Chupical Shollah Manuel Globalization as a theory, concept and ideology has roots from modernization theories. It has been advanced by industrialized nations and thereupon imposed on the developing nations. This concept is paradoxical where in one hand it is liberating and on the other it is constraining. In this paper, globalization is defined as a set of institutional and ideological relations which brings nations into a global village, fusion of cultures, and advancement of geopolitics, internationalization, increased borderless society and global market economy (Robertson, 1992; Ritzer, 2004; Wallerstein, 1974/2000; Zetlin, 2001). This essay chronicles a heated debate between supporters of globalization and those who are skeptical about it as suggested by the question that globalization benefits small nations while in sharp contrast these small developing nations find it as beneficial to developed nations. A plethora of case studies will be drawn across the globe in assessing these two contrasting views and in the conclusion a judgement will be passed based on the evidence substantiated throughout the entire essay. The assertion that “while promoters of globalization proclaim that this model is the tide that will lift all boats, while citizens movements find that it is instead lifting only yachts” means that globalization is viewed, conceived and interpreted differently by the rich and the poor countries are very sceptical. Globalization is not different from other theories of development such as modernization and microeconomic structural adjustment adjustments (Jauch, 1996). Globalization benefits the rich nations while developing nations are further pushed to the margin. Wallerstein (2000) argues that globalization creates a global capital system where the core countries exploit the periphery countries.

The open market system or trade liberalization has