The challenges of globalization of the world economy

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

1. Ten theses on globalization

Amartya Sen, Master of Trinity College, Cambridge, was awarded the Nobel Prize for economics in 1998.

Over thousands of years, globalization has progressed through travel, trade, migration, spread of cultural influences and dissemination of knowledge and understanding.

Cambridge - Doubts about the global economic order, which extend far beyond organized protests, have to be viewed in the light of the dual presence of abject misery and unprecedented prosperity in the world in which we live. Even though the world is incomparably richer than ever before, ours is also a world of extraordinary deprivation and of staggering inequality.

We have to bear in mind this elemental contrast to interpret widespread skepticism about the global order, and even the patience of the general public with the so-called "anti-globalization" protests, despite the fact that they are often frantic and frenzied and sometimes violent. Debates about globalization demand a better understanding of the underlying issues, which tend to get submerged in the rhetoric of confrontation, on one side, and hasty rebuttals, on the other. Some general points would seem to need particular attention.

1. Anti-globalization protests are not about globalization: The so-called "anti-globalization" protesters can hardly be, in general, anti-globalization, since these protests are among the most globalized events in the contemporary world. The protesters in Seattle, Melbourne, Prague, Quebec, Genoa and elsewhere are not just local kids, but men and women from across the world pouring into the location of the respective events to pursue global complaints.

2. Globalization is not new, nor is it just Westernization: Over thousands of years, globalization has progressed through travel, trade, migration, spread of cultural influences and dissemination of knowledge and understanding (including science and technology).

The influences have gone in different directions. For example, toward the close of the millennium just ended, the direction of movement has been largely from the West to elsewhere, but at the beginning of the same millennium (around 1000 AD), Europe was absorbing Chinese science and technology and Indian and Arabic mathematics. There is a world heritage of interaction, and the contemporary trends fit into that history.

3. Globalization is not in itself a folly: It has enriched the world scientifically and culturally and benefited many people economically as well. Pervasive poverty and "nasty, brutish and short" lives dominated the world not many centuries ago, with only a few pockets of rare affluence. In overcoming that penury, modern technology as well as economic interrelations have been influential. The predicament of the poor across the world cannot be reversed by withholding from them the great advantages of contemporary technology, the well-established efficiency of international trade and exchange and the social as well as economic merits of living in open, rather than closed, societies. What is needed is a fairer distribution of the fruits of globalization.

4. The central issue, directly or indirectly is inequality: The principal challenge relates in one way or another to inequality--between as well as within nations. The relevant inequalities include disparities in affluence, but also gross asymmetries in political, social and economic power. A crucial question concerns the sharing of the potential gains from globalization, between rich and poor countries, and between different groups within countries.

5. The primary concern is the level of inequality, not its marginal change: By claiming that the rich are getting richer and the poorer getting poorer, the critics of globalization have, often enough, chosen the wrong battleground. Even though many sections of the poor in the world economy have done badly (for a variety of reasons, involving domestic as well as international arrangements), it is hard to establish an overall and clear-cut trend. Much depends on the indicators chosen and the variables in terms of which inequality and poverty are judged.

But this debate does not have to be settled as a precondition for getting on with the central issue. The basic concerns relate to the massive levels of inequality and poverty - not whether they are also increasing at the margin. Even if the patrons of the contemporary economic order were right in claiming that the poor in general had moved a little ahead (this is, in fact, by no means uniformly so), the compelling need to pay immediate and overwhelming attention to appalling poverty and staggering inequalities in the world would not disappear.

6. The question is not just whether there exists some gain for all parties, but whether the distribution of gains is fair: When there are gains from cooperation, there can be many alternative arrangements that benefit each party compared with no cooperation. It is necessary, therefore, to ask whether the distribution of gains is fair or acceptable, and not just whether there exists some gain for all parties (which can be the case for a great many alternative arrangements).

As J.F. Nash, the mathematician and game theorist, discussed more than half a century ago (in a paper called "The Bargaining Problem" published in Econmetrica in 1950, cited by the Royal Swedish Academy in awarding him the Nobel prize in economics), in the presence of gains from cooperation, the central issue is not whether a particular joint outcome is better for all than no cooperation (there are many such alternatives), but whether it yields a fair division of the benefits. To consider an analogy, to argue that a particularly unequal and sexist family arrangement is unfair, it does not have to be shown that women would have done comparatively better had there been no families at all, but only that the sharing of the benefits of the family system is seriously unequal and unfair as things are currently organized.

7. The use of the market economy is consistent with many different institutional conditions, and they can product different outcomes: The central question cannot be whether or not to make use of the market economy. It is not possible to have a prosperous economy without its extensive use. But that recognition does not end the discussion, only begins it. The market economy can generate many different results, depending on how physical resources are distributed, how human resources are developed, what "rules of game" prevail and so on, and in all these spheres, the state and the society have roles, within a country and in the world. The market is one institution among many. Aside from the need for pro-poor public policies within an economy (related to basic education and health care, employment generation, land reforms, credit facilities, legal protections, women's empowerment and more), the distribution of the benefits of international interactions depends also on a variety of global arrangements (including trade agreements, patent laws, medical initiatives, educational exchange, facilities for technological dissemination, ecological and environmental policies and so on).

8. The world has changed since, the Bretton Woods agreement: The international, economic, financial and political architecture of the world, which we have inherited from the past (including the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and other institutions), was largely set up in the 1940s, following the Bretton Woods Conference in 1944. The bulk of Asia and Africa was still under imperialist dominance then; tolerance of insecurity and poverty was much greater; the idea of human rights was still very weak; the power of NGOs (non-government organizations) had not emerged yet; the environment was not seen as particularly important; and democracy was definitely not seen as a global entitlement.

9. Both policy, and institutional changes are needed: The existing international institutions have, to varying extents, tried to respond to the changed situation. For example, the World Bank, under James Wolfensohn's guidance, has revised its priorities. The United Nations, particularly under Kofi Annan's leadership, has tried to play a bigger role, despite financial stringency.

But more changes are needed. Indeed, the power structure underlying the institutional architecture itself needs to be reexamined in the light of the new political reality, of which the growth of globalized protest is only a loosely connected expression.

The balance of power that reflected the status quo in the 1940s also has to be reexamined. Consider the problem of management of conflicts, local wars and the spending on armament. The governments of Third World countries bear much responsibility for the outrageous continuation of violence and waste, but also the arms trade is encouraged by world powers that are often the main sources of armament export. Indeed, as the Human development Report of the 1993 UN Development Program pointed out, not only were the top five arms-exporting countries precisely the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, but also they were, together, responsible for 86 percent of all the conventional weapons exported during the period studied. It is not hard to explain the inability of the world establishment to deal more effectively with these merchants of death.

The anti-globalization protests are themselves part of the general process of globalization, from which there is no escape and no grate reason to seek escape.

The recent difficulties even in getting support for a joint crackdown on illicit arms (as proposed by Kofi Annan) is a small illustration of a big obstacle related to the global power balance.

10. Global construction is the needed response to global doubts: The anti-globalization protests are themselves part of the general process of globalization, from which there is no escape and no great reason to seek escape. But while we have reason enough to support globalization in the best sense of the idea, there are also critically important institutional and policy issues that need to be addressed at the same time. It is not easy to disperse the doubts without seriously addressing the underlying concerns that motivate those doubts. That, at any rate, should not come as a surprise.

2. More progress in theh of power than out

Chris Patten, external affairs commissioner of the EU, was the last governor of Hong Kong.

Nobody should fudge the difference between peaceful demonstration and violence. There is a huge gap between those that go to international conferences in Prague, Gothenberg and Genoa as members of non-governmental organizations with a legitimate concern about the environment or poverty and those with clubs and helmets who are determined to find an excuse to throw Molotov cocktails and smash in the windows at McDonalds.

These violent demonstrators should be dealt with forcefully. Everyone regrets the death in Genoa. But if the demonstrations had been peaceful, that would not have happened.

The problem with the dialogue with the peaceful demonstrators is that there isn't one focus, but a disparate number of causes. And, in any event, anti-globalization is an absurd proposition. You cannot be for or against a process that is underway. You can have views about how to deal with the problems and promises it creates. There are ways to produce bigger and better opportunities for people to benefit from globalization. But, you can't be against it. It is happening beyond the control of anyone and not at the instigation of any one country, like America. globalization demonstration poverty economy

In order to deal with the problems and realize the promises, what is needed is international cooperation. What is needed is precisely the kind of organizations the demonstrators are campaigning against.

At the European Council meeting in Gothenberg last spring, where alas demonstrators were also shot, we were debating "sustainable development." Frankly, we were making more progress toward sustainable development in the hall than was being made by those outside.

I'm all for having a dialogue. But it is quite difficult when some people don't want to listen. What I am absolutely certain about is that those who are demonstrating in a well-meaning way against freer trade, for example, are in practice advocating policies that will make poor people poorer and further degrade the global environment.

At the same time there are serious issues we need to address - like the billion people living on less that $1 a day; like the AIDS pandemic in Africa and parts of Asia; like malaria and TB; like the international drug trade.

Finally, as these demonstrations are bound to continue, democratic societies will be forced to face the issue of legitimacy of these protest groups. What gives these self-appointed activists the right to try to shut down the meetings of democratically elected leaders? Who has chosen them to speak in their name?

3. Don't trash McDonald's

Jack Greenberg, the CEO of McDonald's, was recently interviewed by Foreign Policy editor Moises Naim. His comments are excerpted from a longer conversation in the summer issue of Foreign Policy magazine.

There is an assumption that we're some big American company that exports things everywhere else to make a lot of money. Sure, we're everywhere, but so is Nokia. So is NBC, so is CNN.

(McDonald's) is a global brand, but we run our business in a fundamentally different way that ought to appeal to some critics of globalization. We are a decentralized entrepreneurial network of locally owned stores that is very flexible and adapts very well to local conditions. We offer an opportunity to entrepreneurs to run a local business with local people supplied by a local infrastructure. Each creates a lot of small businesses around it.

Second, the idea that we damage the environment. Not only is the charge (that we raise cattle on land slashed from rainforests) not true, but our environmental record is generally very good. We've never bought cattle that were anywhere near a rainforest. We've had the policy for 13 years.

Third, this issue of McDonald's as a cultural threat. We have become the symbol of everything people don't like or are worried about in terms of their own culture. I think that charge reveals a level of general insecurity about identity rather than anything about McDonald's, and it doesn't square with the facts. You know, we've been in countries such as Japan, Canada and Germany for almost 30 years. I don't see those cultures faltering because of McDonald's. In fact, I think the opposite is true.

Fourth, the idea that there's a nutritional problem with McDonald's. The facts are that we're selling meat and potatoes and bread and milk and Coca-Cola and lettuce and everything else you can buy in a grocery store. What you choose to eat is a personal issue. Every nutritionist I've talked to says a balanced diet is the key to health. You can get a balanced diet at McDonald's. It's a question of how you use McDonald's. Nobody's mad at the grocery store because you can buy potato chips and pastries there. Nobody wants a full diet of that either.

We are a lightning rod in France for a lot of criticism. But think about how consumers are behaving in France. What do the people do? Do they not vote with their feet by patronizing our stores? Are those restaurants not owned by French? Are they not buying French farmers' products? Are they not creating jobs for the advertising agency, the construction company, the real estate agent, the lawyers, the accountants? Do they not create jobs for thousands of kids who, in France in particular, have had a hard time getting into the workforce? I mean, this is a fabulous story for France. It's not being told. It is a wonderful story, not something we should be ashamed of or embarrassed about. It's a great story. Most companies can't tell this story, French or otherwise.

Jose Bove (the French farmer who trashed a McDonald's site) and a handful of terrorists are more interested in using McDonald's as a convenient symbol than understanding the facts behind our business. (They should) recognize the essential local character of McDonald's and find a more appropriate target for whatever it is that they're angry about.

Let us start by saying that globalization is quite a complex subject.

It is difficult to study for several reasons, among which:

· There is no unique definition of the term. The meaning of globalization varies according to how one approaches the subject and even how one feels about it. Definitions will also vary according to the social actor defining it (e.g. worker, employer, government official), on the adopted perspective (e.g. historical, economic, legal, sociological, etc.) and on the ideological orientation of the people or institutions who use the term. Because the definition of globalization is not settled, defining the term is itself a subject of some debate.

· Globalization is multidimensional. This means that it involves many dimensions of reality, such as technology, the economy, politics, the society, culture, and the environment.

· Globalization is dynamic. It is an ongoing process which evolves together with the new frontiers of technological progress, with the establishment of new trade or investment agreements, with developments in international political cooperation among countries, or with the intensification (or slowing) of cross-border migration flows.

· Globalization is the subject of ideological judgement. Due to the complexity of the concept and the "openness" of its definition, not only the media but also politicians and opinion leaders often misuse this word. The media have turned globalization into a buzzword. Prejudice and passion have led to a no-way-out debate. In some extreme cases we see the irreconcilable positions of those who see globalization as the source of any modern evil and those who think it to be the solution to any problem. On the one hand, a free market dogma exists in which the role of the markets and their actors have been exaggerated. On the other hand, an "anti-globalization" dogma has also appeared, sometimes pushing for a total rejection of the globalization process.

A strategy for a more responsible globalization requires us to separate the dogmatic aspects of globalization from the real process.

Given what we have previously said, it is understandable that the definition and judgement of globalization can generate fierce and passionate international debate. That is why we should undertake a short study of the crucial points of the globalization debate.

We will explore the mainstream approaches.

This will help us to build a sort of compass so as not to get lost among the various interpretations and ideological positions in the debate.

Let's begin with some questions and some possible answers:

1. Where does the word "globalization" come from?

Even if "globalization" became a common term only during the last two decades, its origin dates back to the nineteenth century, when some intellectuals adopted it to mean that the modernization process implied a growing integration of the world.

More recently, during the 1980s the word "globalization" appeared in the literature of American management schools as related to the idea of the appearance of a standardized system of production and thus of a homogenized market on a world scale.

In 1991, the Oxford Dictionary of New Words recorded it officially for the first time, as a word of common use to designate the interdependency between environmental problems and human activities.

2. Is globalization a real phenomenon or a myth?

According to some authors, the proof that globalization is a real process is the widespread use of the term itself. For instance, most languages now have a specific word to indicate globalization:

Quan qiu hua in Chinese

Mondialisacion in Spanish

Al-A'awlamah in Arabic

Mondialisation in French

Globalisierung in German

And so on.

More sceptical writers argue that globalization does not really exist, but it is an ideological myth created by some politicians, industrialists, national and international institutions in order to legitimate and spread the neo-liberal political and economic model. In other words, this view holds that globalization represents a further development of the market economy.

3. When did globalization begin?

The chronology of globalization can be analysed under both an historical and economic perspective with relevant similarities.

Under the historical perspective, some authors see globalization as a long-term process that goes in parallel with the history of mankind itself. International trade, currency exchange, mass migration, passport-free travel, and multicultural societies were all features of the world 100 years before. According to these observers, globalization faces "ups and downs" that correspond respectively to periods of acceleration and slowing in the contacts and exchanges among people and civilisations around the world. According to this view, periods of geographical discoveries and intensification of international trade were "ups" whereas wars were "downs". On the contrary, other authors argue that globalization is rather peculiar to the Second World War aftermath and marks a brand new era in international relations and new technologies. They describe a world of dramatic transformation and new global dynamics - a world dominated by corporations and technologies, where governments have no real power and people have no faith in traditional politics.

Two theses co-exist under the economic perspective, as well. On the one hand, some authors affirm that globalization is not anything new but the progressive intensification of economic internationalization. On the other hand, others support the idea that globalization definitely is a new economic phase, since it marks a qualitative passage from economic internationalisation to economic integration.

4. Which is the main factor causing globalization?

In the previous section you read that globalization is a complex phenomenon that involves many dimensions of reality, such as technology, economics, politics, the society, culture and the environment. The point here is trying to identify which dimension plays the role of main globalizer.

Some authors argue that the most important role in triggering globalization was played by the rapid progress in the information and communication technologies which offered new huge opportunities for economic profit and contacts between people (e.g. online money transfers and stock exchange operations; E-mail and fast transportation).

Others say that supremacy has to be tributed to the economy, and especially to the new productive strategies based on firms' relocation processes on world scale pioneered by multinational enterprises (MNEs).

Finally, a third mainstream position identifies the main factor in the progress of the globalization process in recent political decision-making. According to this view, globalization was deliberately started by a large number of political subjects (governments, international organizations, MNEs) who took significant initiatives towards liberalisation, deregulation and privatisation both at a national, regional and international level.

5. Is globalization a spontaneous or an artificial process?

This point is somehow interlinked with the previous one.

In general, those who support the technological or economic supremacy within the globalization take-off tend to support its spontaneous nature (and thus inevitable, necessary development). On the contrary, those who prefer to identify the main globalizing factor in politics would rather argue the artificial nature of globalization (and thus that as political decisions started it, political decisions can change it, slow it or even stop and re-absorb it).

Note that this point will be crucial to introduce the concept of governance of globalization.

We earlier stated that there is no unique definition for globalization due to its peculiar features as multidimensional, dynamic and ideological concept with multiple possible meanings. The meaning of the term globalization is itself the topic of our discussion. Each of us defines it according to personal experience and local background.

Obviously, these definitions will not be neutral. This happens because definitions originating from different cultural and disciplinary backgrounds mutually complete each other.

In fact, the best description of globalization is generally provided by a set of definitions rather than only one.

If you would like to read a sample set of definitions on globalization issued from different backgrounds.

However, some broad key concepts regularly make an appearance when we define globalization, no matter our cultural, professional or academic background.

Globalization is often described as:

· Unification, deterritorialization, internationalization, space integration, atemporality, simultaneity (common worldwide perception of space and time).

· Growth of world interdependency (the effects of someone's action can more and more have a worldwide immediate repercussion on other people's lives; local happenings are shaped by events occurring many miles away and vice versa).

· Universalization, worldwide intensification of international exchanges (of information, trade, migratory flows).

· Westernization, modernization, homologation, homogenization, "neo-colonialism" (of people and cultures. The mainstream perception here is that capitalism, rationalism, industrialism, bureaucracy, etc. are deliberately spread the over the world destroying pre-existent cultures, local habits and identities).

· "Pensee unique", "Washington Consensus" (worldwide homogenization of the dominant political-economic model).

· Standardization, uniformization (of production and consumption).

· Uncertainty, risk, flexibility, mobility, precariousness, race-to-the-bottom (of working conditions, social life, quality of living and the environment).

Not only the definition, but the measure of globalization is controversial, too. This depends on the fact that globalization is a multidimensional phenomenon involving both qualitative and quantitative variables.

Of course, there is no common agreement yet on the methodology that should be adopted to measure globalization correctly. Nevertheless, a very interesting attempt has recently been carried out by the magazine Foreign Policy http://www.foreignpolicy.com/ which elaborated a special Globalization Index. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=2493&page=6 calculated on a national base.

Have a look at the variables considered in the Globalization Index: they are classed into 4 groups according to their nature.

· Personal contacts: international travel and tourism, international telephone traffic and cross-border transfers

· Economic integration: international trade, foreign direct investment (FDI) and portfolio capital flows and income payments and receipts (including compensation of non-resident employees and income earned and paid on assets held abroad)

· Technology: number of internet users, internet hosts and servers

· Political engagement: number of memberships in international organizations, UN Security Council missions in which each country participates and foreign embassies hosted by each country.

According to the GI the top 20 globalized countries were:

In 2004: 1) Ireland, 2) Singapore, 3) Switzerland, 4) Netherlands, 5) Finland, 6) Canada, 7) United States, 8) New Zealand, 9) Austria, 10) Denmark, 11) Sweden, 12) United Kingdom, 13) Australia, 14) Czech Republic, 15) France, 16) Portugal, 17) Norway, 18) Germany, 19) Slovenia, 20) Malaysia.

In 2003: 1) Ireland, 2) Switzerland, 3) Sweden, 4) Singapore, 5) Netherlands, 6) Denmark, 7) Canada, 8) Austria, 9) United Kingdom, 10) Finland, 11) United States, 12) France, 13) Norway, 14) Portugal, 15) Czech Republic, 16) New Zealand, 17) Germany, 18) Malaysia, 19) Israel, 20) Spain.

We reviewed some basic concepts and influential views about globalization. We also saw that a number of possible definitions, approaches, interpretations and judgements on globalization exist. Among them, some deny the possibility of governing this process through appropriate policies and merely suggest accepting it as it is, at most attempting at smoothening its most painful aspects. Others hold, instead, that some scope and opportunities for the governance of globalisation indeed exist and have to be pursued to attain a fair globalisation for all. The latter position is adopted by the Report of the World Commission on the Social Dimension of Globalization, issued in March 2004. The Report holds that:

"No country can today opt out of the global economy. The challenge is to manage interaction with global markets to ensure growth, development and equity. That requires successful and responsible enterprises, which can generate jobs, wealth and innovation and contribute to public resources, as well as strong and representative organizations of employers and workers, to ensure sustainable growth and equitable distribution of its outcomes" (p. 7)

Since we believe in this opportunity, we shall propose a perspective on globalization that accepts its governance as an attainable goal, not as an impossible challenge.

However, this view is fully debatable and is open for discussion and further developments in our Computer Conference through your contributions.

The details of a perspective on globalization which leaves the door open for governance are organized around some key questions you already met in the previous sections. This represents the departure point towards our analysis and proposals for a sustainable globalization.

· Is globalization a real phenomenon or a myth?

Globalization is a real process. Nevertheless, its magnitude, impact and responsibility in world affairs is often exaggerated, overemphasised for ideological purpose. Globalisation often is an all too convenient excuse and explanation for anti-social policies. We shall therefore precise that within the real process of globalization there are some mythic elements. For instance, globalization is often described as an already completed process. This is basically wrong. Globalization is still an ongoing process, far from being complete. Most probably, it will never achieve the magnitude, intensity and extension sometimes attributed to it (i.e. world cultural homogenization).

· When did globalization begin?

Globalization brings something new at historical level. It started during a phase featuring important events that changed the world international relations system. First, a downward trend in world economic performance followed the exceptional growth achieved in the Western world between 1950s and 1970s (the so-called "Glorious Thirty"). Second, the end of the Bretton-Woods System (1971) restored freely floating exchange rates, while currencies had been over a relative peg to gold since 1945. Third, the energetic crises resulted into the oil shocks of 1973 and 1979. Finally, the Cold War ended with the implosion of the Soviet Union system (1989) and entailed a virtually worldwide diffusion of the market economy.

Globalisation brings something new at an economic level as well. A global economy is an unprecedented phenomenon, not to be confused with economic internationalization. In fact, a world economy has existed since the 16th century, based on the development of international trade, foreign direct investment and migration. Globalization is rather refers to a qualitative passage from economic internationalisation to economic integration. This concept encompasses the integration of production across national boundaries through the development of cycles of production on a global scale. These productive cycles rapidly expand worldwide through a new division of labour based on flexible strategies of production (i.e. relocation, outsourcing, etc.) and are accompanied by significant increases in international investment by multinational enterprises (MNEs).

· Is globalization a spontaneous or an artificial process?

Globalization can be considered both as a spontaneous and an artificial process.

On the one side, globalization is a long-term trend that goes together with the natural progressive intensification in trade, money and people flows. In this sense, globalization is fostered by technological innovation in transports and communications; by the growth of world production (measured by GDP growth); and by increasing contacts between people across border.

On the other side, the natural progression of globalization has been artificially accelerated by political decisions and public policies taken by key actors (governments, international organizations, politicians, businessmen, etc.). These political decisions are being implemented at an international, national and local level and include provisions towards deregulation, liberalisation of national markets and privatisation of the public sector.

Now, you have gone through several conceptual aspects related to the concept of globalization.

In particular, you read that:

· There is no single definition of "globalization" as globalization is a multidimensional, dynamic and ideologically biased concept. Several definitions of globalization rather co-exist: they vary on the social background, ideological orientation, professional profile and subjective perception of the definer. A definition of globalization can hardly comprise the whole phenomenon: it is therefore recommendable to open a discussion within our group in order to collectively define globalization according to the different perspectives of our group.

· There are also different interpretations concerning over the origins, existence, chronology and nature of globalization: even if apparently conflicting, these views may be complementary and help understand globalization in a more comprehensive way.

· Globalization is a complex phenomenon to analyze because it enshrines both qualitative and quantitative variables.

· Globalization is a real process that encompasses both elements of continuity and change at an historical and economic level. We also argue that globalization shows a twofold nature: a "spontaneous" one - particularly related to technological innovation - and an "artificial" one, driven by political decisions. The latter point leaves scope for the governance of globalization, to make it better and more inclusive.



Glossary

spontaneous - спонтанный

scope - сфера

development - развитие

comprise - включать

concerning- относительно

variables - переменных

comprehensive - комплексный

existence - существование

several - несколько

flow - поток

performance - производительность

enshrines - закрепляет

worldwide - всемирный

privatisation - приватизация

apparently - по-видимому

inclusive - включительно

perception - восприятие

multidimensional - многомерный

concept - концепция

probably - вероятно

relations - отношения

perspective - перспектива

continuity - непрерывность

significant - значительный

production - производство

basically - в основном

particular - частность

enterprise - предприятие

instead - вместо

precariousness - ненадежность

extension - расширение

argue - спорить

according - в соответствии

definition - определение

encompasses - включает в себя

economic - экономика

politicals - политики

innovation - инновации

liberalization - либерализация

related - связанные

quality - качество

opposite - противоположный

governmental - правительственный

influential - влиятельный

indirectly - косвенным

consumption - потребление

artificial - искусственный

promise - обещание

organization - организация

irreconcilable - непримиримый

Размещено на Allbest.ru

...