In Essay test –E03 , we gave a topic- Is globalization is digging its own grave in the form of de-globalization ?
We believe this is a potential question for upcoming Mains exam (Essay or GS paper) and the developments around the world suggest the same. UPSC, does not ask you the issue as is, it goes little deeper and asks you the undercurrent of the issue in the form of a theme and so are we.
A question reached us with regards to the essay in the student portal and publishing it for all to benefit. The question being :-
What’s difference between these two essays, whether these requires different approach? Do we need to take a stand in the first one because it is asked in a question format and justify the second one because it is a statement ?
1. Is globalization digging its own grave in the form of de-globalization? (Question given by us)
2. Globalization is digging its own grave in the form of de-globalization.
Answer:-
The difference is simple, The first one is a question – so you need to give an answer to that and you have to write your essay in such manner that you can justify your answer. In this type of essay first think of the conclusion and what is your answer to that question and then write the introduction and body of the essay keeping conclusion in mind. Sort of Reverse Engineering.
The later one is a statement, so you have to justify the statement but if you have something concrete that goes against the statement, then you can put that in to essay.
If we think of the topic itself:-
1)Is globalization digging its own grave ? Yes, it appears so, countries are trying to isolate themselves, especially those countries that were the main vehicle behind globalization. For example USA and the recent politics in USA suggesting more isolationism and protectionism etc, because when globalization did help the corporation in USA , it took away their job to other parts of the world and thus the new politics is based around protectionism, more jobs at home etc. The recent case of BREXIT also signifies this trend of de-globalization.
2)But that is just the appearance of de-globalization , and globalization is here to stay. That’s the stand you should take to answer both the essay. Just because a statement is given, that does not mean it should be your ultimate stand, you can justify it to certain length but if evidence suggest otherwise then go for it.
The reason we gave it as a question is due to the fact that you have to take a stand and your options are not limited, but in real exam when the question is asked in the form of a statement – usually one has to justify it (As the experience of UPSC suggests)
For this kind of topic, UPSC will ask it as a question rather than a statement as we did, because what the examiner is expecting from you is – Your critical understanding of the issue and you general understanding of how economies work and the how “invisible of hand of market” operate (Here you can justify that – in a globalized world, companies will look for more profit and look ways to cut cost, that’s the reality.Commercial corporations can not sustain without profit and if the policy environment chokes them, they will go somewhere else which is more conducive- that’s is the reality of business or as they say- invisible hand of the market)
Refer these two editorials as well-
http://upsctree.com/2016/06/19/daily-editorials-robin-hood-principle/
http://upsctree.com/2016/10/01/daily-editorials-globalization-answer/
More reference material and critical analysis will be provided when we provide topic wise strategy.
Receive Daily Updates
Recent Posts
[wptelegram-join-channel link=”https://t.me/s/upsctree” text=”Join @upsctree on Telegram”]2021 WEF Global Gender Gap report, which confirmed its 2016 finding of a decline in worldwide progress towards gender parity.
Over 2.8 billion women are legally restricted from having the same choice of jobs as men. As many as 104 countries still have laws preventing women from working in specific jobs, 59 countries have no laws on sexual harassment in the workplace, and it is astonishing that a handful of countries still allow husbands to legally stop their wives from working.
Globally, women’s participation in the labour force is estimated at 63% (as against 94% of men who participate), but India’s is at a dismal 25% or so currently. Most women are in informal and vulnerable employment—domestic help, agriculture, etc—and are always paid less than men.
Recent reports from Assam suggest that women workers in plantations are paid much less than men and never promoted to supervisory roles. The gender wage gap is about 24% globally, and women have lost far more jobs than men during lockdowns.
The problem of gender disparity is compounded by hurdles put up by governments, society and businesses: unequal access to social security schemes, banking services, education, digital services and so on, even as a glass ceiling has kept leadership roles out of women’s reach.
Yes, many governments and businesses had been working on parity before the pandemic struck. But the global gender gap, defined by differences reflected in the social, political, intellectual, cultural and economic attainments or attitudes of men and women, will not narrow in the near future without all major stakeholders working together on a clear agenda—that of economic growth by inclusion.
The WEF report estimates 135 years to close the gap at our current rate of progress based on four pillars: educational attainment, health, economic participation and political empowerment.
India has slipped from rank 112 to 140 in a single year, confirming how hard women were hit by the pandemic. Pakistan and Afghanistan are the only two Asian countries that fared worse.
Here are a few things we must do:
One, frame policies for equal-opportunity employment. Use technology and artificial intelligence to eliminate biases of gender, caste, etc, and select candidates at all levels on merit. Numerous surveys indicate that women in general have a better chance of landing jobs if their gender is not known to recruiters.
Two, foster a culture of gender sensitivity. Take a review of current policies and move from gender-neutral to gender-sensitive. Encourage and insist on diversity and inclusion at all levels, and promote more women internally to leadership roles. Demolish silos to let women grab potential opportunities in hitherto male-dominant roles. Work-from-home has taught us how efficiently women can manage flex-timings and productivity.
Three, deploy corporate social responsibility (CSR) funds for the education and skilling of women and girls at the bottom of the pyramid. CSR allocations to toilet building, the PM-Cares fund and firms’ own trusts could be re-channelled for this.
Four, get more women into research and development (R&D) roles. A study of over 4,000 companies found that more women in R&D jobs resulted in radical innovation. It appears women score far higher than men in championing change. If you seek growth from affordable products and services for low-income groups, women often have the best ideas.
Five, break barriers to allow progress. Cultural and structural issues must be fixed. Unconscious biases and discrimination are rampant even in highly-esteemed organizations. Establish fair and transparent human resource policies.
Six, get involved in local communities to engage them. As Michael Porter said, it is not possible for businesses to sustain long-term shareholder value without ensuring the welfare of the communities they exist in. It is in the best interest of enterprises to engage with local communities to understand and work towards lowering cultural and other barriers in society. It will also help connect with potential customers, employees and special interest groups driving the gender-equity agenda and achieve better diversity.