Worldwide, transnational corporations have been in a fast growth trend. This generated jobs and boosted GDP. In my view, globalization steers countries towards prosperity, cultural exposure, and opens chances. Hence, I strongly agree that globalization has a favorable effect on participating nations.
Countries before the 20th century had limited exposure to other lands. Thus, it made it impossible for them to welcome foreigners. Yet, globalization altered that viewpoint via multinational institutions. For instance, A business that falls under the multinational umbrella would build factories in both countries, grow profits for both, and both recipients would acquire experience.
That said, other persons might contend that globalization causes harm for the smaller nation whilst benefiting the other. They back their argument by citing low wages and looser labor laws. furthermore, they think that economically, powerful countries use the vulnerability of other countries by compelling them to unfair contracts. I would maintain that strong nations usually take advantage of poor states. Nevertheless, if the poor country is generating employment for the short term whilst acquiring experience for the long term, I believe that the end justifies the means.
In summary, globalization isn't a flawless relationship, and it can be unjust. But would we reject it and leave people below the poor line or accept its side effects and consider the bigger picture? I believe that the overall benefits makes it a fair deal for the long run, Provided that poor states uses the experience they gain through the proccess.