effects of globalization in education essay

• Tools and Resources
• Customer Services
• Original Language Spotlight
• Alternative and Non-formal Education 
• Cognition, Emotion, and Learning
• Curriculum and Pedagogy
• Education and Society
• Education, Change, and Development
• Education, Cultures, and Ethnicities
• Education, Gender, and Sexualities
• Education, Health, and Social Services
• Educational Administration and Leadership
• Educational History
• Educational Politics and Policy
• Educational Purposes and Ideals
• Educational Systems
• Educational Theories and Philosophies
• Globalization, Economics, and Education
• Languages and Literacies
• Professional Learning and Development
• Research and Assessment Methods
• Technology and Education
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

Globalization and education.

• Liz Jackson Liz Jackson University of Hong Kong
• https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.52
• Published online: 26 October 2016

Few would deny that processes of globalization have impacted education around the world in many important ways. Yet the term “globalization” is relatively new, and its meaning or nature, conceptualization, and impact remain essentially contested within the educational research community. There is no global consensus on the exact time period of its occurrence or its most significant shaping processes, from those who focus on its social and cultural framings to those that hold global political-economic systems or transnational social actors as most influential. Intersecting questions also arise regarding whether its influence on human communities and the world should be conceived of as mostly good or mostly bad, which have significant implications for debates regarding the relationship between globalization and education. Competing understandings of globalization also undergird diverse methodologies and perspectives in expanding fields of research into the relationship between education and globalization.

There are many ways to frame the relationship of globalization and education. Scholars often pursue the topic by examining globalization’s perceived impact on education, as in many cases global convergence around educational policies, practices, and values has been observed in the early 21st century. Yet educational borrowing and transferal remains unstraightforward in practice, as educational and cultural differences across social contexts remain, while ultimate ends of education (such as math competencies versus moral cultivation) are essentially contested. Clearly, specificity is important to understand globalization in relation to education. As with globalization generally, globalization in education cannot be merely described as harmful or beneficial, but depends on one’s position, perspective, values, and priorities.

Education and educators’ impacts on globalization also remain a worthwhile focus of exploration in research and theorization. Educators do not merely react to globalization and related processes, but purposefully interact with them, as they prepare their students to respond to challenges and opportunities posed by processes associated with globalization. As cultural and political-economic considerations remain crucial in understanding globalization and education, positionality and research ethics and reflexivity remain important research concerns, to understand globalization not just as homogeneity or oppressive top-down features, but as complex and dynamic local and global intersections of people, ideas, and goods, with unclear impacts in the future.

• globalization
• economic integration
• education borrowing
• global studies in education
• comparative education
• education development

Few would deny that processes of globalization have impacted education around the world in many important ways. Yet the term “globalization” is relatively new, and its meaning or nature, conceptualization, and impact remain essentially contested within the educational research community. Competing understandings of globalization undergird diverse methodologies and perspectives in the expanding web of fields researching the relationship between education and globalization examined below. The area of educational research which exploded at the turn of the 21st century requires a holistic view. Rather than take sides within this contentious field, it is useful to examine major debates and trends, and indicate where readers can learn more about particular specialist areas within the field and other relevant strands of research.

The first part below considers the development of the theorization and conceptualization of globalization and debates about its impact that are relevant to education. The next section examines the relationship between education and globalization as explored by the educational research community. There are many ways to frame the relationship between globalization and education. First explored here is the way that globalization can be seen to impact education, as global processes and practices have been observed to influence many educational systems’ policies and structures; values and ideals; pedagogy; curriculum and assessment; as well as broader conceptualizations of teacher and learner, and the good life. However, there is also a push in the other direction—through global citizenship education, education for sustainable development, and related trends—to understand education and educators as shapers of globalization, so these views are also explored here. The last section highlights relevant research directions.

The Emergence of Globalization(s)

At the broadest level, globalization can be defined as a process or condition of the cultural, political, economic, and technological meeting and mixing of people, ideas, and resources, across local, national, and regional borders, which has been largely perceived to have increased in intensity and scale during the late 20th and early 21st centuries. However, there is no global consensus on the exact time period of its occurrence, or its most significant shaping processes, from social and cultural framings to those that hold global political-economic systems or transnational social actors as most influential. Intersecting questions also arise regarding whether its influence on human communities and the world should be conceived as mostly good or mostly bad, which have clear and significant implications for understanding debates regarding the relationship between globalization and education.

Conceptualizing Globalization

Globalization is a relatively recent concept in scholarly research, becoming popular in public, academic, and educational discourse only in the 1980s. However, many leading scholars of globalization have argued that the major causes or shapers of globalization, particularly the movement and mixing of elements beyond a local or national level, is at least many centuries old; others frame globalization as representing processes inherent to the human experience, within a 5,000–10,000-year time frame. 1 Conceptualizations of globalization have typically highlighted cultural, political-economic, and/or technological aspects of these processes, with different researchers emphasizing and framing the relationships among these different aspects in diverse ways in their theories.

Cultural framings: Emphasizing the cultural rather than economic or political aspects of globalization, Roland Robertson pinpointed the occurrence of globalization as part of the process of modernity in Europe (though clearly similar processes were occurring in many parts of the world), particularly a growing mutual recognition among nationality-based communities. 2 As people began identifying with larger groups, beyond their family, clan, or tribe, “relativization” took place, as people saw others in respective outside communities similarly developing national or national-like identities. 3 Through identifying their own societies as akin to those of outsiders, people began measuring their cultural and political orders according to a broader, international schema, and opening their eyes to transnational inspirations for internal social change.

Upon mutual recognition of nations, kingdoms, and the like as larger communities that do not include all of humanity, “emulation” stemming from comparison of the local to the external was often a next step. 4 While most people and communities resisted, dismissed, or denied the possibility of a global human collectivity, they nonetheless compared their own cultures and lives with those beyond their borders. Many world leaders across Eurasia looked at other “civilizations” with curiosity, and began increasing intercultural and international interactions to benefit from cultural mixing, through trade, translation of knowledge, and more. With emulation and relativization also came a sense of a global standard of values, for goods and resources, and for the behavior and organization of individuals and groups in societies, though ethnocentrism and xenophobia was also often a part of such “global” comparison. 5

Political-economic framings: In political theory and popular understanding, nationalism has been a universalizing discourse in the modern era, wherein individuals around the world have been understood to belong to and identify primarily with largely mutually exclusive national or nation-state “imagined communities.” 6 In this context, appreciation for and extensive investigation of extranational and international politics and globalization were precluded for a long time in part due to the power of nationalistic approaches. However, along with the rise historically of nationalist and patriotic political discourse, theories of cosmopolitanism also emerged. Modern cosmopolitanism as a concept unfolded particularly in the liberalism of Immanuel Kant, who argued for a spirit of “world citizenship” toward “perpetual peace,” wherein people recognize themselves as citizens of the world. 7 Martha Nussbaum locates cosmopolitanism’s roots in the more distant past, however, observing Diogenes the Cynic (ca. 404–323 bce ) in Ancient Greece famously identifying as “a citizen of the world.” 8 This suggests that realization of commonality, common humanity, and the risks of patriotism and nationalism as responses to relativization and emulation have enabled at least a “thin” kind of global consciousness for a very long time, as a precursor to today’s popular awareness of globalization, even if such a global consciousness was in ancient history framed within regional rather than planetary discourse.

In the same way as culturally oriented globalization scholars, those theorizing from an economic and/or political perspective conceive the processes of globalization emerging most substantively in the 15th and 16th centuries, through the development of the capitalist world economic system and the growth of British- and European-based empires holding vast regions of land in Africa, Asia, and the Americas as colonies to enhance trade and consumption within empire capitals. According to Immanuel Wallerstein’s world system theory, which emerged before globalization theory, in the 1970s, the capitalist world economic system is one of the most essential framing elements of the human experience around the world in the modern (or postmodern) era. 9 Interaction across societies primarily for economic purposes, “ not bounded by a unitary political structure,” characterizes the world economy, as well as a capitalist order, which conceives the main purpose of international economic exchange as being the endless generation and accumulation of capital. 10 A kind of global logic was therein introduced, which has expanded around the globe as we now see ourselves as located within an international financial system.

Though some identify world system theory as an alternative or precursor to globalization theories (given Wallerstein’s own writing, which distinguished his view from globalization views 11 ), its focus on a kind of planetary global logic interrelates with globalization theories emerging in the 1980s and 1990s. 12 Additionally, its own force and popularity in public and academic discussions enabled the kind of global consciousness and sense of global interrelation of people which we can regard as major assumptions underpinning the major political-economic theories of globalization and the social imaginary of globalization 13 that came after.

Globalization emerged within common discourse as the process of international economic and political integration and interdependency was seen to deepen and intensify during and after the Cold War era of international relations. At that time, global ideologies were perceived which spanned diverse cultures and nation-states, while global economic and military interdependency became undeniable facts of the human condition. Thus, taking world systems theory as a starting point, global capitalism models have theorized the contemporary economic system, recognizing aspects of world society not well suited to the previously popular nationalistic ways of thinking about international affairs. Leslie Sklair 14 and William Robinson 15 highlighted the transnational layer of capitalistic economic activity, including practices, actors and social classes, and ideologies of international production and trade, elaborated by Robinson as “an emergent transnational state apparatus,” a postnational or extranational ideological, political, and practical system for societies, individuals, and groups to interact in the global space beyond political borders. 16 Globalization is thus basically understood as a process or condition of contemporary human life, at the broadest level, rather than a single event or activity.

Technological framings: In the 1980s and 1990s, the impact of technology on many people’s lives, beliefs, and activities rose tremendously, altering the global political economy by adding an intensity of transnational communication and (financial and information) trading capabilities. Manuel Castells argued that technological advancements forever altered the economy by creating networks of synchronous or near-synchronous communication and trade of information. 17 Anthony Giddens likewise observed globalization’s essence as “time-space distanciation”: “the intensification of worldwide social relations which link distant localities in such a way that local happenings are shaped by events occurring many miles away and vice versa.” 18 As information became present at hand with the widespread use of the Internet, a postindustrial society has also been recognized as a feature of globalization, wherein skills and knowledge to manipulate data and networks become more valuable than producing goods or trading material resources.

Today, globalization is increasingly understood as having interrelating cultural, political-economic, and technological dimensions, and theorists have thus developed conceptualizations and articulations of globalization that work to emphasize the ways that these aspects intersect in human experience. Arjun Appadurai’s conception of global flows frames globalization as taking place as interactive movements or waves of interlinked practices, people, resources, and ideologies: ethnoscapes, mediascapes, technoscapes, finanscapes, and ideoscapes. 19 Ethnoscapes are waves of people moving across cultures and borders, while mediascapes are moving local, national, and international constructions of information and images. Technoscapes enable (and limit) interactions of peoples, cultures, and resources through technology, while finanscapes reflect intersection values and valuations; human, capital, and national resources; and more. Ideoscapes reflect competing, interacting, reconstructing ideologies, cultures, belief systems, and understandings of the world and humanity. Through these interactive processes, people, things, and ideas move and move each other, around the world. 20

Evaluating Globalization

While the explanatory function of Appadurai’s vision of globalization’s intersecting dimensions is highlighted above, many theories of globalization emphasize normative positions in relation to the perceived impact of global and transnational processes and practices on humanity and the planet. Normative views of globalization may be framed as skeptical , globalist , or transformationalist . As Fazal Rizvi and Bob Lingard note, these are ideal types, rather than clearly demarcated practical parties or camps of theorists, though they have become familiar and themselves a part of the social imaginary of globalization (that is, the way globalization is perceived in normative and empirical ways by ordinary people rather than researchers). 21 The positions are also reflected in the many educational discourses relating to globalization, despite their ideological rather than simply empirical content.

Skeptical views: Approaches to globalization in research that are described as skeptical may question or problematize globalization discourse in one of two different ways. The first type of skepticism questions the significance of globalization. The second kind of skepticism tends to embrace the idea of globalization, but regards its impact on people, communities, and/or the planet as negative or risky, overall.

As discussed here, global or international processes are hardly new, while globalization became a buzzword only in the last decades of the 20th century. Thus a first type of skeptic may charge that proponents of globalization or globalization theory are emphasizing the newness of global processes for ulterior motives, as a manner of gaining attention for their work, celebrating that which should instead be seen as problematic capitalist economic relations, for example. Alternatively, some argue that the focus on globalization in research, theorization, and popular discourse fails to recognize the agency of people and communities as actors in the world today, and for this reason should be avoided and replaced by a focus on the “transnational.” As Michael Peter Smith articulates, ordinary individual people, nation-states, and their practices remain important within the so-called global system; a theory of faceless, ahistorical globalization naturalizes global processes and precludes substantive elaboration of how human (and national) actors have played and continue to play primary roles in the world through processes of knowledge and value construction, and through interpersonal and transnational activities. 22

The second strand of globalization skepticism might be referred to as antiglobalist or antiglobalization positions. Thinkers in this vein regard globalization as a mark of our times, but highlight the perceived negative impacts of globalization on people and communities. Culturally, this can include homogenization and loss of indigenous knowledge, and ways of life, or cultural clashes that are seen to arise out of the processes of relativization and emulation in some cases. George Ritzer coined the term “McDonaldization” to refer to the problematic elements of the rise of a so-called global culture. 23 More than simply the proliferation of McDonalds fast-food restaurants around the world, McDonaldization, according to Ritzer, includes a valuation of efficiency over humanity in production and consumption practices, a focus on quantity over quality, and control and technology over creativity and culture. Global culture is seen as a negative by others who conceive it as mainly the product of a naïve cultural elite of international scholars and business people, in contrast with “low-end globalization,” which is the harsher realities faced by the vast majority of people not involved in international finance, diplomacy, or academic research. 24

Alternatively, Benjamin Barber 25 and Samuel Huntington 26 have focused on “Jihad versus McWorld” and the “clash of civilizations,” respectively, as cultures can be seen to mix in negative and unfriendly ways in the context of globalization. Although Francis Fukuyama and other hopeful globalists perceived a globalization of Western liberal democracy at the turn of the 21st century, 27 unforeseen global challenges such as terrorism have fueled popular claims by Barber and Huntington that cultural differences across major “civilizations” (international ideological groupings), particularly of liberal Western civilization and fundamentalist Islam, preclude their peaceful relativization, homogenization, and/or hybridization, and instead function to increase violent interactions of terrorism and war.

Similarly, but moving away from cultural aspects of globalization, Ulrich Beck highlighted risk as essential to understanding globalization, as societies face new problems that may be related to economy or even public health, and as their interdependencies with others deepen and increase. 28 Beck gave the example of Mad Cow disease (bovine spongiform encephalopathy) as one instance where much greater and more broadly distributed risks have been created through global economic and political processes. Skeptical economic theories of globalization likewise highlight how new forms of inequality emerge as global classes and labor markets are created. For instance, Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri argue that a faceless power impersonally oppresses grassroots people despite the so-called productivity of globalization (that is, the growth of capital it enables) from a capitalist economic orientation. 29 It is this faceless but perceived inhumane power that has fueled globalization protests, particularly of the meetings of the World Trade Organization in the 1990s and 2000s, in the United States and Europe.

In light of such concerns, Walden Bello argued for “deglobalization,” a reaction and response by people that aims to fight against globalization and reorient communities to local places and local lifestyles. Bello endorsed a radical shift to a decentralized, pluralistic system of governance from a political-economic perspective. 30 Similarly, Colin Hines argues for localization, reclaiming control over local economies that should become as diverse as possible to rebuild stability within communities. 31 Such ideas have found a broad audience, as movements to “buy local” and “support local workers” have spread around the world rapidly in the 2000s.

Globalist views: Globalists include researchers and advocates who highlight the benefits of globalization to different communities and in various areas of life, often regarding it as necessary or natural. Capitalist theories of globalization regard it as ideal for production and consumption, as greater specialism around the world increases efficiency. 32 The productive power of globalization is also highlighted by Giddens, who sees the potential for global inclusivity and enhanced creative dialogue arising (at least in part) from global processes. 33 In contrast with neoliberal (pro-capitalism) policies, Giddens propagated the mixture of the market and state interventions (socialism and Keynesian economy), and believed that economic policies with socially inclusive ideas would influence social and educational policies and thus promote enhanced social development.

The rise of global culture enhances the means for people to connect with one another to improve life and give it greater meaning, and can increase mutual understanding. As democracy becomes popular around the world as a result of global communication processes, Scott Burchill has argued that universal human rights can be achieved to enhance global freedom in the near future. 34 Joseph Stiglitz likewise envisioned a democratizing globalization that can include developing countries on an equal basis and transform “economic beings” to “human beings” with values of community and social justice. 35 Relatedly, some globalists contend against skeptics that cultural and economic-political or ideological hybridity and “glocalization,” as well as homogenization or cultural clashes, often can and do take place. Under glocalization , understood as local-level globalization processes (rather than top-down intervention), local actors interact dynamically with, and are not merely oppressed by, ideas, products, things, and practices from outside and beyond. Thus, while we can find instances of “Jihad” and “McWorld,” so too can we find Muslims enjoying fast food, Westerners enjoying insights and activities from Muslim and Eastern communities, and a variety of related intercultural dialogues and a dynamic reorganization of cultural and social life harmoniously taking place.

Transformationalist views: Globalization is increasingly seen by educators (among others) around the globe to have both positive and negative impacts on communities and individuals. Thus, most scholars today hold nuanced, middle positions between skepticism and globalism, such as David Held and Anthony McGrew’s transformationalist stance. 36 As Rizvi and Lingard note, globalization processes have material consequences in the world that few would flatly deny, while people increasingly do see themselves as interconnected around the globe, by technology, trade, and more. 37 On the other hand, glocalization is often a mixed blessing, from a comparative standpoint. Global processes do not happen outside of political and economic contexts, and while some people clearly benefit from them, others may not appear to benefit from or desire processes and conditions related to globalization.

Thus, Rizvi and Lingard identify globalization “as an empirical fact that describes the profound shifts that are taking place in the world; as an ideology that masks various expression of power and a range of political interests; and as a social imaginary that expresses the sense people have of their own identity and how it relates to the rest of the world, and … their aspirations and expectations.” 38 Such an understanding of globalization enables its continuous evaluation in terms of dynamic interrelated practices, processes, and ideas, as experienced and engaged with by people and groups within complex transnational webs of organization. Understandings of globalization thus link to education in normative and empirical ways within research. It is to the relationship of globalization to education that we now turn.

Historical Background

Globalization and education are highly interrelated from a historical view. At the most basic level, historical processes that many identify as essential precursors to political-economic globalization during the late modern colonial and imperialist eras influenced the development and rise of mass education. Thus, what we commonly see around the world today as education, mass schooling of children, could be regarded as a first instance of globalization’s impact on education, as in many non-Western contexts traditional education had been conceived as small-scale, local community-based, and as vocational or apprenticeship education, and/or religious training. 39 In much of Africa, Asia, the Middle East, and the indigenous Americas and Australasia, institutionalized formal schools emerged for the first time within colonial or (often intersecting) missionary projects, for local elite youth and children of expatriate officials.

The first educational scholarship with a global character from a historical point of view would thus be research related to colonial educational projects, such as in India, Africa, and East Asia, which served to create elite local communities to serve colonial officials, train local people to work in economic industries benefiting the colony, and for preservation of the status quo. Most today would describe this education as not part of an overall development project belonging to local communities, but as a foreign intervention for global empire maintenance or social control. As postcolonial educational theorists such as Paulo Freire have seen it, this education sought to remove and dismiss local culture as inferior, and deny local community needs for the sake of power consolidation of elites, and it ultimately served as a system of oppression on psychological, cultural, and material levels. 40 It has been associated by diverse cultural theorists within and outside the educational field with the loss of indigenous language and knowledge production, with moral and political inculcation, and with the spread of English as an elite language of communication across the globe. 41

Massification of education in the service of local communities in most developing regions roughly intersected with the period after the Second World War and in the context of national independence movements, wherein nationally based communities reorganized as politically autonomous nation-states (possibly in collaboration with former colonial parties). In 1945 , the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) emerged, as the United Nations recognized education as critical for future global peace and prosperity, preservation of cultural diversity, and global progress toward stability, economic flourishing, and human rights. UNESCO has advocated for enhancement of quality and access to education around the world through facilitating the transnational distribution of educational resources, establishing (the discourse of) a global human right to education, promoting international transferability of educational and teaching credentials, developing mechanisms for measuring educational achievement across countries and regions, and supporting national and regional scientific and cultural developments. 42 The World Bank, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) have engaged in similar work.

Thus, the first modern global educational research was that conducted by bodies affiliated with or housed under UNESCO, such as the International Bureau of Education, the UNESCO Institute for Statistics, and the International Institute of Educational Planning, which are regarded as foundational bodies sponsoring international and comparative research. In research universities, educational borrowing across international borders became one significant topic of research for an emerging field of scholars identified as comparative educational researchers. Comparative education became a major field of educational inquiry in the first half of the 20th century, and expanded in the 1950s and 1960s. 43 Comparative educational research then focused on aiding developing countries’ education and improving domestic education through cross-national examinations of educational models and achievement. Today, comparative education remains one major field among others that focuses on globalization and education, including international education and global studies in education.

Globalization as a contemporary condition or process clearly shapes education around the globe, in terms of policies and values; curriculum and assessment; pedagogy; educational organization and leadership; conceptions of the learner, the teacher, and the good life; and more. Though, following the legacy of the primacy of a nation-state and systems-theory levels of analysis, it is traditionally conceived that educational ideas and changes move from the top, such as from UNESCO and related bodies and leading societies, to the developing world, we find that often glocalization and hybridity, rather than simple borrowing, are taking place. On the other hand, education is also held by scholars and political leaders to be a key to enhancing the modern (or postmodern) human condition, as a symbol of progress of the global human community, realized as global citizenship education, education for sustainable development, and related initiatives. 44 The next subsections consider how globalization processes have been explored in educational research as shapers of education, and how education and educators can also be seen to influence globalization.

Research on Globalization’s Impact on Education

Global and transnational processes and practices have been observed to influence and impact various aspects of contemporary education within many geographical contexts, and thus the fields of research related to education and globalization are vast: they are not contained simply within one field or subfield, but can be seen to cross subdisciplinary borders, in policy studies, curriculum, pedagogy, higher education studies, assessment, and more. As mentioned previously, modern education can itself be seen as one most basic instance of globalization, connected to increased interdependency of communities around the world in economic and political affairs first associated with imperialism and colonialism, and more recently with the capitalist world economy. And as the modern educational system cannot be seen as removed or sealed off from cultural and political-economic processes involved in most conceptualizations of globalization, the impacts of globalization processes upon education are often considered wide-ranging, though many are also controversial.

Major trends: From a functionalist perspective, the globalization of educational systems has been influenced by new demands and desires for educational transferability, of students and educators. In place of dichotomous systems in terms of academic levels and credentialing, curriculum, and assessment, increasing convergence can be observed today, as it is recognized that standardization makes movement of people in education across societies more readily feasible, and that such movement of people can enhance education in a number of ways (to achieve diversity, to increase specialization and the promotion of dedicated research centers, to enhance global employability, and so on). 45 Thus, the mobility and paths of movement of students and academics, for education and better life opportunities, have been a rapidly expanding area of research. A related phenomenon is that of offshore university and school campuses—the mobility of educational institutions to attract and recruit new students (and collect fees), such as New York University in Abu Dhabi and Shanghai. By implication, education is often perceived as becoming more standardized around the globe, though hybridity can also be observed at the micro level.

How economic integration under globalization impacts local educational systems has been traced by Rizvi and Lingard. 46 As they note, from a broad view, the promotion of neoliberal values in the context of financial adjustment and restructuring of poorer countries under trade and debt agreements led by intergovernmental organizations, most notably the OECD, encouraged, first, fiscal discipline in educational funding (particularly impacting the payment of educators in many regions) and, second, the redistribution of funds to areas of education seen as more economically productive, namely primary education, and to efforts at privatization and deregulation of education. While the educational values of countries can and do vary, from democracy and peace, to social justice and equity, and so on, Rizvi and Lingard also observed that social and economic efficiency views have become dominant within governments and their educational policy units. 47 Though human capital theory has always supported the view that individuals gain proportionately according to the investment in their education and training, this view has become globalized in recent decades to emphasize how whole societies can flourish under economic interdependency via enhanced education.

These policy-level perspectives have had serious implications for how knowledge and thus curriculum are increasingly perceived. As mentioned previously, skills for gaining knowledge have taken precedent over knowledge accumulation, with the rise of technology and postindustrial economies. In relation, “lifelong learning,” learning to be adaptive to challenges outside the classroom and not merely to gain academic disciplinary knowledge, has become a focal point for education systems around the globe in the era of globalization. 48 Along with privatization of education, as markets are seen as more efficient than government systems of provision, models of educational choice and educational consumption have become normalized as alternatives to the historical status quo of traditional academic or intellectual, teacher-centered models. Meanwhile, the globalization of educational testing—that is, the use of the same tests across societies around the world—has had a tremendous impact on local pedagogies, assessment, and curricula the world over. Though in each country decision-making structures are not exactly the same, many societies face pressure to focus on math, science, and languages over other subjects, as a result of the primacy of standardized testing to measure and evaluate educational achievement and the effectiveness of educational systems. 49

However, there remains controversy over what education is the best in the context of relativization and emulation of educational practices and students, and therefore the 2010s have seen extraordinary transfers of educational approaches, not just from core societies to peripheral or developing areas, but significant horizontal movements of educational philosophies and practices from West to East and East to West. With the rise of global standardized tests such as the OECD’s Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), educational discourse in Western societies has increasingly emphasized the need to reorient education to East Asian models (such as Singapore or Shanghai), seen as victors of the tests. 50 On the other hand, many see Finland’s educational system as ideal in relation to its economic integration in society and focus on equity in structure and orientation, and thus educators in the Middle East, East Asia, and the United States have also been seen to consider emulating Finnish education in the 2010s. 51

Evaluations: From a normative point of view, some regard changes to local education in many contexts brought about by globalization as harmful and risky. Freire’s postcolonial view remains salient to those who remain concerned that local languages and indigenous cultural preservation are being sacrificed for elite national and international interests. 52 There can be no doubt that language diversity has been decreasing over time, while indigenous knowledge is being reframed within globalist culture as irrelevant to individual youths’ material needs. 53 Many are additionally skeptical of the sometimes uncritical adoption of educational practices, policies, and discourse from one region of the globe to another. In many countries in Africa and the Middle East, ideas and curricula are borrowed from the United Kingdom, the United States, or Finland in an apparently hasty manner, only to be discarded for the next reform, when it is not found to fit neatly and efficiently within the local educational context (for instance, given local educational values, structures and organizations, and educator and student views). 54 Others argue, in parallel to globalization skeptics, that globalization’s major impact on education has actually been the promotion of a thin layer of aspirational, cosmopolitan values among global cultural elites, who largely overlook the realities, problems, and challenges many face. 55

On the other hand, the case for globalization as a general enhancer of education worldwide has compelling evidence as well. Due to the work of UNESCO, the OECD, and related organizations, educational attainment has become more equitable globally, by nation, race, gender, class, and other markers of social inequality; and educational access has been recognized as positively aligned with personal and national economic improvement, according to quantitative educational researchers. 56 (David Hill, Nigel Greaves, and Alpesh Maisuria argue from a Marxist viewpoint that education in conjunction with global capitalism reinforces rather than decreases inequality and inequity; yet they also note that capitalism can be and often has been successfully regulated to diminish rather than increase inequality generally across countries. 57 ) As education has been effectively conceived as a human right in the era of globalization, societies with historically uneven access to education are on track to systematically enhance educational quality and access.

Changes to the way knowledge and the learner have been conceived, particularly with the rise of ubiquitous technology, are also often regarded as positive overall. People around the world have more access to information than ever before with the mass use of the Internet, and students of all ages can access massive open online courses (MOOCs); dynamic, data-rich online encyclopedias; and communities of like-minded scholars through social networks and forums. 58 In brick-and-mortar classrooms, educators and students are more diverse than ever due to enhanced educational mobility, and both are exposed to a greater variety of ideas and perspectives that can enhance learning for all participants. Credentials can be earned from reputable universities online, with supervision systems organized by leading scholars in global studies in education in many cases. Students have more choices when it comes to learning independently or alongside peers, mentors, or experts, in a range of disciplines, vocations, and fields.

The truth regarding how globalization processes and practices are impacting contemporary education no doubt lies in focusing somewhere in between the promises and the risks, depending on the context in question: the society, the educational level, the particular community, and so on. Particularly with regard to the proposed benefits of interconnectivity and networked ubiquitous knowledge spurred by technology, critics contend that the promise of globalization for enhancing education has been severely overrated. Elites remain most able to utilize online courses and use technologies due to remaining inequalities in material and human resources. 59 At local levels, globalization in education (more typically discussed as internationalization) remains contentious in many societies, as local values, local students and educators, and local educational trends can at times be positioned as at odds with the priorities of globalization, of internationalizing curricula, faculty, and student bodies. As part of the social imaginary of globalization, international diversity can become a buzzword, while cultural differences across communities can result in international students and faculty members becoming ghettoized on campus. 60 International exchanges of youth and educators for global citizenship education can reflect political and economic differences between communities, not merely harmonious interconnection and mutual appreciation. 61 In this context of growing ambivalence, education and educators are seen increasingly as part of the solution to the problems and challenges of the contemporary world that are associated with globalization, as educators can respond to such issues in a proactive rather than a passive way, to ensure globalization’s challenges do not exceed its benefits to individuals and communities.

Education’s Potential Impact on Globalization

As globalization is increasingly regarded with ambivalence in relation to the perceived impact of global and transnational actors and processes on local educational systems, educators are increasingly asked not to respond passively to globalization, through enacting internationalization and global economic agendas or echoing simplistic conceptualizations or evaluations of globalization via their curriculum. Instead, education has been reframed in the global era as something youth needs, not just to accept globalization but to interact with it in a critical and autonomous fashion. Two major trends have occurred in curriculum and pedagogy research, wherein education is identified as an important potential shaper of globalization. These are global citizenship education (also intersecting with what are called 21st-century learning and competencies) and education for sustainable development.

Global citizenship education: Global citizenship education has been conceived by political theorists and educational philosophers as a way to speak back to globalization processes seen as harmful to individuals and communities. As Martha Nussbaum has argued, educators should work to develop in students feelings of compassion, altruism, and empathy that extend beyond national borders. 62 Kathy Hytten has likewise written that students need to learn today as part of global citizenship education not just feelings of sympathy for people around the world, but critical skills to identify root causes of problems that intersect the distinction of local and global, as local problems can be recognized as interconnected with globalization processes. 63 In relation to this, UNESCO and nongovernmental organizations and foundations such as Oxfam and the Asia Society have focused on exploring current practices and elaborating best practices from a global comparative standpoint for the dissemination of noncognitive, affective, “transversal” 21st-century competencies, to extend civic education in the future in the service of social justice and peace, locally and globally. 64

Questions remain in this area in connection with implementation within curriculum and pedagogy. A first question is whether concepts of altruism, empathy, and even harmony, peace, and justice, are translatable, with equivalent meanings across cultural contexts. There is evidence that global citizenship education aimed at educating for values to face the potential harms of globalization is converging around the world on such aims as instilling empathy and compassion, respect and appreciation of diversity, and personal habits or virtues of open-mindedness, curiosity, and creativity. However, what these values, virtues, and dispositions look like, how they are demonstrated, and their appropriate expressions remain divergent as regards Western versus Eastern and African societies (for example). 65 By implication, pedagogical or curriculum borrowing or transferral in this area may be problematic, even if some basic concepts are shared and even when best practices can be established within a cultural context.

Additionally, how these skills, competencies, and dispositions intersect with the cognitive skills and political views of education across societies with different cultures of teaching and learning also remains contentious. In line with the controversies over normative views of globalization, whether the curriculum should echo globalist or skeptical positions remains contested by educators and researchers in the field. Some argue that a focus on feelings can be overrated or even harmful in such education, given the immediacy and evidence of global social justice issues that can be approached rationally and constructively. 66 Thus, token expressions of cultural appreciation can be seen to preclude a deeper engagement with social justice issues if the former becomes a goal in itself. On the other hand, the appropriate focus on the local versus the global, and on the goods versus the harms of globalization, weighs differently across and within societies, from one individual educator to the next. Thus, a lack of evidence of best practices in relation to the contestation over ultimate goals creates ambivalence at the local level among many educators about what and how to teach global citizenship or 21st-century skills, apart from standardized knowledge in math, science, and language.

Education for sustainable development: Education for sustainable development is a second strand of curriculum and pedagogy that speaks back to globalization and that is broadly promoted by UNESCO and related intergovernmental and nongovernmental organizations. Education for sustainable development is, like global citizenship education, rooted in globalization’s impact upon individuals in terms of global consciousness. Like global citizenship, education for sustainable development also emphasizes global interconnection in relation to development and sustainability challenges. It is also a broad umbrella term that reflects an increasingly wide array of practices, policies, and programs, formal and informal, for instilling virtues and knowledge and skills seen to enable effective responses to challenges brought about by globalization. 67 In particular, education for sustainable development has seen global progress, like globalization, as enmeshed in intersecting cultural, social, and economic and political values and priorities. Education for All is an interrelated complementary thread of UNESCO work, which sees access to education as a key to social justice and development, and the improvement of human quality of life broadly. In developed societies, environmental sustainability has come to be seen as a pressing global issue worth curricular focus, as behaviors with regard to consumption of natural resources impact others around the world, as well as future generations. 68

A diversity of practices and views also marks this area of education, resulting in general ambiguity about overall aims and best means. Controversies over which attitudes of sustainability are most important to inculcate, and whether it is important to inculcate them, intertwine with debates over what crises are most pertinent and what skills and competencies students should develop. Measures are in place for standardizing sustainability knowledge in higher education worldwide, as well as for comparing the development of prosustainability attitudes. 69 However, some scholars argue that both emphases miss the point, and that education for sustainable development should first be about changing cultures to become more democratic, creative, and critical, developing interpersonal and prosocial capabilities first, as the challenges of environmental sustainability and global development are highly complex and dynamic. 70 Thus, as globalization remains contested in its impacts, challenges, and promise at local levels, so too does the best education that connects positively with globalization to enhance local and global life. In this rich and diverse field, as processes of convergence and hybridity of glocalization continue to occur, the promise of globalization and the significance of education in relation to it will no doubt remain lively areas of debate in the future, as globalization continues to impact communities in diverse ways.

Research Considerations

There is no shortage of normative and explanatory theories about globalization, each of which points to particular instances and evidence about domains and contexts of globalization. However, when it comes to understanding the interconnections of globalization and education, some consensus regarding best practices for research has emerged. In fields of comparative and international education and global studies in education, scholars are increasingly calling today for theories and empirical investigations that are oriented toward specificity, particularity, and locality, in contrast with the grand theories of globalization elaborated by political scholars. However, a challenge is that such scholarship should not be reduced artificially to one local level in such a way as to exclude understanding of international interactions, in what has been called in the research community “methodological nationalism.” 71 Such reductive localism or nationalism can arise particularly in comparative education research, as nation-states have been traditional units for comparative analysis, but are today recognized as being too diverse from one to the next to be presumed similar (while global processes impact them in disparate ways). 72 Thus, Rizvi has articulated global ethnography as a focused approach to the analysis of international educational projects that traces interconnections and interactions of local and global actors. 73 In comparative educational research, units of analysis must be critically pondered and selected, and it is also possible to make comparisons across levels within one context (for instance, from local educational interactions to higher-level policy-making processes in one society). 74

Qualitative and quantitative analyses can be undertaken to measure global educational achievements, values, policy statements, and more; yet researcher reflexivity and positionality, what is traditionally conceived of as research ethics, is increasingly seen as vital for researchers in this politically and ethically contentious field. Although quantitative research remains important for highlighting convergences in data in global educational studies, such research cannot tell us what we should do, as it does not systematically express peoples’ values and beliefs about the aims of education, or their experiences of globalization, and so on, particularly effectively. On the other hand, normative questions about how people’s values intersect with globalization and related educational processes can give an in-depth view of one location or case, but should be complemented by consideration of generalizable trends. 75

In either case, cultural assumptions can interfere or interact in problematic or unintentional ways with methodologies of data gathering and analysis, for instance, when questions or codes (related to race, ethnicity, or class, for example) are applied across diverse sites by researchers, who may not be very familiar and experienced across divergent cultural contexts. 76 Thus, beyond positionality, the use of collaborative research teams has become popular in global and comparative educational research, to ensure inevitable cultural and related differences across research domains are sufficiently addressed in the research process. 77 In this context, researchers must also contend with the challenges of collaborating across educational settings, as new methods of engaging, saving, and sharing data at distance through technology continue to unfold in response to ongoing challenges with data storage, data security, and privacy.

Among recent strands of educational research fueled by appreciation for globalization is the exploration of the global economy of knowledge. Such research may consider the practices and patterns of movement, collaboration, research production and publication, and authorship of researchers, and examine data from cultural, political, and economic perspectives, asking whose knowledge is regarded as valid and most prized, and what voices dominate in conversations and discourse around globalization and education, such as in classrooms studying global studies in education, or in leading research journals. 78 Related research emerging includes questions such as who produces knowledge, who is the subject of knowledge, and where are data gathered, as recurring historical patterns may appear to be reproduced in contemporary scholarship, wherein those from the global North are more active in investigating and elaborating knowledge in the field, while those from the global South appear most often as subjects of research. As globalization of education entails the globalization of knowledge itself, such inquiries can be directed to various sites and disciplines outside of education, in considering how communication, values, and knowledge are being dynamically revised today on a global scale through processes of globalization.

Research that focuses on globalization and education uses a wide array of approaches and methods, topics, and orientations, as well as diverse theoretical perspectives and normative assumptions. The foregoing sections have explored this general field, major debates, and topics; the relationships have been traced between globalization and education; and there have been brief comments on considerations for research. One key point of the analysis has been that the way globalization is conceived has implications for how its relationship with education is understood. This is important, for as is illustrated here, the ways of conceptualizing globalization are diverse, in terms of how the era of globalization is framed chronologically (as essential to the human condition, to modernity, or as a late 20th-century phenomena), what its chief characteristics are from cultural, political-economic, and technological views, and whether its impact on human life and history is seen as good or bad. A broad consideration of viewpoints has highlighted the emergence of a middle position within research literature: there is most certainly an intertwined meeting and movement of peoples, things, and ideas around the globe; and clearly, processes associated with globalization have good and bad aspects. However, these processes are uneven, and they can be seen to impact different communities in various ways, which are clearly not, on the whole, simply all good or all bad.

That the processes associated with globalization are interrelated with the history and future of education is undeniable. In many ways global convergence around educational policies, practices, and values can be observed in the early 21st century. Yet educational borrowing and transferral remain unstraightforward in practice, as educational and cultural differences across social contexts remain, while the ultimate ends of education (such as math competencies versus moral cultivation) are essentially contested. Thus, specificity is important to understand globalization in relation to education. As with globalization generally, globalization in education cannot be merely described as harmful or beneficial, but depends on one’s position in power relations, and on one’s values and priorities for local and global well-being.

Education and educators’ impact on globalization also remains an important area of research and theorization. Educators are no longer expected merely to react to globalization, they must purposefully interact with it, preparing students around the world to respond to globalization’s challenges. As cultural and political-economic considerations remain crucial in understanding major aspects of both globalization and education, positionality and research ethics and reflexivity remain important research concerns, to understand globalization not just as homogeneity or oppressive top-down features, but as complex and dynamic local, global, and transnational intersections of people, ideas, and goods, with unclear impacts in the future.

• Besley, T. , & Peters, M. A. (Eds.). (2012). Interculturalism: Education and dialogue . New York: Peter Lang.
• Bray, M. , Adamson, R. , & Mason, M. (2015). Comparative education research: Approaches and methods . Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre, University of Hong Kong.
• Held, D. , & McGrew, A. (Eds.). (2000). The global transformation reader: An introduction to the globalization debate . Cambridge, U.K.: Polity.
• Ritzer, G. (Ed.). (2007). The Blackwell companion to globalization . Malden, MA: Blackwell.
• Rizvi, F. , & Lingard, R. (2010). Globalizing educational policy . London: Routledge.
• Robinson, W. I. (2003). Transnational conflicts: Central America, social change, and globalization . London: Verso.
• Sklair, L. (2002). Globalization: Capitalism and its alternatives . New York: Oxford University Press.
• Stiglitz, J. (2006). Making globalization work . New York: W. W. Norton.
• Walby, S. (2009). Globalization and inequalities . London: SAGE.
• Wallerstein, I. (1974). The modern world system . New York: Academic.

1. W. I. Robinson (2007), Theories of globalization, in G. Ritzer (Ed.), The Blackwell Companion to Globalization (pp. 125–143) (Malden, MA: Blackwell).

2. R. Robertson (1992), Globalization: Social theory and global culture (Thousand Oaks: SAGE, 1992).

3. Robertson, Globalization .

4. Robertson, Globalization.

5. For an historical example of how negative cultural comparison has interconnected with international political relations, see H. Kotef (2015), Little Chinese feet encased in iron shoes: Freedom, movement, gender, and empire in Western political thought, Political Theory, 43 , 334–355.

6. B. Anderson (1983), Imagined communities (London: Verso).

7. Anderson, Imagined communities.

8. M. Nussbaum (1996), For love of country? (Boston: Boston Press).

9. I. Wallerstein (1974), The modern world system (New York: Academic Press).

10. I. Wallerstein (2000), Globalization or the age of transition? International Sociology, 15 , 249–265.

11. Wallerstein, Globalization.

12. Robinson, Theories.

13. F. Rizvi and B. Lingard (2010), Globalizing educational policy (London: Routledge).

14. L. Sklair (2002), Globalization: Capitalism and its alternatives (New York: Oxford University Press).

15. W. I. Robinson (2003), Transnational conflicts: Central America, social change, and globalization (London: Verso)

16. Robinson, Theories.

17. M. Castells (1996), The rise of the network society (Oxford: Blackwell).

18. A. Giddens (1990), The consequences of modernity (Cambridge, U.K.: Polity), 64 ; see also D. Harvey (1990), The condition of post-modernity (London: Blackwell).

19. A. Appadurai (1997), Modernity at large: Cultural dimensions of globalization (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press).

20. See also D. Held , A. G. McGrew , D. Goldblatt , and J. Perraton (1999), Global transformations: Politics, economics, and culture (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press) ; M. Waters (1995), Globalization (London: Routledge).

21. Rizvi and Lingard, Globalizing.

22. M. P. Smith (2001), Transnational urbanism: Locating globalization (Oxford: Blackwell).

23. G. Ritzer (1993), The McDonaldization of society (Boston: Pine Forge).

24. G. Mathews (2011), Ghetto at the center of the world (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press).

25. B. Barber (1995), Jihad versus McWorld (New York: Random House).

26. S. Huntington (1993), The clash of civilizations? Foreign Affairs, 72 (3), 22–49.

27. F. Fukuyama (1992), The end of history and the last man (London: Free Press).

28. U. Beck (1992), The risk society: Toward a new modernity (Cambridge, U.K.: Polity).

29. M. Hardt and A. Negri (2000), Empire (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press) ; Hardt and Negri (2004), Multitude: War and democracy in the age of empire (New York: Penguin).

30. W. Bello (2004), Deglobalization: Ideas for a new world economy (London: New York University Press) ; Bello (2013), Capitalism’s last stand? Deglobalization in the age of austerity (London: Zed Books).

31. C. Hines (2000), Localization: A global manifesto (New York: Routledge).

32. See D. Harvey (1989), The condition of post-modernity: An enquiry into the conditions of cultural change (Oxford: Blackwell).

33. A. Giddens (1990), The consequences of modernity (Cambridge, U.K.: Polity).

34. S. Burchill (2009), Liberalism, in S. Burchill , A. Linklater , R. Devetak , J. Donnelly , T. Nardin , M. Paterson , C. Reus-Smit , and J. True (Eds.) (pp. 57–85), Theories of international relations (New York: Palgrave Macmillan).

35. See, for instance, J. Stiglitz (2006), Making globalization work (New York: W. W. Norton).

36. D. Held and A. McGrew (Eds.) (2000), The global transformation reader: An introduction to the globalization debate (Cambridge, U.K.: Polity).

37. Rizvi and Lingard, Globalizing.

38. Rizvi and Lingard, Globalizing , 24.

39. T. Reagan (2000), Non-Western educational traditions: Alternative approaches to educational thought (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum). Of course, scholars such as Michael P. Smith would reject describing these processes as belonging to globalization, as people, nations, and communities played significant roles.

40. P. Freire (1972), Pedagogy of the oppressed (Victoria: Penguin).

41. B. Ashcroft , G. Griffiths , and H. Tiffin (Eds.) (1995), The post-colonial studies reader (London: Routledge).

42. R. E. Wanner (2015), UNESCO’s origins, achievements, problems and promise: An inside/outside perspective from the US (Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre/University of Hong Kong).

43. M. Manzon (2011), Comparative education: The construction of a field (Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre/University of Hong Kong).

44. S. Walby (2009), Globalization and inequalities (London: SAGE).

45. See for instance J. Stier (2004), Taking a critical stance toward internationalization ideologies in higher education: idealism, instrumentalism and educationalism, Globalisation, Societies and Education, 2 , 1–28.

46. Rizvi and Lingard, Globalizing .

47. Rizvi and Lingard, Globalizing .

48. Rizvi and Lingard, Globalizing .

49. Rizvi and Lingard, Globalizing .

50. See for instance M. S. Tucker and L. Darling-Hammond (2011), Surpassing Shanghai: An agenda for American education built on the world’s leading systems (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).

51. See for instance P. Sahlberg (2014), Finnish lessons 2.0: What can the world learn from educational change in Finland? (New York: Teachers College Press).

52. A. Darder (2015), Paulo Freire and the continuing struggle to decolonize education, in M. A Peters and T. Besley (Eds.), Paulo Freire: The global legacy (pp. 55–78) (New York: Peter Lang).

53. S. J. Shin (2009), Bilingualism in schools and society (London: Routledge) ; H. Norberg-Hodge (2009), Ancient futures: Lessons from Ladakh for a globalizing world (San Francisco: Sierra Club).

54. L. Jackson (2015), Challenges to the global concept of student-centered learning with special reference to the United Arab Emirates: “Never Fail a Nahayan,” Educational Philosophy and Theory, 47 , 760–773.

55. T. Besley (2012), Narratives of intercultural and international education: Aspirational values and economic imperatives, in T. Besley and M. A. Peters (Eds.), Interculturalism: Education and dialogue (pp. 87–112) (New York: Peter Lang).

56. W. J. Jacob and D. B. Holsinger (2008), Inequality in education: A critical analysis, in D. B. Holsinger and W. J. Jacob (Eds.), Inequality in education: Comparative and international perspectives (pp. 1–33) (Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre/University of Hong Kong).

57. D. Hill , N. M. Greaves , and A. Maisuria (2008), Does capitalism inevitably increase inequality? in D. B. Holsinger and W. J. Jacob (Eds.), Inequality in education: Comparative and international perspectives (pp. 59–85) (Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre/University of Hong Kong).

58. D. M. West (2013), Digital schools : How technology can transform education (Washington, DC: Brookings Institute Press) ; N. Burbules and T. Callister (2000), Watch IT: The risks and promises of technologies for education (Boulder, CO: Westview).

59. Burbules and Callister, Watch IT.

60. Stier, Critical Stance.

61. See for example, S. K. Gallwey and G. Wilgus (2014), Equitable partnerships for mutual learning or perpetuator of North-South power imbalances? Ireland–South Africa school links, Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 44 , 522–544.

62. M. C. Nussbaum (2001), Upheavals of thought: The intelligence of emotions (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press).

63. K. Hytten (2009), Education for critical democracy and compassionate globalization, in R. Glass (Ed.), Philosophy of Education 2008 (pp. 330–332) (Urbana, IL: Philosophy of Education Society).

64. See for example, Report to the UNESCO of the International Commission on Education for the Twenty-First Century (1996), Learning: The treasure within (Paris: UNESCO) ; Asia Society (2015), A Rosetta Stone for noncognitive skills: Understanding, assessing, and enhancing noncognitive skills in primary and secondary education (New York: Asia Society).

65. See S. Y. Kang (2006), Identity-centered multicultural care theory: White, Black, and Korean caring, Educational Foundations, 20 (3–4), 35–49 ; L. Jackson (2016), Altruism, non-relational caring, and global citizenship education, in M. Moses (Ed.), Philosophy of Education 2014 (Urbana, IL: Philosophy of Education).

66. Jackson, Altruism.

67. L. Jackson (2016), Education for sustainable development: From environmental education to broader view, in E. Railean , G. Walker , A. Elçi , and L. Jackson (Eds.), Handbook of research on applied learning theory and design in modern education (pp. 41–64) (Hershey, PA: IGI Press).

68. Jackson, Education for Sustainable Development.

69. Jackson, Education for Sustainable Development.

70. P. Vare and W. Scott (2007), Learning for change: Exploring the relationship between education and sustainable development, Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, 1 , 191–198.

71. P. Kennedy (2011), Local lives and global transformations: Towards a world society (London: Palgrave).

72. M. Manzon (2015), Comparing places, in M. Bray , B. Adamson , and M. Mason (Eds.), Comparative education research: Approaches and methods (pp. 85–121) (Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre/University of Hong Kong).

73. F. Rizvi (2009), Global mobility and the challenges of educational policy and research, in T. S. Popkewitz and F. Rizvi (Eds.), Globalization and the study of education (pp. 268–289) (Oxford: Blackwell).

74. Manzon, Comparing places.

75. G. P. Fairbrother , Qualitative and quantitative approaches to comparative education, in Bray , Adamson , and Mason (Eds.), Comparative education research (pp. 39–62).

76. L. Jackson (2015), Comparing race, class, and gender, in Bray , Adamson , and Mason (Eds.), Comparative education research (pp. 195–220).

77. M. Bray , B. Adamson , and M. Mason (2015), Different models, different emphases, different insights, in Bray , Adamson , and Mason (Eds.), Comparative education research , 421.

78. See, for instance, H. Tange and S. Miller (2015), Opening the mind? Geographies of knowledge and curricular practices, Higher Education , 1–15.

Related Articles

• Biographical Approaches in Education
• Decolonial Philosophy and Education
• Postcolonialism and Education
• The World Bank and Educational Assistance
• Teacher Unions
• European Studies and Research in Adult Learning and Education
• Critical Perspectives on the Political Economy of Higher Education in India and Globally
• Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) in Asia
• Commercialization in Education
• Globalization of Educational Knowledge and Research
• Indigenous School Education in Brazil
• Educational Policy and Development
• Critical English for Academic Purposes
• Cosmopolitanism and Education
• Homeschooling in the United States
• Constructions of Justice, Marginalization, and Belonging in Education
• Neoliberalism and Education
• Educational Attainment and Integration of Foreign Students in Spain

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Education. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 01 June 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [66.249.64.20|195.190.12.77]
• 195.190.12.77

Character limit 500 /500

The Effects of Globalisation on Education

Posted by: Pola Papadopoulou at 10:00 am, July 16, 2018

The localised impact of globalisation around the world has, is and will continue to be a source of heated debate, especially since the concept has been in the limelight for the last two decades.

This debatable nature has encouraged both positive and negative views on how it affects numerous fields, including business, economy and education. It is unavoidable for interconnection between cultures to take place without changing nations’ norms on the way there, and some argument will be similarly inevitable at some point over such important issues. Regarding education though, a globalised world has certainly transformed, and still does, the field in certain positive ways:

 Thanks to globalised education, teaching methods are now more interconnected and widespread. Access to schools has been enhanced and because of that students are increasingly becoming prepared for multinational roles. Such preparation also allows students a more holistic understanding of how the global business scene works and encourages their active participation in it.

 With the rise of the world’s refugee crisis and brain drain constituting a major change in the global academic and business scene, one cannot help but see the downside of globalisation. Easily moving around means that the youth more often than not leave their home countries in search of more lucrative prospects when it comes to their studies and careers, thus depriving their native countries of productive minds. However, seeing that it’s not easy to change things at the moment, one can observe an upward trend in the development of multicultural awareness. One way or another, this huge mobility is closing down cultural barriers with people of different backgrounds intertwining.

 Working together in a multicultural environment allows students to acquire new knowledge and thus make sense of new and unfamiliar situations by applying that knowledge. Students are more prepared to face adversity or circumstances they wouldn’t necessarily run into when receiving a more localised education.

 Globalised education also enhances teamwork and the exchange of ideas among students. As teamwork is crucial in the academic and business world alike, learning to actively contribute is an asset for students.

Though not directly related to education, there are a couple of drawbacks to the concept of a globalised society. For instance, the already existing technological gap between developed and developing countries will widen even further, leaving a lot of discrepancies to be dealt with. Consequently, such discrepancies may assist in a new form of colonisation at the expense of developing countries, who will most likely struggle to keep up.

Overall, globalisation is a concept that is here to stay, constantly altering a world to which we have to adapt. Being a debatable topic, though, I would love to hear your opinions on the matter. How has globalisation affected education in your view?

See more by Pola Papadopoulou

Pola is an avid reader and passionate about anything education related. She is an English teacher and has taught students from diverse backgrounds, both privately and in the classroom. Her studies in English Language and Literature and International and Comparative Education have provided her with the necessary skills and knowledge to further pursue matters related to education - and to write for OOL.

Stay Connected

Effect of Globalization on Education

Introduction, effects of economic liberalization on education, effect of information technologies in education, effects of westernization on global education, global integration and education.

Globalization is a term that is used to refer to the changing political, economic, and cultural trends that began from 1970 to date. Globalization is characterized by; liberalization of world economies, the dominance of western political, economic, and cultural life, the growth of information technology, and lastly global integration of people by continents, regions, and even countries. Globalization has had an impact on every facet of human life including education. Education plays an important role in the globalization process. This paper will review the impacts that globalization has made on education. This review is based on the main elements of globalization as stated above.

The forces of globalization continue to shape the conditions in which educators operate. This has altered people’s experiences in both formal and informal education. Since the beginning of globalization, there has been increased involvement of corporate bodies in education. This can be explained by the fact that the education sector is considered by many as a lucrative market for investment. Corporate bodies have assumed the responsibility of running educational institutions, unlike in the past when many schools were run by government agencies. In the United Kingdom, for example, some public schools have been contracted to individual companies. For instance, the Lambeth Zone is run by Shell, not the local educational authority, In addition, in Southwark, the education service has been contracted to Haskins (Smith, 2002, Para 2-11).

Another important impact globalization has had on education is the commoditization of education. This is evidenced by the restructuring and development of new educational programs like MBAs to make education more enriching and marketable. The use of part-time and long-distance learning programs has been used to popularize and market these programs. Globalization increased the demand for education as the majority of individuals have realized that they would be disadvantaged in the job market and lag if they remain uneducated. Competition for students among schools has also increased; this is because for schools to keep on receiving donations for funding researches and also for development, they must have an impressive number of students.

There has also been a marked shift in the governance of education. Direct intervention in the governance of educational systems by trans-national and technical assistance agencies such as the IMF and World Bank, USAID, and JICA is increasing. These agencies have involved themselves in reforming educational systems in different countries to achieve efficiency and improve the quality of education. They mainly advocate for privatization and decentralization of education services. However, reforms advocated by these agencies are implemented by policymakers mainly to ensure access to funds (Arnove&Torres, 2007, p. 2).

The most notable effect of technological advances on education has been the delocalization of education. The use of the internet and the growth of distance learning have allowed people to study at home or work. In addition, they also allow people from very different parts of the world to engage in the same program. These advances have also enabled close contact among people across great physical distances. However, these forms of learning have been criticized for limiting interaction among people as they usually employ highly individualized forms of learning. The African Virtual University is a good example of how technology can influence tertiary education. Technology has also been instrumental in overcoming linguistic barriers in learning. Similarly, these advances have made learning more flexible. This has enabled teachers to reach out to a greater number of learners through online learning or virtual classes. Similarly, this technology allows teachers to give learners support or tuitions online. This approach is more efficient and affordable since it helps greatly to fight the physical barrier of distance and save traveling expenses, while at the same time enabling the limited teaching staffs to reach a larger number of learners (Somekh&Davis, 1997, p.14-26)

The biggest effect of Westernization on global education has been the increasing use of the English language in scholarly production, advanced studies, business, and diplomacy. Knowledge of English is commonly seen as the surest and quickest way to secure a job and enter the global economy. Fast communication has also accelerated the spread of television programs and movies all over the world. This can explain the assimilation aspects of American culture in different parts of the world. The involvement of technical agencies has also altered the way educational agencies plan and implement their activities. (Arnove&Torres, 2007, p.2)

Globalization has enabled the faster integration of people from many parts of the world. This has been achieved through the existence of facilities like the internet, fast means of transport, and communication technologies that support real-time communication. This has made the communication of ideas a lot easier. Education has provided the means through which people acquire skills to enable them to make use of emerging technologies in their daily life including education. Global integration has made it easier for the multidirectional flow of ideas. This has influenced education in a positive way (Fonte&Ryserson, 1994, p.98-104)

Trade liberalization and integration have led to the delocalization of education in many parts of the world. Education plays an important part in the acquisition of skills that enable people to take advantage of emerging technologies.

Arnove, R. &Torres, C. A. (2007).Comparative education: the dialectic of the global and the local. USA: Rowman & Littlefield

Fonte, J. & Ryserson, A. (1994).Education for America’s role in world affairs. USA: University Press of America.

Smith, M. (2002). Globalization and the incorporation of education. Web.

Somekh, B. & Davis, N. (1997). Using information technology effectively in teaching and learning: studies. London: Routledge.

Effects of Globalization

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Definition of Globalization

Drivers of globalization.

Globalization is defined as interaction among different countries in order to develop global economy. It entails political, technological, cultural and political exchanges which are facilitated by infrastructure, transport and communication. Some of the traditional international theories of globalization include Ricardian theory of international trade, Heckscher-Ohlin model and Adam Smith’s model (Scholte, 2005).

For globalization to take place, it must be driven by certain factors. The first factor that drives globalization is competitiveness in the market, which focuses on aspects such as global competitors, interdependence among countries and high two-way trade. The second factor that drives globalization is the government.

The government drives globalization through regulation of marketing activities, provision of technical standards that are compatible and elimination of restrictions imposed on trade and investment procedures. The third factor that drives globalization is cost.

Cost in globalization deals with efficiency in sourcing activities, world economies and emerging technological trends. The fourth factor that drives globalization is market, which covers ordinary needs of customers, channels of world markets and marketing techniques that can be transferred to different regions.

Globalization is associated with both positive and negative effects. Its first positive effect is that it makes it possible for different countries to exchange their products. The second positive effect of globalization is that it promotes international trade and growth of wealth as a result of economic integration and free trade among countries.

However, globalization is also associated with negative effects. Its first negative effect is that it causes unemployment. Since companies compete with their rivals in the market, sometimes they are forced to sack some of their employees in order to reduce salary costs and instead maximize profits. This is common in developing countries, where large numbers of unemployed people live in urban areas.

The second negative effect of globalization is that it promotes terrorism and criminal activities because people, food and materials are allowed to move freely from one country to the other. Individuals with evil intentions take advantage of this freedom and carry out terrorism activities and other crimes (Negative Effects of Globalization, 2013).

Negative Effects of Globalization. (2013). Web.

Scholte, J. (2005). Globalization: A Critical Introduction. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

• The Law of Comparative Advantage Forms the Basis of International Trade
• Concept of Globalization
• Hecksher-Ohlin Theory and Today’s World Trade
• Globalization, Leadership and Organizational Change
• Is Globalization the Main Culprit for the 2008 Global Financial Crisis?
• Poverty and the Environment
• Politics of Globalization in Taiwan
• The Economics of Globalization In South Korea
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2018, June 17). Effects of Globalization. https://ivypanda.com/essays/globalization/

"Effects of Globalization." IvyPanda , 17 June 2018, ivypanda.com/essays/globalization/.

IvyPanda . (2018) 'Effects of Globalization'. 17 June.

IvyPanda . 2018. "Effects of Globalization." June 17, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/globalization/.

1. IvyPanda . "Effects of Globalization." June 17, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/globalization/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Effects of Globalization." June 17, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/globalization/.

10 Ways Globalization Affects Student Daily Life: What You Need to Know

By: Author Valerie Forgeard

Posted on Published: September 1, 2023  - Last updated: September 22, 2023

Categories Education

In an era where the lines between countries and cultures are increasingly blurred, globalization is a transformative force in our lives.

For students, this influence is particularly profound. It redefines what we learn and revolutionizes how we absorb this knowledge. We’re not just pupils in a classroom; we’re citizens of a global village, partaking in a shared journey of discovery and growth.

In this exploration, we’ll unpack the multi-faceted ways in which globalization shapes our daily experiences as students.

More importantly, we’ll explore strategies to harness these global influences for our individual and collective advantage in an interconnected world.

Key Takeaways

• Globalization has transformed education, leading to a shift towards globalized pedagogy.
• Globalization has reshaped social interactions among learners, promoting unity and understanding across cultures.
• Cultural exchange is becoming more prevalent in a learner’s life, thanks to worldwide connections.
• Technological advancements have made it easier to connect with peers from around the globe.

How Globalization Impacts Student Life Every Day

In an interconnected world, the effects of globalization are more palpable than ever, extending even into the realm of student life.

The classroom has become a global stage, with a mix of cultures, ideologies, and technologies shaping the educational landscape.

Far from being confined to the realm of economics or politics, globalization’s influence seeps into the daily lives of students in numerous subtle and overt ways. Here are 10 ways globalization affects our daily life as a student:

• Diverse Learning Environments : Globalization has facilitated the movement of people across borders, leading to multicultural classrooms. Students are now exposed to different cultures, perspectives, and ideas right from their school benches.
• Access to International Curriculum : The reach of international education systems like the IB and A-levels has expanded globally. As a result, students can now access an international curriculum without leaving their home country.
• Online Learning : The explosion of the internet means that students can now take classes from esteemed institutions around the globe, opening up unparalleled learning opportunities.
• Global Career Opportunities : As businesses go global, students are taught to prepare for a job market that is no longer confined to local boundaries. Career development courses often include international market trends and requirements.
• Language Learning : The demand for multilingual proficiency has surged, making second and even third languages a regular feature of educational programs.
• Cultural Exchange Programs : Globalization has made student exchange programs more common, encouraging cross-cultural understanding and friendships that span continents.
• Technological Advancements : From smart classrooms to online assignments, the technology that drives globalization has made its way into education, making learning more interactive and effective.
• Global Issues and Awareness : Topics such as climate change, global inequality, and international politics are increasingly included in the curriculum, making students more aware of world issues.
• Networking : Social media and other platforms make it easier than ever to connect with peers and professionals around the world, allowing for a broader range of experiences and viewpoints to inform one’s education.
• Affordable Educational Resources : The internet offers a plethora of free or low-cost educational resources, like e-books, academic papers, and MOOCs, enabling a richer and more varied education.

Globalization has turned education into a tapestry of multicultural experiences, technological enhancements, and global awareness, equipping today’s students for the interconnected world of tomorrow.

Understanding the Concept of Globalization

Let’s delve into understanding what globalization really is and how it’s become a significant part of our lives. It’s the process by which businesses or other organizations develop international influence or start operating on an international scale. The Global Trade Impact has been tremendous, linking economies, intensifying interdependence, and elevating both opportunities and challenges for everyone involved.

From a Global Health Perspective, we’ve seen pandemics hit harder and faster due to increased travel and communication. Yet, it also allows rapid response and collaboration between countries in handling these crises. We’re deeply interconnected in ways that are complex yet enriching.

But as we navigate this global landscape, let’s remember the importance of cultural sensitivity to ensure understanding and respect for all people involved in this intricate web of globalization.

The Role of Globalization in Education

In today’s interconnected world, it’s impossible to overlook the impact that worldwide influences have on education systems and learning experiences. We’re experiencing a shift towards globalized pedagogy, where we incorporate diverse perspectives into our learning processes. This transformation is largely driven by advancements in technology, particularly online learning platforms which bridge geographical divides.

Online learning fosters a culturally diverse educational environment. Globalized pedagogy encourages critical thinking and problem-solving skills. Connectivity enables us to gain exposure to different teaching methodologies. Access to global resources enhances our overall understanding of the subject matter.

We’ve seen how globalization has revolutionized education but let’s not stop there. What does this mean for our social interactions? How are these evolving in response to these new educational paradigms? These questions will guide us as we delve into the next subtopic: ‘The Impact of Globalization on Social Interactions Among Students’.

Impact of Globalization on Social Interactions Among Students

It’s fascinating to observe how worldwide connections are reshaping social interactions among learners. Despite global interaction obstacles, we’re seeing increased unity and understanding across cultures. International communication etiquette is becoming a crucial skill in these exchanges.

We’ve witnessed the transformation of learning spaces into arenas for cultural exchange. This evolution opens doors for us all, fostering a thirst for knowledge that transcends borders. Now let’s delve deeper into globalization and cultural exchange in a student’s life.

Globalization and Cultural Exchange in a Student’s Life

Cultural exchange is becoming more prevalent in a learner’s life, thanks to worldwide connections. We’re witnessing an enriching mix of traditions that shape our perceptions and interactions. Global food influences offer a delicious taste of diversity while multilingual benefits enhance our communication skills and cognitive abilities.

We can list several ways globalization positively impacts us:

• Exposure to diverse cultures fosters tolerance and understanding.
• Sampling global cuisines broadens our culinary horizons.
• Learning multiple languages boosts employability and cognitive flexibility.
• International friendships formed expand our worldviews.

In essence, we’re not just learning about the world but from the world. The cultural richness we encounter daily cultivates open-mindedness, preparing us for a future where freedom, respect, and mutual understanding reign supreme.

Technological Advances and Globalization in Student Life

You’re likely noticing how tech advancements are making it easier to connect with peers from around the globe. We’re all becoming more dependent on the internet, aren’t we? It’s changing our lives significantly, especially in education. Global e-learning has opened a world of opportunities for us, allowing access to knowledge beyond geographical boundaries.

However, this internet dependency isn’t without its challenges. Cultural sensitivity is paramount; as we navigate through diverse online classrooms, we must respect and understand our differences. As scholars advocating freedom, let’s use these tools wisely. Let’s embrace global e-learning while acknowledging our internet dependency and strive towards an interconnected, respectful learning environment.

After all, education is about breaking barriers not erecting them.

Globalization and Its Influence on Study Abroad Opportunities

As we delve deeper into the implications of globalization on education, we can’t overlook its significant impact on enhancing study abroad opportunities. Our exploration will shed light on how increased availability of cross-border learning has opened up a myriad of cultural exchange prospects, allowing us to expand our understanding and respect for diversity.

Additionally, we’ll discuss the profound effects a globalized curriculum has had on our learning framework, providing us with comprehensive knowledge that transcends beyond local perspectives and encourages global thinking.

Increased Study Abroad Availability

There’s no denying that globalization has made studying abroad more accessible and appealing to students worldwide. We’re witnessing an influx of international scholarships, easing financial burdens and facilitating global exposure.

Yet, language barriers persist, challenging but not deterring our pursuit of diverse academic experiences.

Globalization brings undeniable benefits:

• A wider array of study destinations
• Enhanced cultural exchange opportunities
• Greater availability of international scholarships
• Access to a global network of academics and professionals

But it’s important we address the challenges too. Language barriers can intimidate us but they also push us to learn new languages, expanding our perspectives in the process.

Cultural Exchange Opportunities

Having explored the opportunities presented by increased study abroad availability, we can’t overlook another impactful facet of globalization: cultural exchange.

It’s more than just geography; it’s about encompassing a broader human experience. We’re now exposed to a world teeming with international cuisines and languages right at our doorstep. This immersion doesn’t only satiate our gastronomic curiosities but also enhances our language proficiency.

By embracing other cultures through their food and language, we not only appreciate our global community more deeply but become well-rounded individuals ready for any challenge.

This newfound freedom to explore and learn from different cultures is indeed an enlightening journey in itself. As we unravel these layers of cultural diversity, let’s delve into how this globalized curriculum impacts us next.

Globalized Curriculum Impacts

We’re seeing a significant shift in curriculum design, with more of an emphasis on global perspectives and diversity. This change is designed to prepare us for a world that’s increasingly interconnected, where understanding and appreciating different cultures is crucial.

• Global trade exploration is now being integrated into business studies.
• Multinational corporations study gives insights into international business operations.
• Language courses aren’t just about grammar anymore; they include cultural nuances too.
• History lessons delve into diverse narratives, not just Western-centric views.

We believe this shift will equip us better for the future. It’ll foster respect for diversity and make us more adaptable in multicultural environments. We’re excited to see how these changes transform our learning experience and influence our perspective on life’s complexities.

The Effect of Globalization on Job Market for Graduates

You’ll notice that globalization has broadened your job prospects as a recent graduate, with more companies seeking diverse and globally-minded individuals. We’ve seen a surge in graduate entrepreneurship, allowing us to break free from traditional career paths. With the world now our marketplace, we’re able to tap into global resources and networks to establish and grow our own ventures.

Moreover, remote working opportunities have exploded thanks to digital technology advancements tied with globalization. We aren’t bound by geographic constraints anymore; we can work from anywhere for companies located anywhere. This freedom is not only liberating but also enriches our cultural understanding and skills.

Our research confirms that these trends are likely here to stay, reshaping the way we approach our careers post-graduation.

Globalization and the Changing Face of Classroom Learning

As we delve into the realm of globalization and its influence on classroom learning, it’s crucial to consider three key aspects.

Firstly, we must acknowledge the role of digital tools in learning. These tools have fundamentally reshaped how we access information and engage with educational content. With the advent of technology, students now have access to a wealth of resources at their fingertips. They can conduct research, collaborate with peers, and even participate in virtual classrooms. Digital tools have revolutionized the learning experience, making it more interactive and personalized.

Secondly, we need to recognize the impact of cultural diversity in the classroom. In a globalized world, classrooms are becoming increasingly diverse, with students from different cultural backgrounds coming together. This diversity brings a wealth of perspectives and experiences, enriching the learning environment. It fosters empathy, encourages critical thinking, and promotes cultural understanding. However, it also poses challenges, as educators must ensure that all students feel included and represented in the curriculum.

Lastly, we must grapple with the effects of a globalized curriculum. The idea of a globalized curriculum seeks to standardize education across borders, ensuring that students are equipped with the necessary skills to thrive in a globalized society. However, it’s important to strike a balance between standardization and respecting local contexts. A curriculum that is too standardized may neglect the unique needs and cultural identities of students. Educators must find ways to incorporate global perspectives while honoring the diversity and richness of local cultures.

Digital Tools in Learning

Digital tools in learning have drastically changed the way we study and retain information, haven’t they? They’ve opened up new avenues for us to explore.

• Virtual classrooms allow us to learn from anywhere, breaking down geographical boundaries.
• Online assessments provide immediate feedback, helping us improve swiftly.
• Interactive digital textbooks make learning more engaging and fun.
• Collaboration tools foster team work even when we’re miles apart.

These innovations don’t just cater to our desire for freedom in how we learn; they are a response to the demands of a globalized world. Hence, it’s crucial that these tools remain accessible and inclusive. We should also be mindful of their impact on cultural diversity which is the topic we’ll delve into next.

Cultural Diversity Impact

In today’s interconnected world, it’s important to consider how the use of digital tools in learning may impact cultural diversity. We’ve discovered, through our research, that these tools can actually bolster cultural richness. They offer an extensive platform for global cuisine exploration and highlight multilingualism benefits.

We’re now able to learn about different cultures’ food customs from the comfort of our homes, broadening our culinary horizons and fostering a deeper appreciation for diversity. Similarly, digital platforms are making multilingualism more accessible than ever before, breaking down communication barriers and enriching our understanding of various cultures.

These elements play a significant role in shaping an inclusive educational environment that we all yearn for. Let’s delve into this further as we transition into discussing the effects of a globalized curriculum next.

Globalized Curriculum Effect

Shifting towards a more globalized curriculum is proving to be quite impactful, particularly in how it prepares learners for the increasingly interconnected world. We’re witnessing firsthand its potential to broaden our perspectives and foster greater empathy.

Our learning now includes:

• Global economy understanding, allowing us to grasp the intricacies of international trade and finance.
• International language learning, which breaks down communication barriers and opens up new opportunities.
• In-depth studies of various cultures, promoting tolerance and respect.
• Exploration of global environmental issues, emphasizing our collective responsibility.

We’re not just gaining knowledge; we’re developing skills that’ll equip us for life beyond the classroom. It’s a shift that empowers us with freedom – freedom to engage with diverse viewpoints, freedom to contribute meaningfully in any setting.

This is education for the 21st century.

How Globalization Influences the Curriculum

Globalization’s impact on education is evident in the way it influences the curriculum. It has led to a more diverse and comprehensive approach to learning. One significant change is the increased focus on global trade education. This equips students with knowledge about international markets and economic interdependencies. The goal is to nurture a generation that can thrive in the global marketplace. This means understanding not just our domestic environment but also the wider world.

Another important aspect of education in a globalized world is multilingual learning. Students are encouraged to learn various languages to enhance their communication skills across cultures. This approach fosters a sense of unity amidst diversity and brings about an enriching educational experience.

The quest for freedom also plays a role in shaping education in a globalized world. Students are now able to transcend boundaries and explore horizons they had never dreamed of before. This opens up new opportunities and expands their understanding of the world.

As we delve deeper into the topic of globalization’s impact on education, it is important to discuss how students can adapt to a globalized world.

Adapting to a Globalized World as a Student

In the midst of globalization, we’re facing a myriad of cultural adaptation challenges as students. The impact of technological advances is also significantly reshaping our educational experiences and expectations.

As we delve into this discussion, it’s crucial to remain open-minded and respectful because every culture holds its unique way of interpreting these issues.

Cultural Adaptation Challenges

It’s undeniable that students often face cultural adaptation challenges in the era of globalization. We’re confronted with language barriers and adjusting to international cuisines, among other things.

Here are some key issues we grapple with:

• Understanding and speaking a new language effectively
• Adapting to different learning styles and expectations
• Adjusting our palates to international cuisines, which can be drastically different from what we’re used to
• Navigating social norms and customs vastly different from ours

These factors can initially seem overwhelming, but they shape us into more adaptable individuals. They teach us patience, resilience, open-mindedness – all crucial for thriving in the diverse world we find ourselves in today.

Technological Advances Impact

Technological advances aren’t just changing the way we communicate, they’re also reshaping cultural adaptation experiences. Through globalized healthcare studies, we’re gaining insights into different medical practices worldwide. International culinary learning helps us appreciate varied food cultures.

Our understanding of globalization’s impact on daily life is enhanced through these practical examples:

We’ve seen how technology can erase borders and foster a sense of community. We are not just spectators but active participants in this journey towards global understanding and unity.

In conclusion, we’ve seen how globalization’s impact on our lives as students is profound. It’s changed how we learn, interact, and even what careers we might pursue.

We’re in an era of global classrooms and diverse cultural exchanges. This comes with challenges, but it’s an exciting time to be a student.

As we adapt to this globalized world, let’s embrace the opportunities it brings for growth and understanding.

Frequently Asked Questions

How does globalization affect the mental health of students.

Globalization’s impact on our mental health is significant. We’re constantly adapting to new cultures, creating tech dependency. It can be overwhelming but it also broadens our perspectives and fosters resilience in us.

How Does Globalization Influence the Cost of Education for Students?

We’ve observed that globalization, through technological advancements, can drive up education costs. Yet, it also promotes educational equality by making learning resources accessible globally, balancing out potential financial burdens we might face.

What Is the Impact of Globalization on Students’ Choices of Their Majors?

We’ve observed that globalization broadens our horizons, influencing us to choose majors with more career opportunities worldwide. It’s also encouraged us to study abroad, expanding our cultural understanding and enhancing our global competitiveness.

How Does Globalization Affect Students’ Participation in Sports and Extracurricular Activities?

We’ve seen globalization drive cultural exchange in sports, enriching our experiences. It’s also intensified globalized competition, pushing us to excel not just locally, but on an international stage too.

How Does Globalization Impact the Dietary Habits and Health of Students?

We’re seeing cultural cuisine influences changing our eating habits, often for the worse. Globalized fast food effects have led to unhealthy diets and increased health issues among us. It’s a concerning trend indeed.

Globalization and the Philippines’ Education System

Cite this chapter.

• Swee-hin Toh &
• Virginia Floresca-Cawagas  

176 Accesses

1 Citations

Some fifty years ago, the Philippines emerged from three centuries of Spanish colonialism and another five decades of US rule. In the euphoria of statehood, modern schooling that had been significantly shaped under American tutelage promised hope and mobility for individuals and economic progress for the country. After fifty years of post-colonial development, it is imperative to reflect on the value of education in the lives of more than 70 million Filipinos.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Unable to display preview.  Download preview PDF.

Agbayani, R. (1987) ‘The Bangsa Moro struggle’. Diliman Review 35, no. 2, pp. 22–5.

Google Scholar  

Amnesty International — Education for Freedom (1994) Shopping List of Techniques in Teaching Human Rights (Quezon City: Zamora).

Arcelo, A. and Sanyal, S. (1987) Higher Education, Labor, and Manpower Survey (Makati, Metro Manila: FAPE).

Amove, R. (1980) ‘Comparative education and world systems analysis’. Comparative Education Review 24, pp. 48–62.

Article   Google Scholar  

Amove, R. (1996) ‘Partnerships and emancipatory educational movements: issues and prospects’. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research XLII, no. 2, pp. 170–8.

Atencio, J. (2000) ‘Poor provinces get schoolrooms worth P4 billion’. Manila Bulletin , The Philippines, August 7.

Bacchus, M.K. (1981) ‘Education for development in underdeveloped countries’. Comparative Education 17, no. 2, pp. 215–26.

Bacchus, M.K. (1988) ‘The political context of vocationalization of education in the developing countries’. In Vocationalizing Education ed. Lauglo, J. and Lillis, K. (Sydney: Pergamon).

Barnet, R.J. and Cavanagh, J. (1994) Global Dreams. Imperial Corporations and the New World Order (New York: Simon & Schuster).

Barretto-Lapitan, G. (1997) ‘The ABCs of problems in Philippine education’. Intersect , June, pp. 8–12.

Barzaga, E. and Imperial, N. (1989) ‘Literacy and adult education: fresh visions and new directions’. WCCI Forum 3, no. 2.

Bello, W. (1999) ‘The iron cage: the WTO, the Bretton woods institutions and the South’. Paper presented at the International Forum on Globalization, Seattle, November 27.

Bello, W., Kinley, D. and Elinsan, E. (1982) Development Debacle. The World Bank in the Philippines (San Francisco: Institute for Food and Development Policy).

Blaug, M. (1979) Education and the Employment Problem in Developing Countries (Geneva: International Labor Organization).

Boron, A.A. and Torres, C.A. (1996) ‘The impact of neoliberal restructuring on education and poverty in Latin America’. The Alberta Journal of Education XLII, no. 2, pp. 102–14.

Bown, L.J. (1988) ‘World trends in education books in the 1990’s’. The proceedings of the 23rd International Publishers Association Congress, London, England, June 12–17.

Brecher, J. and Costello, T. (1994) Global Village or Global Pillage (Boston: South End Press).

Broad, R. and Cavanagh, J. (1993) Plundering Paradise (Berkeley: University of California).

Bureau of Elementary Education (BEE) (1976) Survey of Outcomes of Elementary Education. Curriculum Division. (Manila: Bureau of Elementary Education).

Bureau of Elementary Education (BEE) (1986) Survey of Outcomes of Elementary Education. Curriculum Division. (Manila: Bureau of Elementary Education).

Bureau of Elementary Education, DECS (1998) Director’s Report (Pasig: DECS Central Office).

Bureau of Secondary Education, DECS (1998) Director’s Report (Pasig: DECS Central Office).

Burnett, N. (1996) ‘Priorities and strategies for education — a World Bank review: the process and key messages’. International Journal of Educational Development 16, no. 3, pp. 215–20.

Cadacio, J. (2000) ‘Record-high classroom, teacher shortage looms’. Today , August 11, The Philippines.

Caluza, D. (2000) ‘Crush cronyism, senators urge’. Philippine Daily Inquirer , August 9, The Philippines.

Carino, B.V. (1994) ‘International migration from the Philippines: policy issues and problems’. In Population, Human Resources and Development ed. Herrin, A. (Quezon City, Metro Manila: University of the Philippines and The Center for Integrative and Development Studies).

Carnoy, M. (1982) ‘Education for alternative development’. Comparative Education Review 26, no. 2, pp. 160–77.

Center for Research and Communication (1985) The Philippines at the Crossroads: Some Visions for the Nation (A summary report) (Manila: Center for Research and Communication).

Commission on Filpino Overseas (CFO) (2000) Emanila news , August 31.

Commission on Higher Education (1995) Long-term Higher Education Development Plan (1996–2005) (Metro Manila: Office of the President, CHED).

Commission on Higher Education (CHED) (1999) Basic Higher Education Statistics (Makati: Information and Publication Division).

Constantino, L. (1982) World Bank Textbooks: Scenario for Deception (Quezon City: Foundation for Nationalist Studies).

Constantino, R. (1982) The Miseducation of the Filipino (Quezon City: Foundation for Nationalist Studies).

Crisostomo, S. (1998) ‘Rich are richer, poor are poorer’. Philippine Star , October 4, p. 10.

Department of Education, Culture, and Sports (DECS) (1993) Report Card to the Nation (Manila: Office of the President, DECS).

Department of Education, Culture, and Sports (DECS) (1994) Report Card to the Nation (Manila: Office of the President, DECS).

Department of Education, Culture, and Sports (DECS) (1995) Report Card to the Nation (Manila: Office of the President, DECS).

Department of Education, Culture, and Sports (DECS) (1996) Master Plan for Basic Education, 1996–2005 (Manila: Office of the President, DECS).

Department of Education, Culture, and Sports (DECS) (1997) Report Card to the Nation (Manila: Office of the President, DECS).

Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) (1998) Report Card to the Nation (Manila: Office of the President, DECS).

Diaz, P.P. (2000) ‘Peace advocates: misunderstood, maligned’. Philippine Daily Inquirer , August 12, The Philippines.

Diokno, M.S. (1998) The Philippine Situation, 1998 (Quezon City: Freedom from Debt Coalition).

Dore, R. (1976) The Diploma Disease (Berkeley: University of California).

Doronila, A. (2000) ‘Skeptical response to the Sona’s promises’. Philippine Daily Inquirer , July 28, The Philippines.

Durante, O. (1988) Perceptions on Autonomy in the Three Provinces of Central Mindanao (Cotabato City: Socio-Economic Research Center, Notre Dame University).

EDCOM, Philippines Republic. Congressional Commission on Education (1991) Making Education Work: An Agenda for Reform (Manila and Quezon City: Congressional Commission on Education).

EDPITAF (1976) The Outcome of Philippine Elementary Education: Report on the Major Findings of SOUTELE (Makati, Metro Manila: EDPITAF).

Farrell, J.P. and Heyneman, S.P. (1988) ‘Textbooks in developing countries: economic and pedagogical choices’. In Textbooks in the Third World ed. Altbach, P. and Kelly, G.P. (New York: Garland).

Floresca-Cawagas, V. (1989) ‘Evaluation of values education programmes: concepts and principles’. WCCI Forum II, no. 2.

Floresca-Cawagas, V. (1990) ‘The educational system and Catholic education in the Philippines: realities and visions for transformation’. Working paper in education submitted to Bishop Teodoro Bacani, Chairman, Religious Concerns for the Second Plenary Council of the Philippines.

Floresca-Cawagas, V. (1991) ‘Transforming values education in the Philippines: towards a peaceful paradigm’. Doctoral dissertation, Notre Dame University.

Floresca-Cawagas, V. (1996) ‘Empowerment of the people: insights from the Philippines’. The Alberta Journal of Education XLII, no. 2, pp. 161–9.

Focus on the Global South (2000) Creating Poverty. The ADB in Asia (Bangkok: Focus on the Global South).

Foley, D. (1978) ‘Colonialism and schooling in the Philippines from 1898 to 1970’. In Education and Colonialism ed. Altbach, P. and Kelly, G (New York: Longman).

Foundation for Nationalist Studies (1991) A Filipino Vision of Development (Quezon City: Foundation for Nationalist Studies).

Freire, P. (1972) Pedagogy of the Oppressed (New York: Seaburg).

Fund for Assistance to Private Education (1991) Policy Issues in Philippine Education (Makati, Metro Manila: FAPE).

Garcia, E. and Hernandez, C. (eds) (1989) Waging Peace In the Philippines (Loyola Heights: Ateneo Center for Social Policy and Public Affairs).

Ghosh, R. (1996) ‘Economic liberalization and its impact on women and women’s education’. The Alberta Journal of Education XLII, no. 2, pp. 115–20.

Gonzales, C.T. and Pijano, M.C. (1997) Non-formal Education in the Philippines: A Fundamental Step towards Lifelong Learning ( http://www.apec-hurdit.org / lifelong-learning/pijano.html).

Gonzales, F. (1998) ‘Globalization and migrant labor’. Moro Kurier X11, no. 1 and 2, Special Issue, pp. 2–7.

Gonzalez, A. (1999) ‘Fostering integration and cooperation between our public and private schools’. CEAP Perspective , December.

Gonzalez, A. and Sibayan, B. (eds) (1988) Evaluating Bilingual Education in the Philippines (1974–1985) (Manila: Linguistics Society of the Philippines).

Goodno, J.B. (1991) The Philippines: Land of Broken Promises (London: Zed).

Harbison, F.H. and Myers, C.A. (1984) Education, Manpower and Economic Growth (New York: McGraw-Hill).

Huenda, J.L. (2000) ‘The DECS IT education programme’. Manila Bulletin , August 13, The Philippines.

IBON Education for Development Quarterly , 1996–1998.

IBON Facts and Figures. 15 June 1985; 31 December 1988; 31 December 1990; 31 December 1991; 31 December 1992; 31 December 1993; 31 December 1994; 31 August 1996; 31 December 1996; 15 June 1998, 31 December 1999; 30 April 2000.

IBON Philippines Databank and Research Center (1998) Contract Growing. Intensifying TNC Control in Philippine Agriculture (Manila: IBON Foundation Inc.).

Intersect. (2000) ‘Shelter for the Masses’. Special Issue, June.

Javate-De Dios, A., Doroy, P.B. and Kalaw-Tirol, L. (1988) Dictatorship and Revolution (Manila: Conspectus).

Jose, V.R. (ed.) (1988) Mortgaging the Future. ‘The World Bank and the IMF in the Philippines’. (Quezon City: Foundation for Nationalist Studies).

Korten, D.C. (1995) When Corporations Rule the World (West Hartford and San Francisco: Kumarian Press, Inc. and Berrett-Koehler Publishers).

Lauglo, J. (1996) ‘Banking on education and the uses of research. A critique of World Bank priorities and strategies for education’. International Journal of Educational Development 16, no. 3, pp. 221–34.

Leach, F.E. and Little, A. (eds) (1999) Education, Cultures, and Economics: Dilemma for Development (New York: Garland).

Lesaca, R. Jr. (2000) ‘Stark realities on the Filipino’s health’. Philippine Daily Inquirer , July 31, The Philippines.

Little, A. (1984) ‘Combating the diploma disease’. In Education versus Qualification ed. Oxenham, J. (London: George Allen & Unwin).

Maclaren, P. and Leonard, P. (eds) (1993) Paulo Freire: A Critical Encounter (London and New York: Routledge).

Maderazo, C.G. (1997) ‘Waiting for a miracle’. Intersect , June, pp. 4–5.

Mander, J. and Goldsmith, E. (eds) (1996) The Case Against the Global Economy (San Francisco: Sierra Club Books).

Mercado, E. (2000) ‘Is there hope?’ Philippine Daily Inquirer , July 29, The Philippines.

National Census and Statistics Office. (1989) National Census and Statistics Report (Manila: NCSO).

Ordonez, E.A. (1996) ‘From Indio to Filipino: the education of the native’. IBON Education for Development Quarterly , June, pp. 7–14.

Orejas, T. (2000) ‘Gov’t loan offices open doors to teachers’. Philippine Daily Inquirer , August 4, The Philippines.

Oxenham, J. (ed.) (1984) Education versus Qualifications ? (London: George Allen & Unwin).

Paderanga, C. Jr. (1994) ‘Tertiary education and the labor market in the Philippines’. In Population, Human Resources and Development ed. Herrin, A. (Quezon City: University of the Philippines and the Center for Integrative and Development Studies).

Pannu, R. (1996) ‘Neoliberal project of globalization: prospects for democratization of education’. The Alberta Journal of Education XLII, no. 2, pp. 87–101.

Philippines Republic (1987) Constitution of the Philippines (Manila: Bureau of Printing).

Philippines Republic. Presidential Commission to Survey Philippine Education (PCSPE) (1970) Education for National Development: New Patterns, New Directions (Makati: PCSPE).

Philippines Republic. Programme for Decentralized Educational Development (PRODED) (1990) Review of the State of the Art of Educational Research: The Philippine Experience. Monograph Series No. 15. Bureau of Elementary Education (Manila: DECS).

Philippines Republic. Secondary Education Development Project (SEDP) (1996) SEDP Project Completion Report (Pasig: DECS).

Quintos-Deles, T. (1996) ‘Equity-led growth’. Unpublished paper, read at the Social Reform Council, November 19.

Reuters and AFP. (2000) ‘Government to spend P20B for Mindanao war, rehabilitation’. Philippine Daily Inquirer , June 19, The Philippines.

Rimando, T.P. (2000) ‘Sen. Oreta’s Project TAO slates computer training for DECS execs’. Manila Bulletin , August 9, The Philippines.

Rivera, B. (2000) ‘Private schools in real danger.’ Philippine Daily Inquirer , July 29, The Philippines.

Samoff, J. (1996) ‘African education and development: crisis, triumphalism, research, loss of vision’. Alberta Journal of Educational Research XLII, no. 2, pp. 121–47.

SEAMEO INNOTECH (1991) Project Nodrops-EFA (Quezon City, Metro Manila: INNOTECH).

Sermeno, D.A. (1994) ‘Circumventing agrarian reform’. Pulso , July, Monograph no. 14.

Shiva, V. (2000) Stolen Harvest: The Hijacking of the Global Food Supply (Cambridge, MA: South End Press).

Simmons, J. (1980) ‘An overview of the policy issues in the 1980s’. In The Education Dilemma ed. Simmons, J. (New York: Pergamon).

Sklair, L. (1991) Sociology of the Global System (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University).

Soriano, L., Claudio, C. and Fansler, L. (1995) Sustainable Development: A Philippine Perspective (Quezon City: Phoenix).

Stinus-Remonde, M. and Vertucci, C. (eds) (1999) Minding Mining! Lessons from the Philippines (Quezon City: Philippine International Forum).

Sutaria, M. (1986) ‘Values development framework of the Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports’. Proceedings of the Conference Workshop, ‘Alternative Approaches and Strategies in Values Education’, World Council of Curriculum and Instruction, Philippines Chapter. University of Life, Metro Manila.

TABAK (1990) Struggle Against Development Aggression (Quezon City: TABAK).

The Task Force on Higher Education (1995) Philippine Higher Education in the 21 st century (Metro Manila: CHED).

Toh, S.H. (1987) ‘Education for participation: third world perspectives’. WCCI Forum I, no. 1, pp. 20–43.

Toh, S.H. (1996) ‘Partnership as solidarity: crossing North-South boundaries’. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research XLII, no. 2, pp. 178–91.

Toh, S.H. and Floresca-Cawagas, V. (1992) ‘From structural violence to peaceful development: the possible and urgent contributions of education’. Philippine Journal of Education 71, no. 2.

Toh, S.H., Floresca-Cawagas, V. and Durante, O. (1992) Building a Peace Education Programme. Peace Education Miniprints, No. 38 (Malmo: Preparedness for Peace).

Toh, S.H. and Pannu, R. (eds) (1996) ‘Education and development’. Special issue. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research XLII, no. 2.

Tujan, A.A. (1998a) ‘Globalization and Labor: the Philippine Case’. Institute of Political Economy Journals , March, no. 15.

Tujan, A.A. (1998b) ‘Taking on the challenge of globalization. Education’. Education for Development Quarterly , June, pp. 3–6.

Tujan, A.A. (1999) The Real Estrada Administration Emerges. IBON Midyear 1999 Briefing (Quezon City: IBON Foundation).

UNESCO (1998) World Education Report 1998. Teachers and Teaching in a Changing World (Paris: UNESCO).

UNESCO (1999) 99 Statistical Yearbook (Paris: UNESCO).

UNICEF (2000) The State of the World’s Children 2000 (New York: UNICEF).

Villanueva, M. and Araneta, S. (2000) ‘Estrada: I won’t allow kleptocracy’. The Philippine Star , August 13, The Philippines.

Villegas, E. (1997) Junk APEC and WTO ( http://www.hk.super.net /~altapec/artl.htm).

WCEFA (1990) World Conference on Education for all: Meeting Basic Learning Needs. Final Report (Jomtien: UNDP, UNESCO, UNICEF, World Bank).

Welch, A.R. (2000) Quality and Equality in Third World Education. Third World Education (New York: Garland Publishing).

World Bank (1980) World Development Report 1980 (Washington, DC: World Bank).

Book   Google Scholar  

World Bank (1995) The Philippines: Cost and Financing Issues in Education (Washington, DC: World Bank).

World Education Forum (2000) The Dakar Framework for Action. Education For All: Meeting our Collective Commitments (Dakar: Senegal).

Download references

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Comparative Education Policy Research Unit, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong

Ka-ho Mok ( Associate Dean, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences and also Convenor ) ( Associate Dean, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences and also Convenor )

University of Sydney, Australia

Anthony Welch ( Associate Professor in the School of Policy and Practice, Faculty of Education ) ( Associate Professor in the School of Policy and Practice, Faculty of Education )

Copyright information

© 2003 Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited

About this chapter

Toh, Sh., Floresca-Cawagas, V. (2003). Globalization and the Philippines’ Education System. In: Mok, Kh., Welch, A. (eds) Globalization and Educational Restructuring in the Asia Pacific Region. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781403990488_7

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/9781403990488_7

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, London

Print ISBN : 978-1-349-41523-6

Online ISBN : 978-1-4039-9048-8

eBook Packages : Palgrave Social & Cultural Studies Collection Social Sciences (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Effects of Economic Globalization

Globalization has led to increases in standards of living around the world, but not all of its effects are positive for everyone.

Social Studies, Economics, World History

Bangladesh Garment Workers

The garment industry in Bangladesh makes clothes that are then shipped out across the world. It employs as many as four million people, but the average worker earns less in a month than a U.S. worker earns in a day.

Photograph by Mushfiqul Alam

Put simply, globalization is the connection of different parts of the world. In economics, globalization can be defined as the process in which businesses, organizations, and countries begin operating on an international scale. Globalization is most often used in an economic context, but it also affects and is affected by politics and culture. In general, globalization has been shown to increase the standard of living in developing countries, but some analysts warn that globalization can have a negative effect on local or emerging economies and individual workers. A Historical View Globalization is not new. Since the start of civilization, people have traded goods with their neighbors. As cultures advanced, they were able to travel farther afield to trade their own goods for desirable products found elsewhere. The Silk Road, an ancient network of trade routes used between Europe, North Africa, East Africa, Central Asia, South Asia, and the Far East, is an example of early globalization. For more than 1,500 years, Europeans traded glass and manufactured goods for Chinese silk and spices, contributing to a global economy in which both Europe and Asia became accustomed to goods from far away. Following the European exploration of the New World, globalization occurred on a grand scale; the widespread transfer of plants, animals, foods, cultures, and ideas became known as the Columbian Exchange. The Triangular Trade network in which ships carried manufactured goods from Europe to Africa, enslaved Africans to the Americas, and raw materials back to Europe is another example of globalization. The resulting spread of slavery demonstrates that globalization can hurt people just as easily as it can connect people. The rate of globalization has increased in recent years, a result of rapid advancements in communication and transportation. Advances in communication enable businesses to identify opportunities for investment. At the same time, innovations in information technology enable immediate communication and the rapid transfer of financial assets across national borders. Improved fiscal policies within countries and international trade agreements between them also facilitate globalization. Political and economic stability facilitate globalization as well. The relative instability of many African nations is cited by experts as one of the reasons why Africa has not benefited from globalization as much as countries in Asia and Latin America. Benefits of Globalization Globalization provides businesses with a competitive advantage by allowing them to source raw materials where they are inexpensive. Globalization also gives organizations the opportunity to take advantage of lower labor costs in developing countries, while leveraging the technical expertise and experience of more developed economies. With globalization, different parts of a product may be made in different regions of the world. Globalization has long been used by the automotive industry , for instance, where different parts of a car may be manufactured in different countries. Businesses in several different countries may be involved in producing even seemingly simple products such as cotton T-shirts. Globalization affects services, too. Many businesses located in the United States have outsourced their call centers or information technology services to companies in India. As part of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), U.S. automobile companies relocated their operations to Mexico, where labor costs are lower. The result is more jobs in countries where jobs are needed, which can have a positive effect on the national economy and result in a higher standard of living. China is a prime example of a country that has benefited immensely from globalization. Another example is Vietnam, where globalization has contributed to an increase in the prices for rice, lifting many poor rice farmers out of poverty. As the standard of living increased, more children of poor families left work and attended school. Consumers benefit also. In general, globalization decreases the cost of manufacturing . This means that companies can offer goods at a lower price to consumers. The average cost of goods is a key aspect that contributes to increases in the standard of living. Consumers also have access to a wider variety of goods. In some cases, this may contribute to improved health by enabling a more varied and healthier diet; in others, it is blamed for increases in unhealthy food consumption and diabetes. Downsides Not everything about globalization is beneficial. Any change has winners and losers, and the people living in communities that had been dependent on jobs outsourced elsewhere often suffer. Effectively, this means that workers in the developed world must compete with lower-cost markets for jobs; unions and workers may be unable to defend against the threat of corporations that offer the alternative between lower pay or losing jobs to a supplier in a less expensive labor market. The situation is more complex in the developing world, where economies are undergoing rapid change. Indeed, the working conditions of people at some points in the supply chain are deplorable. The garment industry in Bangladesh, for instance, employs an estimated four million people, but the average worker earns less in a month than a U.S. worker earns in a day. In 2013, a textile factory building collapsed, killing more than 1,100 workers. Critics also suggest that employment opportunities for children in poor countries may increase negative impacts of child labor and lure children of poor families away from school. In general, critics blame the pressures of globalization for encouraging an environment that exploits workers in countries that do not offer sufficient protections. Studies also suggest that globalization may contribute to income disparity and inequality between the more educated and less educated members of a society. This means that unskilled workers may be affected by declining wages, which are under constant pressure from globalization. Into the Future Regardless of the downsides, globalization is here to stay. The result is a smaller, more connected world. Socially, globalization has facilitated the exchange of ideas and cultures, contributing to a world view in which people are more open and tolerant of one another.

Articles & Profiles

Media credits.

The audio, illustrations, photos, and videos are credited beneath the media asset, except for promotional images, which generally link to another page that contains the media credit. The Rights Holder for media is the person or group credited.

Production Managers

Program specialists, last updated.

February 20, 2024

User Permissions

For information on user permissions, please read our Terms of Service. If you have questions about how to cite anything on our website in your project or classroom presentation, please contact your teacher. They will best know the preferred format. When you reach out to them, you will need the page title, URL, and the date you accessed the resource.

If a media asset is downloadable, a download button appears in the corner of the media viewer. If no button appears, you cannot download or save the media.

Text on this page is printable and can be used according to our Terms of Service .

Interactives

Any interactives on this page can only be played while you are visiting our website. You cannot download interactives.

Related Resources