Global cities show a particularly high degree of social polarization Essay

Social polarization is a relatively new urban phenomenon that identifies the existence of a widening gap between the rich and poor within a social group or entity. This gap has developed in country’s societies as a result of ‘income equalities, real estate fluctuations and economic displacement’ (Moulaert 2003). The effects can be damaging to society and can include ‘a loss of resources, investment and young people to the core’ (Bradford and Kent 1995). I aim to discuss and explain social polarization in terms of the causes and effects on society, as well as the main catalysts of polarization. Many geographers believe that globalization is a process that ‘has enabled nation-states, TNCs, as well as individuals, to extend their reach across the globe’ (Daniels et al 2008). Globalization has meant that ‘national economies have become integrated into the international economy’ (Croucher 2004) as a result of trade, capital flows, foreign direct investment, migration and the spread of technology; leading to the growth of many sectors, especially the financial sector, where information is easily accessible via a technologically strong communications network. Some are of the belief that ‘Globalization leads directly to social polarization’ (Sassen 1991) The rapid growth in the financial sector has led to the formation of very well paid positions within financial institutes dominated by managers, executives and stockbrokers. However, it has also created large numbers of low-paying jobs, often filled by women and the minorities in unskilled positions. As a result of this, income inequality is common in global cities with salaries ranging greatly. The United Nations quoted that ‘between 1960 and 1990 country differentials between the wealthiest and poorest 20% increased from 30 to more than 60 (UNDP 1993)(Thrift et al 2002). This can lead to a number of problems, with the lower paid workers easily replaced by an abundant supply of workers moving to the area from abroad, known as the ‘urban immigrant population’ (Chao-Lin 2002). The replacement of low-income workers has become a problem in many global cities, for example in Beijing, the open door immigration policy as led to an influx of urban immigrants. Many social problems are caused as a result of this, such as stress at home and at work etc. This, in turn, widens the gap between the richer and poorer people in society; thus increasing social polarization. The ‘transnationals’ have, of course, greatly changed the economic environment. At the global scale their location of production in developing countries has contributed to what has been called a global shift’ (Bradford and Kent 1995). In the first half of the twentieth century the majority of manufacturing and production plants was concentrated in the core: Western Europe and North America. However, a ‘global shift’ (Bradford and Kent 1995) did occur and by the 1980s a third of TNCs had moved to global production in Newly Industrializing Countries (NICs) at the periphery. As these TNCs made more money and became financially stronger, there was a shift of power from the governments to the transnationals’. The TNCs have great control over some sectors of the economy, as government revenue from taxes is recycled (through wages) back into the large corporations. TNCs can cause a variety of problems by locating in developing countries, ‘the concentration of many transnationals’ activities in one area, often the core, may exacerbate inter-regional differences’ (Bradford and Kent 1995). Again, this will cause social polarization as different areas in a country, or town will show differences in amenities etc. due to a greater investment in infrastructure. However, this investment in the core regions is needed to service the large corporations. Investment will attract people, jobs and activity into the core regions, thus emphasizing the strength of the pull factors created by TNCs: more well paid jobs are created, better living conditions, more amenities etc. However, ‘this is often at the expense of peripheral regions which lose resources, investment and young people to the core – the so called backwash or polarization effects’ (Bradford and Kent 1995). Friedmann’s Core Periphery Model is relevant here as over time people are drawn from the periphery areas into the core, (See Figure 1). Transnationals’ can also cause problems if similar corporations locate in the same countries, thus leading to ‘segmentation of markets’ (classifying markets into distinct subsets with the same needs).   (Todd 1977). (Classifying markets into distinct subsets with the same needs). This can lead to social differences being accentuated, again relating back to differences in income inequality and quality of life at the core and periphery. Furthermore, particular cultures in countries have changed as a result of ‘acquisition of material goods’ (Bradford and Kent 1995). This has lead to people’s position in society being determined by possession or consumption of particular goods, causing anger and stress, which causes societies to began more polarized. To conclude; in my opinion social polarization, can only have a negative effect on societies and countries as stress and anger is caused as a result of concentrations of investment in core areas, leaving peripheral areas without amenities and jobs. As TNCs continue to increase in size the effects of polarization can only increase with the gap between different social groups increasing, as a result of income inequality and economic displacement. With increased control and power, soon TNCs will have even more control than some governments, and this can already be seen in some areas of the world with governments in India etc. being unable to stop sweatshop labour e.g. Nike in Bangladesh. Polarization shows gaps in society have begun to develop as local markets develop in global markets as a result of globalization and the growth of large corporations. References Bradford, M. and Kent, A. 1993 Understanding Human Geography: People and their   Ã‚  Ã‚   Changing Environments, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Chao-Lin, G.U. 2001 Social Polarization and Segregation in Beijing, Beijing, Science  Ã‚  Ã‚   Press, http://www.springerlink.com/content/h3w8112rj24l8468/fulltext.pdf, 29th  Ã‚  Ã‚   November Johnston, R.J., Taylor, P.J and Watts, M.J. 1995 The Reconfiguration of Late   Ã‚  Ã‚   Twentieth-Century Capitalism. In Johnston, R.J., Taylor, P.J and Watts, M.J.  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   (eds) Geographies of Global Change: Remapping the World, Blackwell   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Publishers Ltd., United Kingdom, 19-29. Moulaert, F., Swyndedouw, E. and Rodriguez, A. 2003 The Globalized City:   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Economic Restructuring and Social Polarization in European Cities, Oxford   Ã‚   University Press, Oxford. Sassen, S. 2001 The Global City, Princeton University Press, USA Todd, D. 1977 Polarization and the Regional Problem: Manufacturing in Nova Scotia,    The University of Manitoba Geography Department, Canada. Figure 1. Rodrigue, Dr. J. P. Department of Economics and Geography, 1998 Bradshaw, M., Daniels, P., Shaw, D. and Sidway, J. 2008 An Introduction to Human  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Geography, Pearson Education Limited, England.