Globalization

[Emaan]

Globalization
Eric Brahm

Globalization is perhaps the central concept of our age. Yet, a single definition of globalization does not exist either amongst academics[1] or in everyday conversation. There is also a lack of consensus as to whether or not globalization is a useful concept to portray current events.[2] While most conceptions focus on different aspects of growing interdependence be it economic, cultural, technological, and the like, at a basic level globalization refers to growing interconnectedness.

This essay will provide a brief, and necessarily incomplete, overview of debates surrounding globalization as a source of and an antidote for conflict. The discussion will focus on economics, political authority, cultural impacts, and discontentment. These categorizations are clearly arbitrary, but given the interconnectedness central to globalization, fully disentangling different forces and processes is impossible.

Economic Globalization
For many, globalization is equated with economic interdependence. At the dawn of the 21st century, the scale and magnitude of global economic interaction appears to be unprecedented.[11] The volume of capital flows far exceeds that of the past. The developing world, too, have increasingly become a part of global trade and capital flows.[12] Contemporary patterns of economic globalization suggest the emergence of a new international division of labor.[13] In short, the world has reached a stage in which one can meaningfully refer to one global economy.[14]

Others present a more limited view. Current trends suggest economic and financial integration has proceeded only in a limited manner.[15] Economic flows remain highly concentrated amongst the wealthiest countries.[16] Within North America, Europe, and East Asia, contrary to the thesis that unfettered global capital will induce homogenization in policy, important differences in the structuring of economic life persist.[17] Even multinational corporations, seen by many as the prime agents of globalization, remain tied in significant ways to their country of origin.[18]

Debate has waged as to whether economic globalization will exacerbate economic inequalities and conflict or contribute to advancing the lot of the poorest relative to others. Studies have pursued whether globalization process have produced wealth convergence and divergence both within developed countries and developing.[19] While markets will produce winners and losers, liberals argue that the openness accompanying globalization will benefit all.[20] Others see the potential to produce widening disparities.[21] The short answer is that the effect of globalization has been both positive and negative and is dependent on a range of domestic and international factors. Extensive evidence also exists to support the claim that economic interdependence is related to more peaceful relations. States, for example, that trade more with each other are less likely to go to war.[22] The direction of causation is less clear, however. In other words, does greater trade lead to peace or does peace lead to greater trade? The greater ties from interdependence have been argued to lead to both greater cooperation and conflict. The relationship is, in fact, most likely nonlinear.[23]

Nation-states bypassed by globalization may resent the advancement of others. At the same time, many critics argue engagement in the global economy is exploitation in itself. For those who believe the nation-state is in retreat, the growing power of unaccountable market forces and international organizations provokes calls for change.[24] Many NGOs (and global civil society more broadly) resist at least some aspects of globalization. Many social movements and NGOs seek to give ideas of human rights, environmental protection and the like equal footing with economic efficiency. One might divide them into those who seek a fundamental restructuring of the global system and those who want to reform the existing system. For reformers, amongst the changes they seek are a more equitable distribution of wealth, attention to the plight to women, and addressing the global environmental crisis.[25] More radical solutions would severely curtail market forces. For those who see the benefits of greater interconnectedness, particularly economic openness, anti-globalization protestors have misplaced their anger.[26] The problems identified by the anti-globalization movement arise from relying too little on markets and individualism, not due to over-reliance.

The Nature of Political Authority
One important discussion surrounds whether the nation-state is obsolete as the best form of political organization. Economic and social processes increasingly cross borders making it increasingly difficult for states to control their territory, a central component of sovereignty. In a number of issue areas, it appears increasingly untenable that the most suitable level at which to make decisions is at the state level. As governance structures are established at the global level to deal with the growing number of global problems, conflicts have also emerged as to how to make international organizations more accountable and democratic.

Future of the Nation-State
Regardless of how historically fleeting[27] or fictitious in much of the world[28], the model of the Westphalian nation-state is increasingly called into question. In economic affairs, with states reluctant to cede authority to international actors, some see economic processes out of control[29] leaving little option but to accommodate the forces of globalization.[30] Mobile capital puts pressure on states to pursue neo-liberal policies[31] and government spending is constrained to be more competitive.[32] Transportation and communication advances make it easier for diaspora groups or others to organize and challenge state authority. The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction or the technology and expertise to construct them are a growing concern. Where states have collapsed and human rights violations rampant, the CNN effect has resulted in public pressure on other governments to intervene via peacekeeping operations. To deal with such developments, states have found it useful to construct international organizations and grant them significant decision-making authority. These organizations can at times provide a venue in which disputes can be peacefully adjudicated. What is more, a host of nonstate actors, whether al-Qaeda or Amnesty International or Microsoft, appear to have significant ability to shape state behavior.

Global Governance
For many, it is increasingly clear that real authority has been transferred to international organizations and other non-state actors. As such, this raises questions about how they may be made more democratically accountable. Multilateral institutions are increasingly important sites in which economic globalization is contested.[33] Civil society groups have had a growing, yet uneven, effect on nation-states and international organizations.[34] Non-governmental organizations make the claim that they should have a greater voice to put a check on national self-interest, dominance of the global North, and corporate greed they perceive to dominate the decision-making of most international organizations. [35] Many have pointed out, however, that civil society itself does not have strong claims to democratic authority.[36] Speaking of a global civil society also masks significant differences between groups, such as whether they come from the global North or South.

Technology and Governance
Given the close relationship between globalization and technological innovation, research has also examined how new technologies will effect our notions of democracy and citizenship. On the surface, it may seem that these technologies would allow for greater information availability allowing the oppressed to rise up against authoritarian governments as well as allowing the disadvantaged to participate on a more equal footing in advanced industrial democracies. Recent scholarship, however, has taken issue with the assumption that these technologies are liberating. Some have pointed out that technologies make surveillance and control easier.[37] What is more, even within the global North, access to digital technology remains highly uneven, and is becoming more so.[38] In addition, the use of technology may run the risk of destroying social capital, which many see as a vital component of a vibrant democracy.[39] Some argue that democracy requires shared experiences and, as the internet allows us to become increasingly atomized, this will be lost. In fact, the internet, and the proliferation of media in general, stifles debate by making it easy to customize the information we receive to our tastes, thereby making it easier to avoid views in opposition to our own.

Cultural Globalization
Through the global media and communications technologies, virtually everyone on earth is exposed to foreign ideas and practices. Some argue that the scale of global communication and migration has begun to brake down national identities. The emergence of NGOs and global social movements as important political actors provide further evidence for a new culture of global civil society.

For many, cultural globalization means Westernization or Americanization. An important distinction concerning today's cultural globalization is that it is largely driven by corporations rather than countries. As such, one of the central concerns is the spread of consumer culture. For many critics, non-Western culture and practices are at risk of being overwhelmed by homogenizing "McDonaldization".

Skeptics contend that the erosion of culture has been overstated. They point to evidence that local culture remains strong.Cultural interactions have taken place for centuries so to argue non-Western cultures are somehow pristine is naVve. In a normative sense, the cultural degradation argument dismisses the ability of non-Western people to control their destiny and incorporate those attributes they may find useful. What is more, some argue that national identities are founded on real differences that have continued salience.

Other skeptics point to the growth of ethnic and nationalist movements in the post-Cold War world as evidence that these sources of identity remain strong. Intense interaction may make people more cognizant of difference and lead to conflict.[46] Information technology may, in fact, intensify traditional identities.[47] Cultural globalization involves processes of unequal power, which brings traditions and identities into question. Where ethnic and religious groups feel threatened by globalization, there is the potential for conflict.[48]

This discontentment has gained renewed attention as some see globalization and modernity as a motivation for September 11.[49] Since then, there has been increasing attention to Islamic fundamentalism. For some, the conflict is a long historical one between Muslim and Christian civilizations.[50] As such, cultural differences are deemed to be highly resistant to change and increased interaction will produce conflict. Others see a more complex phenomenon. In the last twenty-five years, fundamentalist movements have emerged within virtually all of the world's major religions indicating a broader unease with the forces of globalization and modernity.[51]

Migration is a significant aspect of globalization that has not only economic but also social and cultural effects. While migration is not unique to the present age, communication and transportation technologies allow migrants a greater opportunity to maintain links with their homelands. More porous borders raise questions about notions of citizenship and identity. While challenges to national identity may come from supranational entities such as the European Union, globalization at the same time may facilitate the triggering of more local, particularistic identities.

[A Rehman Pal]

Globalization (or globalisation) is a term used to describe the changes in societies and the world economy that are the result of dramatically increased tradeand cultural exchange. In specifically economic contexts, it refers almost exclusively to the effects of trade, particularly trade liberalization or "free trade" Between 1910 and 1950, a series of political and economic upheavals dramatically reduced the volume and importance of international trade flows. In the post-World War II environment, fostered by international economic institutions and rebuilding programs, international trade dramatically expanded. With the 1970s, the effects of this trade became increasingly visible, both in terms of the benefits and the disruptive effects.

Meanings of Globalization
"Globalization" can mean:

The formation of a global village — closer contact between different parts of the world, with increasing possibilities of personal exchange, mutual understanding and friendship between "world citizens", and creation of a global civilization. The World Bank defines globalization as the “Freedom and ability of individuals and firms to initiate voluntary economic transactions with residents of other countries”.
Economic globalization — 'free trade' and increasing relations among members of an industry in different parts of the world (globalization of an industry), with a corresponding erosion of National Sovereignty in the economic sphere. The IMF defines globalisation as “the growing economic interdependence of countries worldwide through increasing volume and variety of cross-border transactions in goods and services, freer international capital flows, and more rapid and widespread diffusion of technology” (IMF, World Economic Outlook, May, 1997).
The negative effects of for-profit multinational corporations — the use of substantial and sophisticated legal and financial means to circumvent the bounds of local laws and standards, in order to leverage the labor and services of unequally-developed regions against each other.
The spread of capitalism from developed to developing nations.
"The concept of Globalisation refers both to the compression of the world and the intensification of conciousness of the world as a whole" - Roland Robertson
It shares a number of characteristics with internationalization and is used interchangeably, although some prefer to use globalization to emphasize the erosion of the nation-state or national boundaries.

Globalism, if the concept is reduced to its economic aspects, can be said to contrast with economic nationalism and protectionism. It is related to laissez-faire capitalism and neoliberalism.

History of globalization
Since the word has both technical and political meanings, different groups will have differing histories of "globalization". In general use within the field of economics and political economy, is, however, a history of increasing trade between nations based on stable institutions that allow individuals such as Masa and Kellie and firms in different nations to exchange goods with minimal friction.

The term "liberalization" came to mean the combination of laissez-faire economic theory with the removal of barriers to the movement of goods. This led to the increasing specialization of nations in exports, and the pressure to end protective tariffs and other barriers to trade. The period of the gold standard and liberalization of the 19th century is often called "The First Era of Globalization". Based on the Pax Britannicaand the exchange of goods in currencies pegged to specie, this era grew along with industrialization. The theoretical basis was Ricardo's work on Comparative advantage and Say's Law of General equilibrium. In essence, it was argued that nations would trade effectively, and that any temporary disruptions in supply or demand would correct themselves automatically. The institution of the gold standard came in steps in major industrialized nations between approximately 1850 and 1880, though exactly when various nations were truly on the gold standard is a matter of a great deal of contentious debate.

The "First Era of Globalization" is said to have broken down in stages beginning with the first World War, and then collapsing with the crisis of the gold standard in the late 1920's and early 1930's.

Globalization in the era since World War II has been driven by Trade Negotiation Rounds, originally under the auspices of GATT which led to a series of agreements to remove restrictions on "free trade". The Uruguay round led to a treaty to create the World Trade Organization or WTO, to mediate trade disputes. Other bilateral trade agreements, including sections of Europe's Maastricht Treaty and the North American Free Trade Agreement have also been signed in pursuit of the goal of reducing tariffs and barriers to trade.

Signs of globalization
Globalization has become identified with a number of trends, most of which may have developed since World War II. These include greater international movement of commodities, money, information, and people; and the development of technology, organizations, legal systems, and infrastructures to allow this movement. The actual existence of some of these trends are debated.

Increase in international trade at a faster rate than the growth in the world economy
Increase in international flow of capital including foreign direct investment
Greater transborder data flow, using such technologies such as the Internet, communication satellites and telep hones
The push by many advocates for an international criminal court and international justice movements (see the ICC and ICJ respectively).
Greater international cultural exchange, for example through the export of Hollywood and Bollywood movies.
Some argue that even terrorism has undergone globalization. Terrorists now have attacked places all over the world.
Spreading of multiculturalism and better individual access to cultural diversity, with on the other hand, some reduction in diversity through assimilation, hybridization, Westernization, Americanization or Sinosization of cultures.
Erosion of national sovereignty and national borders through international agreements leading to organizations like the WTO and OPEC
Greater international travel and tourism
Greater immigration, including illegal immigration
Development of global telecommunications infrastructure
Development of a global financial systems
Increase in the share of the world economy controlled by multinational corporations
Increased role of international organizations such as WTO, WIPO, IMF that deal with international transactions
Increase in the number of standards applied globally; e.g. copyright laws
Barriers to international trade have been considerably lowered since World War II through international agreements such as the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). Particular initiatives carried out as a result of GATT and the WTO, for which GATT is the foundation, have included:

Promotion of free trade
Of goods: reduction or elimination of tariffs; construction of free trade zones with small or no tariffs
Of capital: reduction or elimination of capital controls
Reduction, elimination, or harmonization of subsidies for local businesses
Intellectual Property Restrictions
Harmonization of intellectual property laws across nations (generally speaking, with more restrictions)
Supranational recognition of intellectual property restrictions (e.g. patents granted by China would be recognized in the US)
As defined through lecture series given by Dr. Cullenberg, Professor of Economics at the University of California, Riverside, globalization can be basically understood from an economic perspective through the following seven aspects:

International Trade: Exports and imports of goods and services. Creation of increased interdependency and the creation of a balance of trade.
International Portfolio Investment: Assets, cash, international currency, stocks, bonds, real estate, etc.
Migration: Movement of people.
Foreign Direct Investment: Movement of whole companies.
International Environment: Global warming, O-zone layer, water resources etc.
Global Culture: Creation of understanding and meaning, and international communication.
International Governments: Control and power nationally and internationally.

Anti-globalization

Various aspects of globalization are seen as harmful by public-interest activists as well as strong state nationalists This movement has no unified name. "Anti-globalization" is the media's preferred term. Activists themselves, for example Noam Chomsky, have said that this name is meaningless as the aim of the movement is to globalize justice. Indeed, "the global justice movement" is a common name. Many activists also unite under the slogan "another world is possible", which has given rise to names such as altermondisme in French.

There is a wide variety of different kinds of "anti-globalization". In general, critics claim that the results of globalization have not been what was predicted when the attempt to increase free trade began, and that many institutions involved in the system of globalization have not taken the interests of poorer nations and the working class into account.

Economic arguments by fair trade theorists claim that unrestricted free trade benefits those with more financial leverage (i.e. the rich) at the expense of the poor.

Many "anti-globalization" activists see globalization as the promotion of a corporatist agenda, which is intent on constricting the freedoms of individuals in the name of profit. They also claim that increasing autonomy and strength of corporate entities increasingly shape the political policy of nation-states.

Some "anti-globalization" groups argue that globalization is necessarily imperialistic, is one of the driving reasons behind the Iraq war and that it has forced savings to flow into the United States rather than developing nations.

Some argue that globalization imposes credit-based economics, resulting in unsustainable growth of debt and debt crises.

Another more conservative camp in opposition to globalization are state-centric nationalists that fear globalization is displacing the role of nations in global politics and point to NGOs as impeding upon the power of individual nations. Some advocates of this warrant for anti-globalization are Pat Buchanan and Jean-Marie Le Pen.

The main opposition is to unfettered globalization (neoliberal; laissez-faire capitalism), guided by governments and what are claimed to be quasi-governments (such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank) that are supposedly not held responsible to the populations that they govern and instead respond mostly to the interests of corporations. Many conferences between trade and finance ministers of the core globalizing nations have been met with large, and occasionally violent, protests from opponents of "corporate globalism".

The movement is very broad, including church groups, national liberation factions, left-wing parties, environmentalists, peasant unionists, anti-racism groups, libertarian socialists and others. Most are reformist (arguing for a more humane form of capitalism) and a strong minority is revolutionary (arguing for a more humane system than capitalism). Many have decried the lack of unity and direction in the movement, but some such as Noam Chomsky have claimed that this lack of centralization may in fact be a strength.

Protests by the global justice movement have now forced high-level international meetings away from the major cities where they used to be held, and off into remote locations where protest is impractical.

Some "anti-globalization" activists object to the fact that the current "globalization" globalizes money and corporations and at the same time refuses to globalize people and unions. This can be seen in the strict immigration controls that exist in nearly all countries and the lack of labour rights in many countries in the developing world.

Pro-globalization (globalism)
Supporters of democratic globalization can be labelled pro-globalists. They consider that the first phase of globalization, which was market-oriented, should be completed by a phase of building global political institutions representing the will of World citizens. The difference with other globalists is that they do not define in advance any ideology to orientate this will, which should be left to the free choice of those citizens via a democratic process.

Supporters of free trade point out that economic theories of comparative advantage suggest that free trade leads to a more efficient allocation of resources, with all countries involved in the trade benefiting. In general, they claim that this leads to lower prices, more employment and higher output.

Libertarians and other proponents of laissez-faire capitalism say higher degrees of political and economic freedom in the form of democracy and capitalism in the developed world produce higher levels of material wealth. They see globalization as the beneficial spread of democracy and capitalism.

Critics argue that the anti-globalization movement uses anecdotal evidence to support their view and that worldwide statistics instead strongly support globalization. One effect being that the percentage of people in developing countries living below $1 (adjusted for inflation and purchasing power) per day have halved in only twenty years [1]. Life expectancy has almost doubled in the developing world since WWII and is starting to close the gap to the developed world where the improvement has been smaller. Child mortality has decreased in every developing region of the world [2]. Income inequality for the world as a whole is diminishing [3].

Many pro-capitalists are also critical of the World Bank and the IMF, arguing that they are corrupt bureaucracies controlled and financed by states, not corporations. Many loans have been given to dictators who never carried out promised reforms, instead leaving the common people to pay the debts later. They thus see too little capitalism, not too much. They also note that some of the resistance to globalization comes from special interest groups with conflicting interests like Western world unions.

Globalization in question
There is much academic discussion about whether globalization is a real phenomenon or only a myth. Although the term is widespread, many authors argue that the characteristics of the phenomenon have already been seen at other moments in history. Also, many note that those features that make people believe we are in the process of globalization, including the increase in international trade and the greater role of multinational corporations, are not as deeply established as they may appear. The United State's global interventionist policy is also a stumbling point for those that claim globalization has entered a stage of inevitability. Thus, many authors prefer the use of the term internationalization rather than globalization. To put it simply, the role of the state and the importance of nations are greater in internationalization, while globalization in its complete form eliminates nation states. So, these authors see that the frontiers of countries, in a broad sense, are far from being dissolved, and therefore this radical globalization process is not yet happening, and probably won't happen, considering that in world history, internationalization never turned into globalization — (the European Union and NAFTA are yet to prove their case.)

However, the world increasingly shares problems and challenges that do not obey nation state borders, most notably pollution of the natural environment, and as such the movement previously known as the anti-globalisation movement has transmogrified into a movement of movements for globalisation from below; seeking, through experimentation, forms of social organisation that transcend the nation state and representative democracy. So, whereas the original arguments of anti-global critique can be refuted with stories of internationalisation, as above, the emergence of a global movement is indisputable and therefore we can speak of a real process towards a global human society of societies.

[amy]

good job.
would u plz share the source also.

[A Rehman Pal]

For amy
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Interna...obalised_World

For Suresh
Thanx

[Aawish]

Globalization

When discussing international relations, it is very difficult to do so without a thorough and thoughtful discussion about globalization, the definition of globalization, the history of globalization, the ways globalization exists in the world, as well as the pros and cons of globalization. Today, it seems that the world is becoming more and more “globalized”. But what does that mean to be globalized, or to see an increase in globalization? And how can understanding ‘what is globalization’ help us to better know about various aspects of international relations? As we shall see, quickly increasing globalization is forcing us to re-examine our prior understandings about the role of the state, the non-state actors such as non-governmental organizations (which also includes but is not limited to multinational corporations), as well as individuals), along with themes such as international political economy, economic global trade, development, human rights, and so on. This page will go through the main questions surrounding globalization, as well as cite references to globalization articles, and provide links to books on globalization for those with an interest in reading more on the topic of globalization.

What is Globalization?

Scholars set out to understand globalization have offered a plethora of definitions about ‘what is globalization’? The globalization definition is far from crystallized and agreed upon. Having said that, there are many ways to explain what exactly is globalization.

Richard J. Payne, in his book Global Issues, says that “Globalization refers to shrinking distances among its continents, a wider geographical sense of vulnerability, and a worldwide interconnectedness of important aspects of human life, including religion, migration, war, finance, trade, diseases, drugs, and music. Globalization implies a significant and obvious blurring of distinctions between the internal and external affairs of countries and the weakening of differences among countries” (9-10).

Giddens (1990: 21, in McGrew, 2008: 17) says that globalization is the “intensification of worldwide social relations which link distant localities in such a way that local happenings are shaped by events occurring many miles away and vice versa.”

Smallman & Brown (2011: 23), cite Manfred Stegar, who in his book Globalization: A Very Short Introduction, says about globalization, that it is a “multidimensional set of social processes that create, multiply, stretch, and intensify worldwide social interdependencies and exchanges while at the same time fostering in people a growing awareness of deepening connections between the local and the distant.”

Others have suggested that in the globalization definition are different types or periods of globalization. For example, Henry R. Nau, in his book “Perspectives on International Relations: Power, Institutions, and Ideas,” points to three periods of globalization, which are:

* “Globalization 1.0: early period of globalization, from 1492-1800, driven by mercantilism and colonialism.”

* “Globalization 2.0: later period of globalization, from 1800 to 1950, driven by global market institutions such as multinational trading and manufacturing corporations.”

* “Globalization 3.0: latest period of globalization, starting in the second half of the twentieth century, driven by the flattening of the global playing field and the knowledge economy rather than by imperialism or manufacturing conglomerates.” (G-4).

The breakdown of various types of globalization, at a minimum, reminds us that while the periods, sorts, and arguably the speed of globalization has varied, globalization seems to have always existed in some form.

History of Globalization

Globalization, while showing itself in new ways, has been a part of the human history. With regards to the history of globalization, globalization first took form during the time of initial migration by humans out of the African continent and into other lands. As human history continued, due to local conditions, humans lacking access to hunting and finding food had to move for new resources. Then, as they continued to spread throughout the earth and establish additional communities, they then started to produce more advanced tools, and then, in time, began trading with other communities. Thus, as we see, although this might not be “globalization” as we understand it today, societies throughout human history have continued to increase in terms of globalization (Serneau, 2012: 2). Payne (2013: 11) cites a table by Michael Pettis (2001) in his Foreign Policy article Will Globalization Go Bankrupt, which documents the various recent periods of globalization. I have cited the information from the table, which is below:

“Periods of Monetary Expansion and Globalization:

Period New Technologies and Commercial Applications

1807-1844 Extensive canal building, railway boom, steam power used in manufacturing, improved machine tool design, invention of McCormick’s reaper, commercial gas-lighting, and development of the telegraph.

1851-1873 Advances in mining, railways and shipping, and rapid growth of corporations.

1881-1914 Increased productivity in Europe and the United States, improvements in steel production and heavy chemical manufacturing, first power station, spread of electricity, development of the internal combustion engine, and developments in canning and refrigeration.

1922-1930 Commercialization of automobiles and aircraft, spread of artificial fibers and plastics, new electrical appliances invented, and telephone ownership grows.

1960-1973 Development and application of transistor technology, advances in commercial flying and shipping, and the spread of telecommunications and software.

1985-Present Rapid growth in computer memory and information processing, advances in biotechnology and medical technologies, and commercial use of the internet.”

What seems to be different about these more recent periods of globalization is not only the fast improvements in technology, but related to this, the effects of this growth on the cost of communication across borders (Shangquan, 2000). People can communicate with one another at speeds never seen in the history of humankind; telephones and internet access allow us to send messages across the globe in less than a second. In addition to being able to send messages, either via email, sending video, or live chatting through programs such as Skype, the ability to travel thousands of miles within a day has allowed us to become further connected to our fellow human beings. As Shangquan (2000: 1) explains, it is much cheaper to communicate, as well as to ship products and goods around the world.

Being in an age of high globalization clearly shaped culture, finances, and of course politics, international studies, and international relations. The question by some is “how much globalization is there?” Or, “what are the Effects of Globalization?”

The Universal Language, Bryan Allison, CC 2.0
The Universal Language, Bryan Allison, CC 2.0

Effects of Globalization

Scholars, policymakers, and activists have debated the effects of globalization, and continue to do so. And similar to many questions in international relations, the effects of globalization depend on who you are asking; individuals, depending on their theoretical viewpoints, as well as beliefs about international relations, may have varying position about the true effects of globalization. Scholars have categorized the positions regarding the “effects of globalization” into three groups: “The hyperglobalizers and transformalists”, “the skeptics”, and the “weak globalizers” (Payne, 2013: 18; McGrew, 2008, in Baylis, Smith, and Owens: 2008) (a more recent version of the book The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations can be found here).

Hyperglobalizers and Transformalists: Hyperglobalizers and Transformalists argue that globalization is essentially changing everything around us, which includes the amount of political power that states have had. To Hyperglobalizers, the state’s power is being altered by non-state actors (McGrew, 2008). Supporters of this view might point to the increase in technology, and related to this, personal cell phones and recording devices, as well as social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter as evidence of the decline of the state. By having access to cameras that can text, store pictures, and record information have left states with less power over the individual. In addition, there are many examples of how social media has challenged state power. One of the more recent examples is the 2010-2011 Arab Uprisings or the “Arab Spring.” Here, citizens in the Middle East and North Africa took to the streets to protest the authoritarian regimes in power of their respective states. And while many of the leaders such as Zine el-Abedine of Tunisia and Hosni Mubarak of Egypt attempted to crackdown on citizens, as well as disrupted political protests, internet and technologically savvy protesters were often able to stay a step ahead of the governments by organizing the revolution with technology, and more specifically publicizing rights abuses through social media sites. It is no wonder that those within the hyperglobalizer and tranformalist camp would point to such events to show the weakening of the state in the context of globalization.

Skeptics, on the other hand, skeptics argue that despite the idea that globalization is increasing, the power of the state in its domestic and foreign affairs has not diminished. As Payne (2013) explains, there are those in this camp say “that globalization is largely a myth that disguises the reality of the existence of powerful sovereign states and major economic divisions in the world. National governments remain in control of their domestic economies as well as the regulation of international economic activities.” This position says that regardless of how it seems that the state is weakening, they continue to have great holds on domestic power, as well as in terms of their interactions with other powerful states. However, they argue that much of the financial power is with the economically developed states, whereas economically developing states are not as interconnected as some might think (Hirst and Thompson, 1999, 2003; Hay 2000; Hoogvelt, 2001; Gilpin, 2002, in McGrew, 2008). Furthermore, while some hyperglobalizers suggest that cultures are becoming more interconnected, skeptics argue that cultures continue to actually be distant and people are more “suspicious of each other” (Spiro, 2000, in Payne, 2013:20).

The weak globalizers, or the transformalists, take a middle position in the globalization debate. They recognize that while the state is not going anywhere anytime soon, politics are indeed becoming more “global” (McGrew, 2008). Thus, there clearly is change and globalization is happening, but historical political power structures such as the state continue to be dominant actors in the international system. In addition, while we are becoming more interconnected, there is still the desire for continued individual identity, and this can show itself in a variety of forms.

Globalization has many manifestations, with all of them having effects on the political and international relations landscape.
Types of Globalization

There are many types of globalization. The four that we shall primarily focus on are: Economic Globalization, Military Globalization, Cultural Globalization, and Political Globalization.

Economic Globalization

Economic Globalization has been defined by Gao Shangquan as “the increasing interdependence of world economies as a result of the growing scale of cross-border trade of commodities and services, flow of international capital and wide and rapid spread of technologies. It reflects the continuing expansion and mutual integration of market frontiers…”. Historically, economic globalization was barely different from other forms of globalization; often economic, political, and cultural globalization were interconnected. As we see, economic globalization is happening all around us. Technologies are advancing at a rapid rate, which shapes how we do business. Transactions can be made with the click of a button, and markets can be monitored around the clock. In addition, companies can set up shop in any part of the world, as well as having a very established internet presence with extensive online activity.

And with economic globalization is also the issue of how states and non-state actors can help address challenges such as economic development. Here, we see international organizations, as well as non-governmental organizations actively trying to help states in terms of building infrastructure, increasing jobs, as well as introducing capital (Smallman & Brown, 2011). But as we shall see, it is debated as to whether some of these developments are always positive; some worry that with globalization, powerful states and multinational corporations have used the system to further their own power and influence at the expense of other weaker actors.

Military Globalization

Some have also created a separate category for what the see as military globalization, which can differ from technological globalization. While weapons of course are part technological advancements, they can be seen as a separate aspect of globalization. Payne (2013) says that “[m]ilitary globalization is characterized by extensive as well as intensive networks of military force. This includes both the actual use of force and threats to use violence. The most obvious example of military globalization is the nuclear age and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction” (15). However, this of course is not a new; military globalization, like other forms of globalization, have continued to exist for centuries, whether it was the origin of weapons, rise of advancements in rifles, the introduction of handguns, or even the introduction of security regimes such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization amongst other organizations (Payne, 2013: 15).

Political Globalization

Political advancements are another important aspect of globalization. If we look at the political makeup of the international system, there have been a number of new institutions and organizations. We don’t have to go that that far back to see new developments such as international alliance institutions (e.g. the League of Nations, or more recently, the United Nations, which has been a cornerstone of international human rights law, as well as environmental law). In addition, the rise of non-state actors have brought a new dimension to international politics, one that is quite new from a centuries long system of state power (Smallman & Brown, 2011). NGOs continue to work on political and social causes as they relate to international relations.

Cultural Globalization

Along with economic, military, and political globalization has been the importance of cultural globalization. With the rise of technology, information is increasing. As alluded to, this can be related to political information, sharing of knowledge on science, or, in this case, the interexchange of ideas. As we see, we can hear music from anywhere in the world, follow the latest fashions, and watch television programs in multiple languages. The ability to share our respective cultures is quite feasible with the internet. But even without the computer, we are now able to move from city to city, state to state, or country to country easier than ever before. And with travel and migration (Smallman & Brown, 2011) comes addition points of consideration: namely, what happens when people move? How can we understand cultural exchange in this context? And how does cultural globalization relate to political or other subcategories of globalization?



Globalization Pros and Cons

Advantages of Globalization

To many, there are numerous advantages of globalization. As alluded to earlier, through globalization, individuals are able to communicate with others throughout the world at much easier speeds. This has allowed the sharing of information with people that in years past would have taken much longer, or cost much more. In addition, with mobile video services, communication quality has also increased. Furthermore, with a globalizing world market, the ability to network in regards to new ideas and business opportunities has never been easier. The positive effects of this can be seen in many cases: information has led to better decisions in fields such as health and education. More effective medicines are being produced, which in turn can be shared more quickly around the globe. Moreover, if there is a concern regarding a global health issue, a political issue, or a natural disaster, we can now relay information to others immediately so that they can better protect themselves.

As discussed above, the sharing of information has also allowed people to challenge human rights abuses that exist in society. Now, it is easier to record a military crackdown, or government rights violation. In addition, it has now become easier to organize protest movements against regimes, which has led some to suggest a decline of the state. This was not possible even decades ago.

Concerns and Criticisms of Globalization

While there are many excellent benefits to globalization, not everyone has been excited about the effects of globalization. Some of them see the “advantages of globalization” as actually being “disadvantages of globalization,” whereas others find that while there globalization has brought about a number of life improvements, for some, there are also negative consequences of increased technological advancements when discussing globalization.

For example, looking at the case of France, many French citizens have not embraced political and cultural globalization. As Payne (2013) argues, some of this is because of a want to maintain domestic sovereignty, and within this, ideas of maintaining “French” culture. With the increase in immigration to France, particularly from Muslim states in the Middle East and from North African states such as Algeria, Tunisia, and Morocco (Payne, 2013), many in France have been hesitant to endorse globalization. Ideas of what it means to be “French” are ever-shifting, and this does not sit well with some in the country.

However, they are not the only ones expressing this opinion; evidence of the rise of right wing parties in Europe (many of which speak out against immigration) suggests that they do not like the idea that globalization means increased influence of different cultures and political beliefs.

In the United States, there is also a push-back to globalization. While there are some similarities to what was discussed in the context of France, United States citizens have expressed other concerns resulting from economic globalization. For example, arguably the height of concern by some in the United States regarding globalization is how increased communications between states, and technological advances throughout the world are affecting the political and economic situations domestically, and particularly in the context of US jobs. This concern is often within this context of the idea of outsourcing. According to Diana Mutz & Edward D. Mansfield (2013),

Americans have heard a great deal about outsourcing over the past fifteen years, both in media reports and in each of the past four presidential elections. Moreover, it is clear that people are not happy about this phenomenon. Based on a number of surveys that we have conducted, only 2 percent of American workers view offshore outsourcing favorably, whereas over 78 percent of workers are hostile to this phenomenon and another 20 percent have mixed views. Americans have a more favorable view of international trade than offshore outsourcing, but they are nonetheless ambivalent, with more workers opposed to trade liberalization than favoring it, about a quarter having mixed views.”

Interestingly, those who are often the ones most vocal about the concerns of outsourcing are those that have the least to worry about regarding job security (Mutz & Mansfield, 2013: 3). And if this is the case, then why the intense backlash against globalization and outsourcing in the United States? It has been argued that for some, the disagreement with globalization is related to ideas of superiority of US goods to foreign products. And some politicians, worried about their constituencies, and local voting blocks, may be more willing to make such arguments in order to protect their electoral support, even if the reality is far from what the citizens believe regarding the economy and globalization (Mutz & Mansfield, 2013). In addition to this idea of “superior” US product quality, a relationship between isolationism and globalization may also exist as a reason for disapproval of globalization (Mutz & Mansfield, 2013). As Payne (2103) explains, “Americans are increasingly embracing a view of sovereignty that rejects participation in a number of international regimes” (18), and thus, there could be a relationship between these political views and their position on globalization. And one final point is that there may also be elements of ethnocentrism existing by Americans towards those from other countries (Mutz & Mansfield, 2013: 4); some of this seems to parallel some of the attitudes in Europe. This may also be a reason for the anti-globalization attitudes that we are seeing.

Globalization and Economic Exploitation

Along with the concerns discussed in Western states such as the United States and France, there is also an anti-globalization movement throughout the world that bases much of their protest on the relationship between globalization and capitalism. Critics, and particularly those espousing the international relations theory of Marxism or economic dependence have argued that globalization is another way that capital rich countries exploit economically developing countries. They argue that under the guise of globalization, economically rich states and multinational corporations (MNCs) can and often do use developing countries through conditional loan and aid packages, as well as economic and free trade agreements that benefit the rich states much more so than the economically poor states, or at least the citizens of the economically developing states.

Human rights activists argue that globalization affects the rights of citizens, as they are often abuses and or neglected while working. There are many cases of MNCs taking advantage of workers by providing horrendous working conditions. In addition, with globalization has been a rise in human trafficking, as criminal organizations, through communications with other crime syndicates, are coordinating criminal opportunities. This can be seen in the multi-billion dollar yearly drug trade, or with modern day slavery. In addition, activists argue that increased globalization has led to a disregard of environmental issues (Payne, 2013) such as deforestation, oil spills, climate change, and lack of concern for the protection of clean water, etc…

Globalization and Cultural Exploitation

Somewhat related to this what some argue as the is the cultural exploitation of globalization. While some suggest that globalization allows for the free exchange of ideas, Payne (2013: 20) points out that others suggest that with the increase in “cultural homogenization,” globalization actually “imposes Western values on others and destroys their traditions, religious beliefs, identities, and sense of community and belonging.”