with data often lacking for developing countries
and inaccurate for others.
But a pair of researchers in the US say they have come up with a model that provides
the most reliable “big picture” view of human migration yet. Crucially, they say, it takes
into account the “churn” of people moving into and out of countries, something previous
global estimates had not included.
“Policies that are set based on a quota of a number of people who enter the country
miss out on the fact that you should also be expecting a lot of the existing migrant
population to be leaving the country,” said Dr Jonathan Azose, a co-author of the study
from the University of Washington.
The study, published in the journal PNAS, reveals a model for estimating migration
around the world between 1990 and 2015, broken down into five-year chunks. The team
say they were able to show the model worked by comparing its results with high-quality
migration data from Europe.
A key problem with the previous leading global migration estimates, says Azose, is that
the approach looked at overall changes in the net number of immigrants in a country
over time, without taking into account that many individuals left and others arrived,
resulting in underestimates of movement, something the new model tackles.
It suggests that between 67 million and 87 million people, including refugees, migrated
for each five-year chunk – far higher than previous global estimates of 34m-46 m
migrations – and corresponding to 1.13%-1.29% of the global population.
The team note that while absolute numbers of people migrating appear to have risen,
there has been little change in the proportion of the world’s population who are on the
move. That said, key origins and destinations change over time: for example,movement
of Syrians in Saudi Arabia to Turkey between 2010 and 2015 were a leading contributor
to “transit” migrations, while migration of Syrians from Syria to Turkey and Lebanon
were among the largest emigration movements in that period.
The new study suggests that while migration to a new country makes up the biggest
proportion of human movement, return migration – in which individuals return to their
country of birth – accounted for between 26% and 31% of migration in each five-year
period.
However, the team admit the new model has limitations, including the fact that different
countries require individuals to stay there for different lengths of time to be registered as
a migrant, and figures for the total number of migrants in each country might not be
accurate to start with, meaning possible errors in the data used.
But the team say their work could help researchers delve deeper into what causes
people to migrate and help them build predictive models for this.
Dr Nando Sigona, an expert in international migration and forced displacement at the
University of Birmingham, who was not involved in the research, welcomed the study.
“Estimating migration flows is extremely difficult. Data are limited and incomplete,
especially in less economically developed countries. This contributes to a perception in
the west that all migration flows are directed towards the global north,” he said.
While the new model had limitations, he added, it offered a more rounded view of global
migration, including showing movements between countries in the south and
highlighting the large proportion of return journeys. “Finally,” he said, “it shows a world
which is more dynamic and on the move than previously thought.”
The consequences of global migration, positive and negative, including cultural
diversity, economic benefits, concerns over scarce resources and negative
perceptions of migration
What EU migration has done for the UK
Contrary to the negative stereotypes perpetuated by many politicians and sections of
the media, a comprehensive new report from the UK’s Migration Advisory Committee
(MAC) has found that migration from the EU has a positive impact on many areas of
society.
The long-awaited report made a set of recommendations which the government has
promised to consider before announcing its own post-Brexit immigration strategy. The
key recommendation is that, unless there is a specific trade deal reached between the
EU and UK which makes special provision for immigration, EU citizens should be
treated no differently from non-EU citizens under a new UK-managed migration system.
Before reaching its recommendations, the MAC undertook an extensive consultation. It
concluded that migration from the European Economic Area (EEA) – the EU states plus
Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway – does not, on the whole, have a negative impact on
society.
It has little or no impact on the overall employment, unemployment and wages of UK-
born workers. It has a positive impact on productivity and innovation, especially so from
highly skilled migration. EEA migrants also contribute more in taxation than they
consume in services, especially so for the NHS and social care.
Nonetheless, the report noted that any negative impact of migration may be felt more by
lower-skilled workers, although this finding is “subject to uncertainty”.
Housing and education
The MAC also investigated areas regarded as particular pressure points: housing and
education. Despite the increased numbers of migrant children in schools, the MAC
found no negative impact on parental school choices or school attainment. Children who
speak English as a second language outperform native English speakers.
The situation for housing is more complex and geographically variable. The impact of
migration needs to be understood against wider pressures due to housing shortages,
especially in some regions. Migrants are underrepresented in social housing but
overrepresented in privately rented accommodation. So, any impact on housing supply
is likely to be felt in the private rental market.
These findings help explain some of the ways in which anti-immigrant feelings against
EEA migrants have grown in the UK recently. Despite the numerous positive benefits, it
may be in private-rented accommodation and low-paid work where the impact is most
perceived. However, as the MAC report emphasises, these pressures cannot be
understood in isolation from wider policies around working pay and conditions and
housing supply. As we migration scholars have long argued, migrants are often the
scapegoats for deeply-rooted structural problems.
A focus on high-skilled workers
Given evidence of the economic advantages of highly-skilled migration, it’s no surprise
then that the MAC recommended retaining this route from EEA countries. Any changes
would not apply to the 3m or so EU nationals already living and working in the UK, or
those who arrive before the end of the proposed Brexit transition period in December
2020.
Tier 2 visas are the main entry route to the UK for non-EEA migrants. The MAC
recommended that rather than creating a new visa, EEA migrants should be treated in
the same way as people from outside the EEA. However, the report recommended
several modifications, including the removal of the current cap on numbers. The
£30,000 salary threshold should be retained but the list of eligible jobs should be
extended. “Medium-skilled” jobs should also be eligible for Tier 2 visas it says,
presumably to ensure supply of much needed staff in the NHS, for example. As an
added incentive to attract skilled migrants, the report recommended that it should be
easier for Tier 2 visa-holders to change jobs once here.
Despite the absence of conclusive evidence on the impact of low-skilled EEA migration,
the MAC was not inclined to recommend any special visa scheme for this group – with
the possible exception of seasonal agricultural workers. However, it’s worth noting that
this recommendation may be overridden by any UK-EU trade deal that may have a
special free movement arrangement for EU citizens.
Overall, there are few surprises in the report. Its recommendations are driven by an
economic agenda that privileges certain groups of workers perceived to be most
beneficial to the UK economy because they are the least “drain” on public resources.
Yet any closure of UK borders to lower-skilled EEA workers after Brexit is controversial
and probably unworkable given the UK’s reliance on large numbers of low-skilled
workers in key sectors of the economy.
The care sector is a point in question. The report acknowledges that care work is often
low paid and it is difficult to recruit and retain staff. However, the MAC makes no specific
provision for this sector in their new migration vision. The social care sector, which is
likely to grow given an ageing population, currently employs significant numbers of
migrants, increasing numbers of whom are from the EEA. Mostly low paid, they would
not qualify under the Tier 2 scheme if the salary threshold remains at £30,000.
The only other option mentioned in the report is an expansion of the current youth
mobility scheme, which currently allows young migrants from certain countries to work
in the UK for a maximum of two years. This is hardly likely to provide the continuity of
experienced care workers which is so badly needed to provide an appropriate service to
the UK’s ageing population. And if such a youth mobility scheme is expanded to meet
demands for lower skilled labour, it could effectively become a “guest worker”
programme – which could have consequences on the well-being of those involved.
The government should make a careful assessment of the MAC’s recommendations
before announcing its immigration policy. This should not be focused only on the
potential losses and gains for the UK economy. The consequences of such a selective
approach to EEA migration on the rights of UK nationals also need to be considered, as
they may find their rights to go and work in other European countries become restricted
in a tit-for-tat reaction.

Debates about who benefits from global migration

The pros and cons of migration
There are many arguments about the advantages and disadvantages of migration and
how it has affected us locally.
Positive Impacts on host countries
• Job vacancies and skills gaps can be filled.
• Economic growth can be sustained.
• Services to an ageing population can be maintained when there are insufficient young
people locally.
• The pension gap can be filled by the contributions of new young workers and they also
pay taxes.
• Immigrants bring energy and innovation.
• Host countries are enriched by cultural diversity.
• Failing schools (and those with falling numbers) can be transformed.
Negative Impacts on host countries
• Depression of wages may occur, especially in lower paid jobs.
• Having workers willing to work for relatively low pay may allow employers to ignore
productivity, training and innovation.
• Migrants may be exploited.
• Increases in population can put pressure on public services.
• Unemployment may rise if there are unrestricted numbers of incomers.
• There may be integration difficulties and friction with local people.
• Large movements of people lead to more security monitoring.
• Ease of movement may facilitate organised crime and people trafficking.
Positive Impacts on countries of origin
• Developing countries benefit from remittances (payments sent home by migrants).
These now often outstrip foreign aid.
• Unemployment is reduced and young migrants enhance their life prospects
• Returning migrants bring savings, skills and international contacts.
Negative Impacts on countries of origin
• Economic disadvantage through the loss of young workers
• Loss of highly trained people, especially health workers
• Social problems for children left behind or growing up without a wider family circle
The Effects of Increased Migration in Northern Ireland
An Oxford Economics study published by the Department of Employment and Learning
(DEL) in 2009 concluded that migrant workers had helped maintain a sufficient labour
supply to fuel the 2004–2008 economic boom. The availability of migrant labour
appeared to have made the difference between some businesses surviving, or not
needing to relocate production abroad (especially in the case of food processing). The
authors quote a survey of 600 businesses where 31% said that migrants were important
in the survival of their organisation; this rose to 50% in health and social care and
agriculture.
In addition the study indicated that migrants have:
• facilitated growth in the economy;
• brought benefits to the tourism industry through the development of new air routes;
• had a positive influence on the productivity or efficiency of local workers;
• contributed new ideas and a fresh approach to firms;
• increased cultural links with developing nations that will prove useful in growing our
international trade.
In addition to these economic benefits, incomers have helped the health and care
services to continue functioning; contributed to cultural diversity; and increased the
vitality of schools, particularly in rural areas.
Summary
It is clear that immigration can be beneficial for migrants, but only if their rights are
protected properly. It can also be economically beneficial for both countries of origin and
host countries; however, with present economic and trading structures it is the rich and
powerful countries that benefit most. Migration brings social and cultural pressures that
need to be taken into account in planning for future services. Migration also has the
potential for bringing peoples together culturally but friction occurs if efforts are not
made to dispel negative myths held by local people. It is also essential to provide good
information about the local way of life to newcomers and ensure opportunities for people
to mix and integrate. Where the economic preconditions exist, migration is inevitable.
When people try to prevent immigration it just goes underground.
‘Global migration is creating more poverty.’ Evaluate this view
ESSAY
🌟Introduction🌟

Global migration has been a topic of debate in sociology, with differing perspectives on
whether it contributes to alleviating poverty or exacerbating it. This essay will evaluate
the view that "Global migration is creating more poverty" by examining contrasting
viewpoints from Marxist, assimilation, neoliberal, and functionalist theories.

🌟For: Marxist Perspective🌟

Marxist sociologists argue that global migration primarily benefits the capitalist class and
core countries, while migrant workers remain trapped in poverty. Migrant labor is often
exploited, leading to low wages and poor working conditions. This situation enables
wealthy elites to profit from cheap labor, keeping wages across the economy low and
perpetuating poverty among migrant populations. Additionally, the drain of young and
talented workers from less economically developed countries to richer nations may
further exacerbate poverty in the migrants' countries of origin.

🌟Against: Assimilation and Neoliberal Perspectives🌟

Contrary to the Marxist view, assimilation theory posits that both migrants and host
societies can benefit from global migration if migrants integrate fully into the host
culture. Neoliberalists argue that global migration can have positive economic, political,
and cultural impacts on both sending and receiving societies. Migrants who successfully
navigate cultural barriers and fill vacancies that local workers may not apply for can
contribute to economic growth and job creation.

🌟Against: Functionalist Perspective🌟

Functionalists suggest that global migration can benefit all parties if cultural barriers to
assimilation are overcome. Successful integration of migrants into host societies can
lead to social and economic growth for both migrants and host communities.
Additionally, migrants who return to their countries of origin with savings can contribute
to local economies by starting businesses and creating job opportunities.
🌟Conclusion🌟

In conclusion, the impact of global migration on poverty levels is complex and

multifaceted. While the Marxist perspective highlights the exploitation of migrant labor
and perpetuation of poverty, other theories such as assimilation, neoliberalism, and
functionalism present more optimistic views on the potential benefits of global migration
for all parties involved. Further research and policy analysis are necessary to
understand the nuanced effects of global migration on poverty and socioeconomic
inequality.
NOTES
Global migration is creating more poverty. Evaluate this view.

The question focuses on who benefits from global migration. In particular, does
migration result in a higher standard of living for those who would otherwise be poor or
is it creating more poverty, among migrants and/or among host communities/countries
of origin? While global migration may take many forms, sociological investigation has
focused mainly on migration from less economically developed countries to richer
countries in America, Europe, and some wealthier parts of Asia and the Middle East.

Marxist sociologists argue that global migration only benefits the capitalist class and the
core countries at the center of the global capitalist system. Migrant workers are
exploited and remain trapped in poverty. The existence of migrant labor also serves to
reduce the bargaining power of workers in the indigenous population, leading to a
decline in living standards and increased poverty. The drain of young and talented
workers from poor countries to rich countries may also undermine the economic and
social fabric of the less economically developed countries.

By contrast to the Marxist view, assimilation theory suggests that both migrants and the
societies in which they settle can benefit from global migration if the migrants fully
immerse themselves in the culture of the host society. Neoliberals also argue that global
migration has potentially positive economic, political, and cultural benefits for both
receiving and sending societies.

For:
💥 There is much evidence to suggest that the vast majority of migrants have difficult
lives, often experiencing poverty, poor housing, long hours of grueling work, social
dislocation, and prejudice from people in the host community.
💥 Many migrants report a gap between their expectations of living and working in a
more economically developed country and the reality of being a migrant worker.
💥 Marxist sociologists emphasize the economic and social benefits that wealthy elites in
advanced capitalist societies derive from global migration through exploiting migrant
workers.
💥 The availability of migrant labor may undermine wage rates in the host community,
spreading poverty among the working class in the indigenous population.
💥 Migration of young and able workers from poor countries to rich countries may hinder
less economically developed countries in overcoming global inequality.

Against:
💥 Some migrants achieve an attractive lifestyle in the country of reception and benefit
from opportunities provided to migrant workers in more economically developed
countries.
💥 Political backlash against global migration in richer countries can have destabilizing
effects politically and economically, which may not be in the interests of the wealthy
elites.
💥 Neoliberals argue that global migration can bring about economic growth benefiting
both receiving and sending societies.
💥 Functionalists believe that all could benefit socially and economically from global
migration if cultural barriers to assimilation could be overcome.
💥 Migrants often fill vacancies that indigenous workers would not apply for, do not
directly compete for jobs with the local workforce, and may actually help create jobs and
lift people out of poverty upon returning to their country of origin with saving
Globalisation and Crime

Written by
Karl Thompson
in
Crime and Deviance
Table of Contents
Questions sociologists might ask about Globalisation and crime….
1. How has globalisation affected crime in contemporary society?
2. What are global crimes?
3. What is the extent of global crime?
4. What are the consequences of global crimes for individuals and society?
(relating to crime control)
 5. Why has global crime increased? (It’s a reasonable assumption that it has
as it’s relatively new on the specification, albeit 20 years out of date as is
often the case with AQA A-level sociology).
You will need to be able to link your answers to these questions to other aspects
of the Crime and Deviance Specification (when talking about consequences you
might distinguish between effects on men and women, for example), and you
need to be able to apply sociological perspectives.
Before we turn to looking at the relationship between globalisation and crime, it is
worth reviewing the concept of globalisation, itself one of the most important
concepts A-level sociology students need to know!
x

Global Crime in the Age of Interconnectedness

What is globalisation?
Globalisations is where different regions around the world becoming increasingly
interconnected resulting in increasing flows of the following:
 economic globalisation means more global trade (the increasing movement of
goods and services between countries) and more Transnational companies.
  cultural globalisation means more communication between people and the
intermixing of ideas, often resulting in ‘hybrid’ cultures.
 There is also the increasing migration of people – for study, work, flight from wars
(refugees) and (for the wealthy) holidays, which has elements of both cultural
and economic globalisation.
 There isalso a ‘technological’ underpinning to globalisation – transport and
communications technologies especially.
Unfortunately a downside of globalisation is an increase in global crime. More trade has
meant more opportunity for illegal smuggling of goods, and part of migration is illegal
people smuggling. The fact that we are instantly connected via the internet has also
increased the amount of international cyber crime.
What are Global Crimes?
Global crimes are those which occur in more than one region of the world. In most
global crimes the criminals are in one country and the victims are in another. Some
global crimes involve the illegal movement of goods, people, or money across
international borders.
There are different ways of classifying global crimes, but one way we can do this is as
follows:
 Trafficking – moving drugs, people and/ or weapons across international borders
 Cyber Crimes – such as phising attacks, extortion and fraud
 Financial crimes – such as tax evasion.
 International terrorism.
 Most (if not all?) green crimes are also global in nature.
Who commits global crime?
Many different actors commit global crimes.
Some of the above global crimes are carried out by lone operators, some by organised
criminal networks (some people consider ‘organised crime’ to be a category of crime in
its own right), some by governments themselves (state crimes) and some by
Corporations.
What is the extent of global crime?
Trafficking
The Global Financial Integrity Report on Transnational Crime estimates that the
total global value of all trafficking is between $1.6 to $2.2 trillion, with drug
trafficking making up the largest share, around 30% of this, with a global value of
around $500 billion.
Drug Trafficking
According to The United Nations 2021 Drug Report , globally in 2022 an estimated 292
million people used a drug in the last year. This equivalent to 5.4 per cent of the
population and an increase from 269 million in 2018
Most of this increase has been in the use of cannabis, closely followed by
amphetamines and cocaine.

Cyber Crime
Evolve Security estimates that Cyber Crime will cost the world $6 trillion in 2021, and
estimates that cost will grow to $20 trillion by 2026.
NB you might want to be cautious with these statistics because I think the company
which did the research sells cyber security protection, so it’s in their interests to
exaggerate the risks! Nonetheless this is something governments and companies take
very seriously.
A couple of important aspects mentioned in the article are that RansomWare is one of
the fastest growing types of cyber crime – where your computer is hacked and data
frozen, only to be released when you have paid a ransom (this may not be too much of
a hassle for an individual, but if companies or government agencies are victims this is a
much bigger dea.
Also, a lot of cyber crime takes place in the Deep and Dark Web, thought to be several
times greater than what we can see online (visible, accessible public networks), and
that This is also related increasingly to drug trafficking – increasingly people buy and
sell drugs via the deep and dark web.
Tax Havens and Tax Evasion
The IMF estimates that there are $ several trillions of dollars of Corporate Funds
stashed away in tax havens, costing the tax payer from between $500 to $600 billion in
lost tax revenue (so a similar financial cost to the value of drug crime).
Estimates for how much individual wealth (rather than Corporate wealth) are stashed in
tax havens are more varied, given the secrecy surrounding these funds, but two
estimates cited by the IMF are from between $8 trillion to more than $30 trillion, costing
the taxpayer around $200 billion a year in lost revenue.
There is a conceptual problem with labelling the use of tax havens as ‘criminal’ –
companies and individuals often use loopholes in the law to get their funds out of
countries where they are taxed and into tax havens where they are not taxed, or taxed
at a very low rate, so we have to use a broader definition of crime as something which is
harmful (through lost tax revenue) to ensure we include the use of tax havens in our
examples of global crime.
Global Terrorism
Trends in global terrorism are actually going down (so some rare good news!).
According to the Global Terrorism Index, in 2023 approximately 8500 people from
terrorism deaths. This is down from a peak of 34 500 deaths in 2014.
More than 90% of terrorism deaths take place in conflict ridden countries, so we are
relatively safe in Europe!
While terrorism is often very locally felt, many of the groups who claim
responsibility for these attacks are responding to global dynamics and see
themselves as part of a global network, so they are a response to globalisation.
Related Posts
What is Cybercrime?
Capitalism, Globalisation and Crime
How has globalisation affected crime in contemporary society?
This is one of the more complex questions we can ask in A-level sociology, and there
are several possible ways we can break down our analysis, and a lot of interconnecting
ideas where ever we start.
Below I’ve started with the concept of globalisation and considered how economic and
cultural globalisation have opened up more opportunities for people and organisations
to engage in certain types of crime and how the nature and extent of crime has changed
as a result.

Economic globalisation and global crime

Economic globalisation refers to increasing amounts of global trade and money, the
increasing role of Transnational Corporations, the spread of an international division of
labour, and (importantly from a broadly Marxist point of view) increasing amounts of
inequality between rich and poor regions around the world.
Increasing amounts of trade of goods across international borders and the fact that
some countries tax certain goods, such as alcohol and cigarettes, have lead to
increasing amounts of smuggling of such highly taxed products -organised criminal
networks have emerged (e.g. think of the Mafia) who smuggle cigarettes and alcohol
from countries where they are produced very cheaply to countries where they are taxed
very highly, such as the UK – this is simple demand and supply, albeit illegal, and very
common: there are plenty of poor people in the UK (for example) who want cheaper
booze and cigarettes, and plenty of poor people in developing countries who are willing
to risk jail time to traffic non-taxed booze and cigarettes to countries such as the UK.
The above also applies to the illegal trade in counterfeit goods, from clothes to
electronics – all of these goods (as well as fags and booze) may present themselves as
genuine, but in reality they are fake – but when there are so many containers of goods
moving around the world (global trade is massive) there is significant opportunity for
organised criminal networks to smuggle their cheaper counterfeit/ untaxed goods into
shipping containers and get them to willing and often unwitting consumers in their
destination countries.
Marxists are keen to point out that it’s not just criminal networks involved in global
economic crime – so are many Transnational Corporations -it’s a bit more difficult to
analyse the role of these in global crime as they are more likely to engage in ‘law
evasion’ rather than actual crime – for example Shell extracting oil in Nigeria and taking
advantage of the laxer pollution laws in that country, committing effectively no ‘crime’ by
Nigerian standards, but an environmental crime nonetheless.
TNCs also engage in tax evasion as do many wealthy individuals by stashing their
wealth in tax havens, again, not technically illegal, but harmful due to lost tax revenue.
Another way in which economic globalisation might fuel global crime is through
increasing inequality – one rather horrible aspect of this is sex trafficking – there are
plenty of men in developed countries looking for cheap prostitutes prepared to travel to
countries such those in Eastern Europe to get what they want – and the young women
they find there may well have been trafficked into sex-work on the promise of something
else by organised criminal gangs – one of the darker sides of the global economy.
The supply of drugs from poorer countries to richer countries is another aspect of
inequality fuelling this global trade.
Cultural globalisation and global crime
The increasing communications between cultures may have lead to more cultural
clashes the world over, more ‘ordinary people’ coming into conflict with their more
traditional political orders.
An obvious example of this is ‘liberated’ women in Iran posting pictures of themselves
on Instagram and the State ‘cracking down on them‘, but there’s much more to it than
this – radical interpretations of Islam have made their way to Britain and other European
countries, shared and circulated online and contributed to various terror attacks over the
last couple of decades.
However, it’s important not to exaggerate the extent to which exposure to new ideas
results in ‘violent cultural clashes’, it’s quite possible that for the most part people online
are just stuck in their bubbles (their social media bubbles, not meant here in the
Pandemic sense of the word) and for the most part not inclined to criminal behaviour!
We could also point to the emergence of a set of ‘global human right’s outlined by the
United Nations which proclaim that Nation States (governments) are not permitted to
breach certain rights of individual citizens – making illegal at a global level things such
as genocide, which opens up the possibilities of governments being held accountable
as criminals, which couldn’t have happened before the UN HUMAN RIGHTS
CONVENTION immediately after World War Two.
The Internet and Global Cyber Crime
The instantaneous connectivity through the internet deserves special mention in its own
right in relation to global crime.
This probably more than ANYTHING else has changed the nature of crime across
societies as it creates so many more opportunities for people anywhere in the world to
commit crime and for people to be unwitting victims of crime.
It’s possible for one individual to send out literally millions of phishing emails or
comments to millions of people in a single day in attempt to get them to click on a link
which will (variably) try to elicit their personal information from them or get them to
download some dodgy software which will collect their data from their computer.
The Deep Web and Dark Web also make it easier for people to trade in illegal goods
and services online and to network and have conversations which may result in very
serious criminal activities – think terrorist cells and child abuse rings – all made easier to
maintain via the Dark Web.
What are the consequences of global crimes for individuals and society?
Here we really need to take a global development perspective and think of winners and
losers at a global level.
Certainly global crime has created many losers from developing countries – anyone
trafficked into the sex industry or any drug mules caught and sent to jail, and several
migrants who have paid their life savings to then NOT be transported successfully to
their destination countries.
But then again, you could see this as an opportunity – drugs are part of global trade –
and there is more money to made in growing Cocaine than Coffee for some farmers in
Colombia – possibly opening up better opportunities than ‘free trade as usual’ – NB not
to say this will always be the case as being involved in the global drugs market probably
isn’t that SAFE.
And it’s not necessarily the case that the consumers in the west are the winners – they
may also be victims, of poor quality cigarettes and booze for example.
Where cyber crime is concerned it’s more hidden – there are probably more victims
alive today that DON’T know about it than ever before in human history.
Finally, global crime is a problem for governments – it takes a lot of resources and co-
ordination to combat global crime, especially when so much of it is online and thus not
visible.
And where some of more heinous crimes are concerned, this increases our sense of
fear and vulnerability and uncertainty – such as with global terrorism.
Why has global crime increased?
It’s easy (lazy?) to see the increase of crime as an ‘inevitable’ response to Globalisation
– with more flows of goods and people and ideas, SOME of that is going to be illegal.
There’s also an underlying technological change we need to consider – the internent
does make crime easier.
But to answer this question with any analytical depth, you need to be able to apply the
perspectives.
From a Marxist point of view this is due to the spread of Global Capitalism – creating
more inequalities which results in inequities in supply and demand – plenty of poor
people who can’t make decent money growing coffee would rather risk growing
Cocaine, for example.
Another aspect of a Marxist analysis is the spread of TNCs engaged in law evasion and
also tax evasion by elites.
Misha Glenny has researched the role of Organised criminal networks in facilitating the
rise of Global Crime (the McMafia as he calls them) pointing out that the collapse of
Communism in the late 1980s resulted in a massive increase in organised crime in
countries such as Bulgaria – trafficking a lot of goods to Western Europe – here it’s not
so much ‘legal capitalism’ which is the problem, rather criminal gangs operating outside
the law in several countries.
You can also apply Feminism in order to help understand sex trafficking in particular.
Interactionism is also relevant because changes in international law, and national laws
can criminalise acts and thus ‘increase’ global crime overnight – the United Nations
Human Rights Conventions did this with State crimes, for example. And the same thing
is happening with many green or enviromental crimes.
Not to say that these legal changes are bad, but they do increase the amount of crime
simply by making acts illegal that previously were not, such as genocide and several
forms of pollution.

Globalisation, Global Criminal Networks and Crime

One of the downsides of the increasing interconnectedness between societies is the
increase in global crime. Global crime is estimated to be worth several trillion dollars
annually. Some of the most common types of global crime include:

Global Crime in the Age of Interconnectedness

1. The drugs trade
 2. People Trafficking
3. Cyber crimes
4. International Terrorism
According to Misha Glenny (2009) global criminal networks are responsible for most of
this crime. This post summarises aspects of Misha Glenny’s classic 2009 text:
McMafia: A Journey Through the Global Criminal Underworld.
Global Criminal Networks and The Global Criminal Economy
Global Criminal networks involve complex interconnections between a range of criminal
organisations which transcend national boundaries including the American Mafia,
Columbian drug cartels, the Russian Mafia, Chinese Triads and the Sicilian Costa
Nostra.
Global criminal networks have developed because of the growth of an information age
in which knowledge as well as goods and people can move quickly and easily across
national boundaries.
According to Misha Glenny these networks form a global criminal economy which
accounts for 15% of global trade – (Misha Glenny, (2008) McMafia: Crime without
Frontiers). In order of importance (in economic terms) the main crimes organised
criminal gangs engage in are:
 Drug trafficking estimated – 8 % of world trade
 Money laundering estimated 2 – 5 % of global GDP.
 4 – 5 million people trafficked each year = profits of up to US$9.5 billion
These criminal networks also trade in weapons, pharmaceuticals, nuclear materials,
body parts, metals, precious stones / natural resources, stolen cars, art, antiques, rare
animals and counterfeit goods.
They provide and control illicit services, most notably, gambling and prostitution, they
engage in cybercrime, robbery, kidnapping, extortion, corruption, and piracy, and finally
there is also terrorism.
Misha Glenny: The role of organised Crime in Ex-Communist Countries
Glenny suggests that organised criminal gangs are especially important in facilitating
the trade in illegal goods and services. Organised criminal gangs (basically the Mafia)
have become especially influential in those areas of the world where there is weak rule
of law (i.e. failed and transitional states), distrust of the state (i.e. Italy, and Mexico),
inaccessible terrain (i.e. Peru and Colombia), high levels of corruption, and easy access
to weapons and access to Transnational networks.
One of the most significant criminal networks which impacts Europe operates from
Bulgaria – a country which is a ‘Hub’ between the rich and poor parts of the world, and
where the Mafia have held considerable power since the collapse of Communism in the
late 1980s. Most of the drugs people take in the UK and many of the prostitutes British
men sleep with have been shipped by the Bulgarian Mafia.
Location of Bulgaria
Another key point is that all of this global crime is driven by consumer demand in rich
countries!
McMafia
Glenny coined the term ‘McMafia’ to emphasise just how organised these criminal
networks are. In Eastern Europe they operate a kind of franchise system like Mcdonalds
do. That is the national level Mafias have illegal business models in place that works.
They expanded into new areas by finding existing criminals to adopt these methods and
become part of the larger network.

Globalisation and crime – with evaluative points

Features of globalised crime:
 globalisation has created new more diverse opportunities for criminal activity,
particularly through the anonymity of the internet
 for example, it’s hard to police internet based crimes because they cross so
many international borders, for example email phishing
 because it crosses so many borders it becomes difficult identify which country’s
police force is responsible
 another difficulty is global criminal organisations have thousands of members
located in different countries
 the global criminal economy is worth hundreds of billions of pounds a year
 Held, 1999, argued the features of globalistion have allowed transnational
organised crimes to flourish
These features are evident in Hobbs and Dunningham (1998) concept of ‘glocal’ crime.
The term glocal describes transnational organised crime.
Glocal crimes describe the way global criminal networks operate with local networks in
countries thousands of miles away.
 These has meant the old fashioned criminal gang top-down hierarchy has been
replaced by global networks of criminal gangs – glocal criminal gangs
 The term glocal describes the interconnectivity between the local and global
networks
 local criminal networks with links to criminal gangs in other countries
 For example international drugs trade requires the harvesting of opium from local
farmers such as those in Afghanistan, by local criminal gangs to supply the
orders placed by Columbian drugs barons – those orders can be placed using
global telecommunication systems – interconnectivity a key feature
of globalisationglobalisation

Evaluation
 the complexity and secrecy of global crimes makes it difficult for sociologists to
research and test the validity of research findings in this area
 the role of globalisation could be an exaggeration of other causes for global or
international crimes for example citizens of developing countries could be taking
advantage of their new found wealth
 globalisation’s interconnectedness has seen the emergence of more global law
enforcement agencies sharing information about, for example, terrorism

Related Posts
Globalisation and Crime
Capitalism, Globalisation and Crime
The problems of controlling global crime

Evaluation of Glenny
It’s worth noting that Glenny is a journalist, not a sociologist. So although this research
was based on years of interviews with a range of actors this material hasn’t been peer
reviewed by sociologists.
The work may be less relevant now with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which would
have disrupted criminal supply chains.
Dick Hobbs and Colin Dunningham examined how organised crime has expanded on
the back of globalisation in their 1990s ethnographic study .
They suggest that criminal organisations like the Mafia are not dominant, but most
global crime operates through a glocal system – that is, there’s a global distribution
network built from local connections.
For example local growers of cannabis deliver their product to a supply-chain feeding a
global network of users. Similarly, Colombian drug barons use glocal systems to deliver
their product to the world
Globalisation and Crime
This section examines the relationship between globalisation and crime. Specifically, we
will explore the ways in which globalisation has influenced the types of crimes that are
committed, as well as the impact of globalisation on the policing of crime. Moreover, we
will critically evaluate the notion that globalisation is a novel phenomenon. As we have
previously discussed, globalisation refers to the ongoing process of creating an
interconnected world, encompassing economic, cultural, social, and political spheres.
Postmodernist sociologists argue that globalisation has led to a decline in the nation
state, with the emergence of a more globalised community. This integration across the
world has had significant implications for the nature of crime.
NEW TYPES OF CRIME
Held et al. have highlighted the emergence of transnational organised crime because of
globalisation. Unlike traditional organised crime, which tends to be geographically
specific, such as the Yakuza in Japan, the triads in China, or the mafia in Italy, these
criminal groups are now spreading across the globe. They have set up enclaves in
various parts of the world, including the UK, and their activities are increasingly evident
in the media, particularly in the US. This growing phenomenon of transnational
organised crime is highly lucrative, as Manuel Castells has estimated the annual worth
of the global criminal economy to exceed $1 trillion, constituting a significant
unregulated underground economy that transcends geographical boundaries.
Transnational organised crime groups have become increasingly sophisticated in their
use of financial instruments and technology to engage in illegal activities. For example,
the use of cryptocurrencies, such as Bitcoin, has eased illicit transactions by providing a
secure and anonymous means of payment. Criminals have also taken advantage of the
global nature of financial markets to engage in insider trading and other forms of
financial fraud.
Furthermore, the economic benefits of globalisation have not been evenly distributed,
with some countries and regions experiencing significant economic hardship and
inequality. This has created fertile ground for the growth of criminal enterprises,
particularly in developing countries where the rule of law may be weaker and corruption
more prevalent.
The impact of financial crime on society can be significant, with the proceeds often
being used to fund other illegal activities, such as drug trafficking and human trafficking.
Additionally, tax evasion by corporations and wealthy individuals can have a detrimental
effect on government revenue, limiting the ability of governments to fund public services
and infrastructure.
In response to the globalisation of crime, international cooperation and coordination
between law enforcement agencies has become increasingly important. This includes
the sharing of intelligence, joint investigations and prosecutions, and the development of
international legal frameworks to combat transnational crime. However, challenges
remain in effectively addressing the globalisation of crime, particularly in areas where
the rule of law is weak or where corruption is widespread.
The phenomenon of trafficking has seen an increase in various forms in recent years,
such as arms trafficking, people trafficking, and modern slavery. Additionally, organ
trafficking has also seen a rise, with an estimated 2,000 organs being trafficked each
year in an underground economy. Individuals with monetary resources who are unable
to access transplant lists or are unwilling to wait for legitimate organs may resort to
obtaining organs through this illegal market. Notably, a sizeable portion of these illicit
organs are sourced from condemned or executed criminals or individuals who have not
authorized organ donation after their death. There have also been instances of
organized live organ trafficking, where individuals living in severe poverty may sell a
kidney, cornea, or another non-vital organ to the illegal market. Furthermore, sex
trafficking, especially of women and children, has seen a concerning increase. Women
and children may also be trafficked for purposes of modern slavery, such as forced
labour in sweatshops or as domestic servants. There have been cases where
individuals have been enslaved in private homes, where the owner holds onto their
passport, does not provide them with compensation for their labour, and restricts their
freedom. The globalization of trade and transportation has helped these nefarious
activities, as it has become easier and quicker to transport individuals from one place to
another. While there are border and passport controls in place, criminal enterprises are
well-versed in exploiting loopholes and circumventing these measures. In cases of
modern slavery, individuals may enter the country legally on a tourist or work visa but
are then subjected to exploitation and abuse, with their passports confiscated and
access to communication restricted.
Terrorism, as a phenomenon, has existed for centuries, but the advent of globalization
has helped its expansion. Technological and communication advancements have
supplied avenues for international terrorism and online radicalization to thrive. This
means that individuals can now be radicalized within their own country, instead of being
trained abroad and subsequently infiltrating their target country. The Paris bombings, for
example, were conducted by Belgian citizens who were radicalized within Belgium, and
not by individuals of Middle Eastern origin who were brought into the country for the
attack. The ISIS, which claimed responsibility for the attack, is now capable of creating
its own people within the country in which it intends to conduct its attacks.
Similarly, the drug trade, which has been in existence for centuries, has grown
exponentially due to globalization. The cultivation of drugs in developing countries such
as Colombia, Peru, and Afghanistan have become the only means of survival for many
individuals. The ease of transport, communication, and money transfer, which have
been helped by technological advancements, have made it easier for these drugs to be
transported across the world to their target markets. It is estimated that the illegal drug
trade generates over 300 billion dollars annually. Therefore, while terrorism and the drug
trade are not new crimes, globalization has expanded and developed them, making
them more profitable and accessible to criminal enterprises.
As previously mentioned, transnational organised crime has become a significant issue
in the globalised world. According to Glenny, the mafia has emerged and expanded due
to the deregulation of global markets and advancements in technology. Traditional
organised crime groups such as the Italian Mafia and triads are no longer limited to a
specific location, but rather have developed into transnational organisations with their
leadership operating from various regions such as Japan, China, and Russia. This is
largely facilitated by the ease of financial transfers across the world, allowing for the
creation and expansion of these sophisticated transnational criminal systems.
CYBER CRIME
In recent years, the phenomenon of cybercrime has emerged as a new form of criminal
activity, owing to the advent of globalisation. Cybercrime is closely related to the use of
computers, which have only been in widespread use for just over 25 years. This sets it
apart from other crimes, such as drug trafficking and human trafficking, which have
been around for much longer. There are several types of cybercrime, as identified by
Wall, and these categories can sometimes overlap. The first category that Wall outlines
is cyber deception and theft. This includes activities such as phishing, illegal downloads,
identity theft, and personalised hacking. The latter refers to the act of hacking into an
individual's personal data, such as credit card and bank details, rather than a larger
institution or company. Other examples of cyber deception and theft include the more
recent trend of catfishing, which involves creating a fake persona on social media or
online dating platforms to defraud people of money or cause harm. It is worth noting that
these categories are not always clearly defined and can overlap in practice.
The second category of cybercrime is pornography, specifically the illegal creation and
distribution of pornographic material. It is important to note that legal pornographic
content created by regulated companies is not considered a form of cybercrime.
However, the distribution and consumption of illegal pornographic material, such as
child pornography, has become a significant problem in the digital age. The anonymity
afforded by the internet and computer networks has made it increasingly difficult for law
enforcement agencies to detect and prevent these crimes. Paedophiles use various
techniques and tricks to share images and videos, and the existence of the untraceable
"dark web" has further complicated the issue.
Another recent development in this area is the emergence of "revenge porn," a criminal
act in the UK. This involves the uploading of sexually explicit images or videos of an
individual without their consent or knowledge. This may include cases where the
individual had consented to the creation of the content but did not agree to its
distribution, or cases where they were recorded engaging in sexual activity without their
consent. The proliferation of the internet has created opportunities for this type of crime
to flourish. While revenge porn has only recently been made illegal in the UK, it remains
a serious offense.
Another type of cybercrime is cyber trespass, which refers to unauthorized access or
hacking. This type of cybercrime can be committed against individuals or corporations.
For example, distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks and ransomware attacks
where companies are threatened to pay a certain amount of money or lose access to
their accounts. The infamous Ashley Madison hack is an example of a ransomware
attack that exposed its members' data. Additionally, cyber trespass involves the spread
of viruses, which can be disguised as seemingly legitimate emails from known
organizations or individuals. To avoid such threats, it is important to verify the
authenticity of the sender before clicking any links. Cyber trespass is considered illegal
when hackers access systems without permission. However, there are white hat
hackers, who are authorized to access systems to find and report security flaws, and
this is not considered illegal since they have been given permission to do so.
Cyber violence is a distinct type of cybercrime, which may seem contradictory as it
occurs in the virtual realm. Symbolic violence is the characteristic form of cyber
violence, which includes instances such as cyberbullying, hate-based websites, and
terrorist websites. Notably, cyber violence can result in tragic consequences, even if not
physically present. For instance, a recent American case showcased how a girl goaded
her partner to commit suicide using instant messaging and text messages. She was
charged with negligent homicide and cyber violence, which is considered a criminal
offense in the UK if cyberbullying leads to suicide or attempted suicide. However,
prosecuting individuals for these crimes is challenging as laws tend to take a long time
to adapt to technological advancements. Balancing freedom of speech and hate crime
remains a challenge, as laws in the UK allow for freedom of speech, if individuals do not
incite hatred towards a specific group. Targeting individuals or specific groups through
websites is illegal, though prosecuting individuals is difficult. In summary, cyber violence
is a new form of crime, whose incidence poses unique challenges in the contemporary
world, where technological advancements have made it easier to target victims while
complicating law enforcement efforts.

IMPACT OF GLOBALISATION
Globalization and its impact on crime is a topic of interest in sociology. Taylor discusses
the rise in inequality that goes with globalization, highlighting how it creates new
patterns of inequality. The beneficiaries of the process are typically the wealthy financial
investors and transnational corporations, while the workers are often the losers. This
perspective aligns with Marxist theory, which contends that the disadvantaged, both in
developing and developed countries, face greater insecurity and relative deprivation. As
a result, this sense of deprivation may contribute to criminal behaviour. With
globalization, individuals now compare themselves to people in other countries, as
opposed to only those in their own society or country. This comparative mindset is
further exacerbated by the ubiquitous nature of reality television shows, such as
"Keeping Up with The Kardashians" and "The Hills," which propagate a sense of relative
deprivation. Even programs that one may not expect, such as "Selling Sunset," a real
estate program, can create this sense of deprivation. When people feel deprived, they
may resort to criminal activities to obtain what they perceive as their due.
Bauman, on the other hand, argues that globalization promotes growing individualism.
In this context, individuals prioritize weighing the cost-benefit of their decisions and
opting for the course of action that yields the highest rewards. While this may seem
logical, it often overlooks the environmental impact or other moral considerations. Fast
fashion is an excellent example of growing individualism, where people seek cheap
clothing with little regard for its environmental and social implications. Companies like
Primark and everything five pounds.com capitalize on this trend. While people may be
aware of the exploitation that takes place to produce fast fashion, they often do not
engage with it, as it does not directly affect them. Thus, their consumer lifestyle
inadvertently contributes to criminal activities, such as modern-day slavery.
Globalisation has had a significant impact on crime, as it has created new opportunities
for individuals to engage in criminal activities. One of the ways in which globalisation
has made it easier to commit crime is through the rise of cybercrime and transnational
crime. With the advent of the internet, individuals can now conduct illegal activities
online, such as purchasing illegal goods or services on the dark web. For instance, the
Silk Road was a notorious website where individuals could buy a range of illegal items,
including drugs, weapons, and even hire hitmen. The anonymity provided by the dark
web has made it harder for law enforcement agencies to track and apprehend
individuals involved in such activities.
Furthermore, the availability of non-illegal items on the dark web has also created more
opportunities for individuals to commit crimes unknowingly. For example, the act of
illegal downloading of copyrighted materials is a criminal offense, yet many people
engage in it without realizing the implications. Therefore, globalization has created a
new form of criminality, one that is not necessarily visible to the average person.
It is worth noting that the rise of cybercrime and transnational crime is not the only way
in which globalization has contributed to crime. Globalization has also created new
patterns of inequality, where the rich financial investors and transnational corporations’
benefit, while the working class and disadvantaged face greater insecurity and relative
deprivation. As a result, people may turn to criminal activities to obtain what they feel
they deserve but lack. Additionally, the consumer culture that has emerged because of
globalization has led to a growing individualism, where individuals prioritize their own
desires and benefits over the broader social and environmental impacts of their actions.
The fast fashion industry is a prime example of this phenomenon, where consumers
prioritize low prices and quick clothing over the ethical concerns surrounding labour
conditions and modern slavery.
Beck highlights the concept of greater risk resulting from the process of globalization,
which has created a state of growing instability. This phenomenon has led to individuals
becoming increasingly risk conscious. The causes of this restlessness are often global
in nature, making it challenging to identify the responsible parties. For instance, climate
change has led to the belief of greater risk, and in a subsequent lecture, we will explore
the concept of green crime. However, instances of terrorism and similar incidents make
it difficult to pinpoint responsibility, thereby making it challenging to reach a sense of
justice.
Moreover, Beck posits that the media has played a role in worsening this sense of risk.
As discussed in an earlier lecture, the media has the power to ignite hatred towards
certain groups, which can lead to racially motivated crimes. Following the September
11th attacks and the July 7th bombings, there was a 2000% surge in hate crimes
against Muslims. Therefore, globalisation has created a sense of risk, which, when
combined with a feeling of instability, can lead to individuals committing criminal
activities such as hate crime or racially motivated crime, which they might not have
engaged in previously.
Lash and Urry, have proposed the theory of disorganised capitalism, which is premised
on the deregulation of international finance. As state controls over business and
business finance are dismantled due to offshore registration of companies, offshore
bank accounts, and other similar factors, corporations are enabled to operate in a
transnational manner by moving manufacturing, waste disposal staff, and money to
various parts of the world to augment their profits. For instance, Amazon has been
exempted from paying corporation tax by the UK Government, which fears that Amazon
may move its business from the UK, leading to higher unemployment. Following Brexit,
many companies shifted their manufacturing from the UK to mainland Europe due to
deregulation and the absence of trade agreements, which made profitability more
challenging.
Furthermore, Taylor has also highlighted how this disorganised capitalism has resulted
in greater job insecurity, lower social cohesion, and fewer employment opportunities,
leading to increased crime rates due to deprivation.

EVALUATION
While cybercrime may be an exception, most crimes that we are referring to, such as
drug trafficking, people trafficking, and organ trafficking, have existed for centuries.
Organised crime has been prevalent throughout history, and as people migrated to new
countries, the crime followed them. The movement of Italian organised crime to America
and the expansion of the Yakuza and triads into other countries are examples of this.
It is difficult to determine the impact of globalisation on crime due to its clandestine
nature, and sociologists face obstacles in investigating transnational organised crime
groups. These groups are highly dangerous, making it difficult for sociologists to gain
access to them for research purposes. Consequently, the information available to
sociologists is often limited and consists primarily of educated guesses, secondary
sources such as newspaper articles, and memoirs of former members of organised
crime.
The lack of primary data makes it challenging for sociologists to determine the extent to
which globalisation has affected crime. Therefore, there is an argument that the
significance of globalisation on crime may be exaggerated. Nevertheless, it is important
to note that crime still tends to be routine low-level offences committed in local
communities, despite the glamorisation of transnational organised crime groups.

GLOBALISATION AND POLICING

Policing globalized crime poses several challenges. One of the key issues is that
transnational crime is difficult to prosecute due to jurisdictional questions. For instance,
drug trafficking often requires law enforcement officials to wait until traffickers exit
international waters before acting because nation states lack jurisdiction in international
waters. Cybercrime also presents a unique challenge as determining which jurisdiction
should prosecute the perpetrator is often complicated. For example, if someone in
Ontario, Canada hacks into a computer located in Norfolk, England, it is unclear
whether the prosecution should take place in Canada or England.
In addition to jurisdictional issues, differing laws across nations can also make it difficult
to prosecute crimes committed in one country in another country. Cultural differences
also complicate matters, as what is acceptable in one country may not be acceptable in
another. Moreover, legislative delays can prevent the law from keeping pace with the
speed at which technology and globalization are advancing. For instance, creating a law
to criminalize revenge porn took several years due to the lengthy process involved in
raising the issue, debating the law, and passing it through multiple levels of government.
However, there are some positive developments. International cooperation has
increased, with organizations such as Interpol and Europol working collaboratively to
track and deal with transnational crime. There are also more international agreements,
such as extradition, in which countries agree to send criminals back to the country
where they committed their crimes for prosecution. Nevertheless, there are limits to
extradition, such as when a country does not have the death penalty and is unwilling to
extradite someone to a country where the death penalty is a possibility.
Globalization has also created greater awareness of issues such as modern slavery,
people trafficking, and organ trafficking, leading to increased pressure to address these
problems. While challenges remain, progress is being made in combating the
international crimes that globalization has enabled

‘It is becoming harder to detect and punish global crime.’ Evaluate this view. [35]
In this age of globalisation, trade and travel restrictions between countries had mostly
disappear before the global pandemic Covid 19 crisis World economies have become
increasingly interdependent. There is increasing breakdown of the boundaries among
nation states. This has given rise to the flow and migration of undesirable people, illicit
trade, ideas, objects and transnational criminal activities across the boundaries.
Organised crimes have increase globally including money laundering, terrorism, human
and arms trafficking, cybercrimes, human and drug smuggling. Global crime total value
is equivalent to 15% of the world’s wealth. There are two opposing views, for and gainst,
the notion that global crime is becoming harder to detect and punish. Here I will discuss
globalization and crime from the perspectives of Marxist, hyperglobalist, sceptical
globalist, and transformational globalist.
First, hyperglobalists are optimist about globalization that will provide cooperation at
international level to detect global crime. Social media such as Facebook and Instagram
may contain rich and timely postings of information relevant to public safety. The
contentof these social media can be monitored and analysed. This social monitoring by
law enforcement agencies provides a proactive way to target criminal events that can
potentially lead to human disasters. With the progress of big data analytics software,
posts that are related to criminal activity can be detected. In addition, these predictive
analytical tools offer the potential to track suspected criminal movements 24/7 based on
their documentations in social media.
Second, global information, intelligence sharing, cooperation and formal agreements
between the international policing organisation, INTERPOL and regional bodies such as
ASEANPOL, AFRIPOL and EUROPOL had helped detect organised crime. This
information made accessible to frontline police and customs officer at international
borders helps in intercepting the movement of organised criminal activities. At the same
time, greater regional law enforcement cooperation facilitates police cooperation
between regions.
Third, organised crime such as narcotics drug trafficking and its associated money
laundering, terrorism, illegal immigration and arms trafficking are transnational in nature.
Individual countries have limited ability to combat these global crimes. The UN General
Assembly has, over the years, ininitiated several conventions, treaties and protocols
that provide comprehension measures to combat
the crimes mentioned. For example, the UN conventions against illicit traffic in narcotic
drugs and against transnational organised crime provide practical measures against
drug trafficking, money laundering, legal frameworks for law enforcement and
extradition among member countries. The international cooperation fostered by the UN
had help detect and punish transnational crime.
Fourth, Post 9/11, airport controls to detect travellers before they reach their
destinations have been strengthened against terrorism that involves the use of violence
to disrupt or coerce a government or community to create fear and intimidation. Risk
profiling of air passengers based on big data gathering aims are used to distinguish
between genuine travellers and those with criminal intent. At the same time, external
borders are strengthened through better police cooperation and exchange of
information among nations, utilisation of technologies at airports such as machine
readable biometric passports and visas. These actions have made it easier to detect
and punish potential terrorists. The securitisation of borders such as stricter border
controls and visa requirements had help to detect crime.
However, sceptics argued that although globalization brings economic liberalisation and
cross border activities including control and surveillance of global crime but liberalization
of trade can also increase global corporate crimes that are hard to detect. The neo-
liberal approach to governance has led to greater privatisation of state assets and
deregulation of financial markets. The flow of money without any government regulation
has made financial crimes such as money laundering easier.
Money laundering is a key feature of illicit supply chains, transactions of funds and tax
evasions. Since the funds are integrated into the legitimate financial system, the original
source obtained through such criminal activities is hidden. Therefore, in a globalised
environment where there is little or no government regulation on financial exchange,
organized transnational criminal networks can escape from being detected and
punished.
In addition, the Internet provides a virtual platform for a variety of illegal crime, including
child pornography, and computer hacking. Since the Internetprovides a wide range of
freedom for global citizens, tracking the activities of cybercrime is difficult. Law
enforcement agencies faced difficulties such as anonymity of cybercriminals, jurisdiction
issues, and inadequate legislation for enforcement of cybercrime laws. Cybercrime is a
transnational crime that can be committed in a virtual space that transcends nation
states and jurisdictions. Even if the identity and country of residence are known, the
court of the country in which the crime is committed lacks the power to initiate or
conduct legal actions. Moreover, not every country in this world have laws relevant to
cybercrime. This has hampered the enforcement of cybercrime laws globally.
Another difficulty faced by law enforcers of illicit drugs is that transactions of drugs have
moved from the terrestrial to the virtual world of the World Wide Web. The case of
trading online on the World Wide Web can bypass the government’s criminal laws. The
Dark Web is anonymous and
The Marxist perspective of globalisation argued that the relentless drive for profits
would lead companies to mechanise their workplaces, causing overproduction of goods
at minimum costs by exploiting workers. This has led to the spread of capitalism
throughout the world in search of new markets. This search for new markets, demand
for cheap labour and natural resources resulted in the growth of multinational
corporations that seek cheap labour to maximise profits. Joseph Stiglitz argued that the
domination of international capital is the domination of the strong nations over the weak.
Countries become trapped in poverty via economic sanctions where they have policies
imposed on them. Hence, global forces exerted their power economically, politically and
culturally on the economy, sovereignty and identity respectively of nations. Crime rates
and social unrest increase in underdeveloped societies due to poverty. Marxists believe
that global crime is inevitable because global capitalism is criminogenic i.e. global crime
isa natural outcome of international capitalism.
Wallerstein (1983) that global capitalist class contribute to global crime by practicing
neo-colonialism. Even international aid that assist LEDC often disappears and is
misappropriated by a local kleptocracy. Marxists and sceptics argue that there are more
evidence that shows the negative consequences of globalization on crime. The fact that
global organised crimes have continued to flourish due to globalisation, deregulation of
financial markets, freedom ofusage of Internet, high global demand for illicit drugs, and
human trafficking for slave labour and exploitation of cheap labour shows the difficulty to
curb them. Countries have taken numerous steps to address the problem involving
transnational organised crime. These steps had been largely ineffective in breaking the
demand supply chain for illicit drugs and illegal immigrants. Crimes continue to increase
globally due to difficulty to detect and punish such criminals in a borderless world.