This is a question whose context we do not really understand.
Globalization refers to the philosophy of who ultimately exploits the strategic resources of a country.
Let's put ourselves first in context.
In the Middle Ages, all wars had religious motives more or less until the war of 30 years. Then the wars changed the nuance between independence and revolutions, from which then the industrial revolution would emerge. We change from being rebels / realists or liberals / conservatives to pass to the relations between bosses and workers (right and left).
Already with financial interests centered on entrepreneurs and no longer kings, they began to see that powerful countries tend to depend on other regions to survive and, therefore, if some do not see any incentive to continue wars (Europe was left bankrupt after of the world wars), they had to look for other ways.
England, with Margaret Thatcher at the helm, was an ideologist who began to propose that companies could have control of strategic resources and not government as such.
This is how neoliberalism began in the world: a new way for capital to accumulate power. Countries with money but without resources "invest" in countries with resources but without money, controlling part of their strategic resources.
The thing was not difficult to sell at the beginning because they started with companies badly managed by the government and that were not very relevant for him. The thing would then get worse. Much worse.
Within a country it also happens, because the resources that a country may have are privatized so that companies are responsible for producing, distributing and managing the value of the resource, giving the government juicy taxes. Thus, the government "gets thinner", because it already has fewer responsibilities.
Corruption will be easily seen in contracts. Many companies want to have this exclusive access to resources, without worrying much about competition. And of course, politicians will not give the contracts to the "fittest" or the "best interests for the people", but the one that puts most on the table.
Globalization is a somewhat romantic word for an economic cancer that has generated many crises such as neoliberalism. Nor did the US escape the consequences of this excess of corporate ambition that was unleashed in its financial crises and trade deficits.
Now it is no longer current speaks of the left or right, but of nationalists and globalists. But we can not think that some are good and others are bad. It would be very "innocent" to think so.
Donald Trump is the first nationalist president of his country, and gave another benefit to employers, sharply reducing their taxes, which has created desperation to get money to his government. That is why the US has aggressively gotten involved with other countries such as Japan, Korea, China and Mexico, to find a way to compensate for the trade deficit and now also the budget that it now has in its hands.
It should be added that the mega-companies involved know how to take advantage of the system, because although many are American, they produce in places where labor is cheaper, and they take a large part of their international income to tax havens, avoiding taxes (and they arrive to evade taxes in their own countries anyway). This means less taxes for the US, and less taxes for the other country.
The great problem of neoliberalism and therefore of globalization is that the wealth produced by a country that is not first class usually goes away. But neither does all this wealth go to the rich country nor is it distributed.
Any economic system that you choose is weak with corruption. At all levels it can exist so that a virus cares little about the ethnicity of a person to live.
Any modern system that touches us means that some companies will be privileged and not others.
At the end of the day there will still be a few who decide the rules to which the majority will comply, and corruption largely defines this.
The best economic model "best by test" is the semi-socialist, which produces the most new rich while there is a situation of co-government between State and society that gives very good rights and guarantees to citizens as has happened in the countries of Northern Europe. In addition to limiting the extent of corruption enough.
But to have a successful country, you require a well-informed society that assumes its civil responsibility, with bi-directional means of communication such as social networks or the media that defend freedom of expression.
In Mexico we have the so-called chayoteros, or those who in the Anglo-Saxon call presitutes, who report the events partially, without giving a solid context and without understanding the situations beyond the facts.
Thus, both models enrich some and destroy others. From the model of your question you can take examples not so bad and lamentable examples.
And given that the English were the ones who started with this relaxation, just do not forget that the luxury and smiles that we see in their royalty, have a hidden and tragic cost that does not have the focus of the cameras. Or is it that England has more prosperous "colonies" in Africa?
Scholars believe that the concept of globalization is that of the widening, deepening and speeding up of worldwide interconnectedness in all aspects of contemporary social life. The idea of globalization was first advanced by Marshal McLuhan although he never saw it been actuaized. Globalization is the intensification of worldwide social relations which link distant localities in such a way that local happenings are shaped by events occurring many miles away and vice versa.
Globalization as a concept has brought certain changes to the world system notable to mention is four of which was first postulated by Held.
First is the extension of social, political and economic activities across political regional and continental boundaries.
Second is the increasing scale of networks and flows of trade, investment finance and so forth
Third is the growth and acceleration of international communication and transport systems which has expedited the transmission of ideas, goods, information, capital and people
Finally, the intensification of impact of global interactions to the extents that events in one osrt of the world increasingly have effects on the people in distant places, and even most local events potentially have global effects.
However, the above changes brought about by globalization and the idea of globalization itself wasn't to enrich or destroy any nation but to build world interconnectedness, there exist arguments that globalization has increased and expanded existing inequalities between the first world nations and the third world nations and also has led to cultural imperialism and media imperialism.
Globalization is a good concept but however certain people exploit this process to enrich their purses and it's been argued that due to the facts that globalization enforces the existing imbalance in the world, there is all indication of dominance from the first world super rich and third world poor nations. Through the imbalance in wealth and information's flows, third world nations are at the receiving end of the effects of globalization
Globalization has never happened in technological area in large scale and if at all it has happened, it has happened in a very small scale. But in "zero technology area" globalization has happened with a larger intensity and with a broad range and almost in every country it has happened. So basically till now the globalization has happened to cater the business of developed countries in to under-developed countries or poor countries or developing countries. That is why the poor countries have become more poor than before and their currency has been depreciated to a greater extent and on the other hand the rich countries have become more rich than before.
The concept behind Globalization is really noble and there is no flaw in its concept but the practical scenario of Glabalization is simply the exploitation of the resources of poor countries or developing countires and this is being executed in a planned manner by offering bribes, by using muscle power and by threatening poor countries economically.
There is need to re-evaluate the functioning of Globalization in major forums and in the desk of UN and I firmly believe that the developed countries should not monopolize their idea of globalization upon others. So the Globalization is required to be decentralized as well.