Essay examples: Webdesigning

If you order your paper from our custom writing service you will receive a perfectly written assignment on webdesigning. What we need from you is to provide us with your detailed paper instructions for our experienced writers to follow all of your specific writing requirements. Specify your order details, state the exact number of pages required and our custom writing professionals will deliver the best quality webdesigning paper right on time.

Our staff of freelance writers includes over 120 experts proficient in webdesigning, therefore you can rest assured that your assignment will be handled by only top rated specialists. Order your webdesigning paper at affordable prices!

As a business student I feel that the above statement is absolutely false. The fact is quiet the opposite. The prime benefits of globalization are :-

 Increases the content of MIDDLE class income group by providing more executive and general job opportunities.

 It gives the economy a strong activity boost by increasing production of goods and services and helps in reducing costs by finding the most competitive and cost effective solutions to business.

The following excerpt shows the positive effect on poverty in Malaysia :-

Purchase your paper on webdesigning

"Malaysia has been lambasted for adopting a heterodox approach to overcome the

financial crisis. In September 1998 it introduced selective capital controls. In early 1999

(February) it modified capital controls by introducing a repatriation levy or an "exit tax"

on portfolio capital. There are stronger signs that the economy is recovering in 1999.

Capital controls along with other policy measures seem to be pulling the economy out of

recession. In 4Q 1998 the economy contracted by 8.6 percent and a much smaller 1.6

percent in 1Q 1999. The 2Q 1999 will probably see a marginal positive growth and a

growth rate of 1 – 2 percent could be in store for 1999. Officially a 5 percent growth is

anticipated for 2000. The level of absolute poverty is expected to rise marginally in 1998,

unlikely to worsen in 1999 and 2000."

Another excerpt authored by Kofi Anan

Companies must take lead to ensure globalization benefits many

By Kofi A. Annan

Many people are asking me why I have agreed to attend the World Economic Forum this year. Some even seem to think that by doing so I align myself with the glitterati and the global elite, turning my back on the downtrodden masses who - in these people's eyes - are the victims of globalization. If anything, the opposite is true. I see the forum as an opportunity to address that global elite on behalf of those downtrodden masses: on behalf, especially, of well over 1bn people in today's world who are living without enough food to eat, without safe water to drink, without primary schooling or healthcare for their children - in short, without the most basic requirements of human dignity. Personally, I do not believe that those people are victims of globalization. Their problem is not that they are included in the global market but, in most cases, that they are excluded from it.

But it is up to the global elite - to business and political leaders from the more fortunate countries - to prove that perception wrong, with actions that translate into concrete results for the downtrodden, exploited and excluded.

It is not enough to say, though it is true, that without business the poor would have no hope of escaping their poverty.

Too many of them have no hope as it is. They need to be shown, by tangible examples making a difference to their own lives, that economics, properly applied, and profits, wisely invested, can bring social benefits within reach not only for the few but also for the many, and eventually for all.

Many business leaders still think these are problems for governments to solve, and that business should concern itself only with the bottom line. But most of them understand that in the long run the bottom line depends on economic and social conditions, as well as political stability. And increasing numbers are realizing that they do not have to wait for governments to do the right thing - indeed, that they cannot afford to. In many cases, governments only find the courage and resources to do the right thing when business takes the lead.

Sometimes companies can make a massive difference with really small investments. Take the case of the world's salt manufacturers. Working with the United Nations, they have made sure that all salt manufactured for human consumption contains iodine. The result is that every year, more than 90m newborn children are protected against iodine deficiency, and thus against a major cause of mental retardation.

We need many more examples like that - examples of companies helping to mobilize global science and technology to tackle the interlocking crises of hunger, disease, environmental degradation and conflict that are holding back the developing world.

It is true that, for most such initiatives to succeed, business needs enlightened partners in government. But it need not wait passively for them to appear. In many countries, the voice of business leaders plays a very important role in moulding the climate of opinion in which governments take their decisions. Indeed, no one is better placed than business leaders to refute the arguments of protectionists and penny-pinchers. They are the ones who can make the most persuasive case for opening the markets of rich countries to labor-intensive products from poor ones and for an end to the farm export subsidies that make it impossible for farmers in poor countries to compete.

And they are the ones who, as leading taxpayers, can argue most persuasively for debt relief and official assistance to developing countries, as well as a chance for those countries to make their voice heard when decisions affecting the world economy are being discussed. All those things are essential if today's poor countries are to grow and prosper. Of course, they need to get their own houses in order so that they can mobilize domestic resources and attract and benefit from private foreign investment.

But they must be given a fair chance to export their products, and many of them need financial and technical help – to build up their infrastructure and capacities - before they can take advantage of market opportunities. Even when a door is opened, you cannot walk through it without leg muscles.

Next month, at the Monterrey Conference on Financing for Development, political and business leaders will have the chance to show, by tackling these issues seriously, that they intend to make sure globalization offers the poor a real chance to escape from poverty.

They can strike a truly decisive blow against the forces of envy, despair and terror by sending out a clear message of solidarity, respect and - above all - hope.

The author is Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Does Globalization increase Poverty & inequality ?

On 29th January 2002 the Goa Chambers of Commerce and Industry in collaboration with the Friedrich Naumann Foundation, New Delhi office, invited a panel discussion on "Whether Globalization benefits the Poor?" Over 80 participants came to listen to a distinguished Panel consisting of Mr. Swaminathan Aiyar, Consulting Editor of The Economic Times, Mr Bibek Debroy, Economist and Director of the Rajiv Gandhi Institute of Contemporary Studies, Mr. Detmar Doering, Deputy Director of Liberales Institut, Friedrich Naumann Stiftung and Mr. Leon Louw, Project Coordinator of Good Law Project in South Africa.

The four speakers were par excellence in their presentations. For the people of Goa this was an opportunity to listen and interact with the prominent speakers who were coming together on a single platform for the first time. The speakers mesmerized the audience comprising Students, Businessmen, Govt. Officials, Media and others on their indisputable presentations that Globalization does benefit the poor.

The consensus was that Globalization results in increased competition which improves the quality of products and reduces their prices. However many players in the field would need to adjust and search for an area in which they had competitive advantages. The panel agreed that with the right kind of policies, the condition of the poor could be improved substantially and this would lead to an overall development of economic growth of the country.

GLOBALISATION BENEFITS ONLY AFTER WAR ON POVERTY

In his remarks to the 3rd LDC conference, Mr. Benjamin William Mkapa, President of the United Republic of Tanzania, called for a little "soul-searching" and to show that the hands that cradle our world are "warm and caring, not cold and indifferent." Reciprocal recriminations will never put food on the plate of the hungry, nor take their children to school, the President affirmed. In the following excerpts from his address, President Mkapa looks at some of the new approaches and initiatives from the LDC perspective, the role of various development actors and what is at stake in the areas of trade, debt, and ODA. He contends that it is success in the war on poverty that will pull the benefits of globalization for LDCs.

We need to ask ourselves three basic questions:

First, do we now know, in sufficient detail and clarity, why many earlier approaches and initiatives failed - be it the Programmes of Action of previous LDC Conferences, or all the other global summits on education, on environment, on poverty, on health, on habitat, on women, on children and others. All the targets that came out of the Conferences and Summits were noble, and at the time we agreed on them, we believed we were all committed to play our different but complementary and coordinated roles. We failed. Was the problem the goals, the approaches, the initiatives, the role players, or their co-ordination?

Secondly, if with the help of the Report of the Panel (High-Level Panel for the Review of Progress in the Implementation of the Programme of Action for the Least Developed Countries for the 1990s) we believe we now know what went wrong, are we equally certain that the new approaches and initiatives we are launching here, and the roles we assign to the different actors, relevant to the solution needed to effectively deal with the previous problems; and, can they be relied upon to increase the speed of implementation to make up for lost time, and to produce the effectiveness and efficiency needed to attain that speed?

Thirdly, we need greater introspection by all the actors, especially governments, in both rich and poor countries, regarding sufficient commitment to these new approaches and initiatives. The report of the Panel has shown that lack of, or insufficient, political will is a major contributory factor to previous failures. Are we now sufficiently driven to engender the necessary political will, among all actors, to not fail again?