The protests in Genoa this summer could easily be dismissed as the mindless work-evasion of hundreds of people with a Rik Mayall-esque anarchy fixation. Even with a backdrop of violence and disruption, such a flippant remark would fail to do justice to the demonstrators and their cause. Surely an item of political jargon rarely incites mass riots? Why should "globalisation" provoke such a contrasting reaction?

Globalisation is the process by which national economies become increasingly integrated, often as a result of power wielded by transnational corporations (TNCs). As any suitably paranoid conspiracy theorist will assert, government – and consequently democratic accountability – is becoming ever more impotent. This invading fleet comprises finely apparelled executives rather than bug-eyed aliens…though perhaps the distinction is not quite so clear as it seems! The lives of the mega-rich and the terminally poor are undoubtedly worlds apart.

Globalisation furthers trade links and has the potential to fuel development, but in its current form, protesters argue, the benefits are siphoned off by the greedy or corrupt, while the negatives are concealed by the supposed panacea of "free trade". In today’s society, over 80% of global capital is controlled by the 350 largest TNCs, while the assets of the world’s three richest billionaires exceed the GNP of 600 million people in the least developed countries. It appears that the gap between globalisation theory and practice mirrors that between the rich and the poor world: growing wider and wider.

The roots of globalisation span many fields of progress, from transport to computing, and similarly its branches stretch over almost every nation and citizen. The global communication revolution allows decisions made in company headquarters to be instantly implemented elsewhere, perhaps thousands of miles away. Meanwhile, transport costs have plummeted and a world-wide workforce has become available for companies to colonise. This dissolution of national boundaries has the potential to bring about a "global consciousness" through the integration of societies and cultures. Racism, xenophobia and isolationism would be erased in this noble quest for a truly interdependent world. Unfortunately – though maybe inevitably – this has yet to be realised: those who possess power, TNCs, are possibly least suited to it. Multinational companies are now footloose beyond their wildest dreams, and are consequently able to have global spheres of influence without the tiresome problem of feeling a responsibility to any part of it. This neglect is neither wilful nor sinister; it simply reflects a worrying trend, which elevates economics above people, as was seen in the Bhopal tragedy of 1984. TNCs have grown in size and strength to such and extent that they can control governments and re-write policy. As long as this process continues unregulated, the force of profit will continue unhampered, and globalisation is unlikely to be harnessed.

TNCs are catalysts for development and harbingers of economic success. The injection of capital investment can rejuvenate an area, and often spawns a multitude of connected industries. The M4 corridor is one of globalisation’s most successful ventures in Britain. However, in this country both the infrastructure and the legislation exist to maximise productivity without compromising workers’ rights. In LEDCs, political clashes are frequently won by multinationals. Indeed, India’s governemt was rendered almost helpless in the court battle to secure compensation for the victims of the Bhopal explosion.

Governments vie with each other to attract foreign investment, in order to boost the economy on a local and national scale. Consequently, there is less unemployment and deprivation, and more TNCs may be encouraged to cluster round the area. This leads to regeneration, as component suppliers are established, and improvements in infrastructure are made. Such regeneration in MEDCs greatly boosts the quality of life and skill development of the workforce. In LEDCs, transfer of technology can promote further national development, and begin integration into the lucrative global market.

However, TNCs have adverse effects too. Arguably their abuse of power has created a climate where globalisation, and even internationalism, are negatively regarded. People are enslaved by the economy. It is therefore ironic that globalisation is so often proclaimed by the World Bank and IMF to be a liberator. In LEDCs, a workforce can be exploited if it lacks the legislative protection of workers that exists in the more developed world. In such cases, TNCs actually hinder development, by withholding advanced technology and permitting their new branch plant to perform only the most menial and poorly paid of tasks. Any government grants given would evidently have been better spent elsewhere. Profits may be repatriated overseas, allowing the workers no opportunity to share in corporate success. Resentment then grows because of the loss of local control, particularly if the branch plant is later cast aside, creating mass unemployment. The potential disadvantages are often the reality today, owing to nations’ inability – because of the huge influence exerted by TNCs – to control the movements of the global economy.

Development is invariably difficult to measure, but in terms of the impact – whether good or bad – that globalisation can have, the degree of disparity between LEDCs can be stark, indeed, much of Africa remains untouched by the hands of TNCs. For example, in 1995, the 570 million people of sub-Saharan Africa earned fewer export revenues than Singapore, with just 3 million inhabitants.

The role of government is potentially limitless in controlling rampant globalisation. MEDCs carry sufficient influence to take ethical decisions, which will improve the global situation. With their help, LEDCs ought to be able to control their destinies to an extent where the government itself is conducive to development, rather than a minor hindrance to big business. It is difficult to over-estimate the need for political stability in a country as it strives to become fully integrated in the global economy.

Costa Rica is generally agreed to be a model pupil in the ways of western development. It has a remarkably stable and democratic political background, and has been rewarded for its good behaviour by the World Bank’s "debt for nature" swap, to eliminate the vicious cycle of poverty inherent in national debt. Consequently it juxtaposes the economic success of being a leading member of the Central American Common Market with the environmental consciousness of its wide-ranging national park scheme. However, in recent years there has been widespread deforestation of unprotected land, so that only 12% of the original tropical rainforests remain today. The localised issues that spring from globalisation are perhaps most evident in the Osa peninsula, which supports the Corcovado national park. The wilderness value of this remote area has decreased as visitor pressure threatens to degrade the very environment that makes ecotourism viable. Indigenous peoples and peasant farmers have been exiled from their homes, and are forced to eke out a living on the margins of Corcovado and society itself. This brief case study illustrates some of the serious consequences globalisation can have; even in a "global village" local impacts can be keenly felt.

There has not only been a dramatic growth in inequality between countries due to globalisation, but within countries the disparity between rich and poor has increased. Even established industrialised nations are susceptible to this side-effect of globalisation: the UK has a 14.6% human poverty rating. As ever, the most vulnerable are worst effected by the domination of TNCs, supported by the Bretton Woods institutions, whose arbitrary investment can only be capitalised upon by a minority. Marco Linda, author of "Ecotourism in Costa Rica" claims that: "Sustainability and ecotourism are words on the lips of all Costa Ricans, from the rich entrepreneurs to the campesinos (peasant farmers) who struggle to make a living in the remotest corners of the country." This raises the question of whether any development, which exacerbates poverty can ever be sustainable.

Nearby the Corcovado national park a luxury resort – "Papagayo Ecodevelopment" – is being constructed by a US company using a falsely "green" label. It will comprise luxury apartments, 6500 hotel rooms, a golf course and a designer shopping complex, and is targeted at the high-income American market. Rather than aid the transfer of skills to local Costa Ricans, a managerial workforce will be specially selected from the USA. Furthermore, the threat to the biodiversity of Corcovado could be heightened by a tourist boom, which greatly exceeds the carrying capacity of the fragile and highly specialised environment. Once again, international tour operators rather than the local population enjoy the benefits of globalisation, and simultaneously the laudable idea of ecotourism is defamed.

It is disturbingly evident that globalisation theory and practice are vastly different. While global living standards rise, the chasm between the rich and the poor widens still further. However, there is no justification for apathy and despondency. The possibility exists for the force of globalisation to become a true catalyst in development, but it is vitally important that there is a re-evaluation of attitudes and values by all players, from the general public choosing fairly traded goods, to corporate executives implementing ethical business standards. We all have a duty to recognise that we live in both and international and interdependent world, and secure a more just future. Perhaps the Greve solution is the way forward: "glocalisation". The basis of this concept, conceived by the Mayor of Greve, a small town in Italy, is to put the needs of the individual and the environment before economics. This "slow city" style rejects globalisation by encouraging proactive decision-making. Recently the advances of a hotel chain were firmly rejected, as was a proposal for property development in the surrounding countryside in favour of renovating brownfield sites. This is coupled with a desire to make the most of local resources, skills and products – in this case, Chianti. The young people of Greve are no longer moving away from the area to work, in fact many are returning, and are creating a thriving successful urban area that truly thinks globally and acts locally.

• "Geography in Focus" by Ian Cook, Bob Hordern, Helen McGahan & Penny Ritson.
• "Advanced Geography Case Studies" by Michael Hill.
• "Advanced Geography – Concepts and Cases" by Paul Guinness and Garret Nagle.
• The Penguin Dictionary of Geography.
• The Earthscan Reader in Sustainable Development.
• "The New Rulers of the World" by John Pilger.
• http://www.johnpilger.com/globalisation
• http://www.foe.org.uk
• "Newsnight", BBC 2, 31^st July 2001.