Proponents and Opponents of GlobalizationMany negative and positive thoughts have been given to the process of globalization. Supporters of globalization rather see the advantages of globalization, while opponents have based their opinions on the disadvantages of globalization. Supporters strongly believe in free markets and limited government intervention. According to Preble (2010), globalization has led to the creation of jobs, higher standards of living, and a greater variety of goods available to consumers. International trade is one of the driving forces of globalization. Countries specialize in specific goods in which they have a comparative advantage. This results in greater efficiency and productivity and ultimately leads to improved living standards. As a result, exports increase. This means more jobs are created, a greater variety of goods are available and international competition is increased. This results in lower prices, keeping inflation under control (Preble, 2010). Furthermore, Preble (2010) states that increased trade in goods and services, foreign direct investment, and cross-border investment have been important to the success of globalization. Other important benefits, mentioned by supporters of globalization, are the promotion of information exchange and a high understanding of a variety of cultures. Globalization has led to a world where “democracy has triumphed over autocracy” (BBC News, 2000, as stated in Preble, 2010, p. 334). On the other hand, opponents question whether the benefits of globalization compensate for the disadvantages created. According to them, globalization has manifested unemployment, poverty and marginalization. Furthermore, it was one of the key factors... half of the article ......ds & Gelleny, 2007). Furthermore, the status of women is independent of political adjustments in developing countries. Governments of developing countries should organize an economically and politically stable environment, to be economically attractive (Maxfield, 1998 cited in Richards & Gelleny, 2007). Other critics say state governments are being forced to cut spending on education and social programs. This phenomenon especially affects women (Ayres & McCalla, 1997, cited in Richards & Gelleny, 2007). Because the public sector is a major employer of women, women are often the most disadvantaged by government efforts to cut public sector spending (Hemmati & Gardiner, 2004, as cited in Richards & Gelleny, 2007). As a result, women will become unemployed and unable to expand education among themselves or their children. (Richards and Gelleny, 2007)