It is amazing to see the interconnection between different countries when it comes to trade. The demand of a certain good in one country can lead to the creation of jobs and an increase in wealth in another country. This is because of several reasons, including the simple fact that the resources in the world are not evenly spread, and some countries are simply endowed with certain resources more than another.
In the Nike case study, we see the “linkages between consumption and production” as the demand of athletic shoes leads to the creation of jobs in different parts of Asia. These places are simply endowed with human labor, and the exploitation of human labor by Nike and other Transnational companies may not be as bad as it has projected to look. In fact, if these countries did not go in for labor, what would happen to all the labor in these counties? From this, we can say that globalization has a lot of benefits, one of them being that it reduces unemployment.
However, Stiglitz makes us realize that, globalization has brought “huge benefits to a few with a few benefits to the many”. In the Nike scenario, will we say that the jobs that were created in Korea and China are the huge benefits or rather the few benefits to the many? I believe in this case, almost everyone benefits from it: Americans are able to satisfy their demands for the athletic shoes, and jobs are created in Korea and China. Therefore, this can be considered to be a “few benefits to the many” scenario as the benefits were widespread.