If you care to count, globalisation is a thirteen-letter word. Perhaps that is why many are tempted to believe that there is a primeval curse on the phenomenon. As the focal point of unending controversy, globalisation has been both lauded to the skies and decried vehemently – often for the same effects. And in a world where economic integration is widely viewed as “detrimental” to poorer nations, many would agree emphatically with the motion of the house – that globalisation is imperialism repackaged.

While making their zealous arguments, however, most critics overlook the fact that by very definition globalisation and imperialism are near-polar opposites. A natural confusion, considering the growing trend of socialistic thought. After all, Lenin wrote extensively about how capitalism was nothing but the parasitic exploitation of the weak nations by the powerful. Central to this perspective is the one where multinationals are considered as monopolistic villains operating in a global playing field without regulations. Here again, with the yoke of the British and the East India company barely off their backs, former colonies can but look upon the phenomenon of integration with deep distrust. And thus, what is in fact the concept of unfettered trade among all countries was blown up to the proportions of an exploitative force to crush developing nations for the selfish interests of the capitalists. At the very onset of our argument, therefore, we arrive at an ambiguity.

The benefits of globalisation, of course, cannot be denied even by the harshest critics. When multinationals enter a developing country, they bring with them productivity-enhancing techniques and better management practices – domestic labourers and managers benefit from these techniques and use them to strengthen their own country’s industries. The nation can thus enhance production, gain access