Like most governance phenomena, globalization has advantages and limitations. If we wish to reduce inequalities and inequities, then globalization can be used for it. If we wish to increase inequalities and inequities, then globalization can be used for it. If we do not care about inequalities and inequities, then we can use globalization to focus on other interests. Here is a series of examples of how globalization is used for local livelihoods, for good and bad, in island locations which are particularly affected by globalization:

1. https://www.islandstudies.ca/sites/vre2.upei.ca.islandstudies.ca/files/u2/ISJ-2-1-2007-Kelman-pp101-114.pdf

2. https://doi.org/10.1111/area.12457

3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.imic.2015.04.001

4. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/e/9781315764528/chapters/10.4324/9781315764528-9

5. http://jmic.online/issues/v6n2/1

Without doubt, globalization has created fresh opportunities for hundreds of millions of people: but, the gap between high-income and low-income countries has widened and inequality within many countries has increased. Piketty's Capital in the Twenty-First Century (2014) is a magnum opus on income inequality. To note, the gist of Piketty's argument is not that—per Marxian dogma—inequality is determined by the modes of production that technology dictates: rather, Piketty sees inequality as a social phenomenon that is driven by human institutions. And so, the relationship between globalization and (in)equality, as much else, needs to be managed to make sure it runs for common interest and certainly for social justice.

Yes and no. As Noam Chomsky put it, "globalization is a double edged sword." It can be used to bring equality and justice, at the same time increase inequalities. We can see this in four areas, economically, politically, socially and culturally. Economically, price competitions making goods more affordable, or using cheap labor and outsourcing maximizing profits, and providing job opportunities worldwide, at the same time making room for exploitation. Politically, by interfering in other countries' affairs easily, and depending on the intention, either cause wars and unrest, or uphold international core values like the human rights. Socially, bring certain communities together such as stamp collectors and pop star fans finding technology and social media as a platform to get closer, but at the same time people in the same geographical community don't interact and care for each other., or terrorists find it easy to unite as well. Culturally by again having technology as a platform to revive and continue cultural heritage activities and traditions; at the same time creating a cultural dominance with what seems to be popular at the time.

Dear Desma, as Selin puts it via Noam Chomsky, it can really be a double edged sword. By this I mean that if globalisation is entrenched in ideological concepts related to neoliberalism it becomes "market fundamentalism". Stay well.