Globalization
is taken to mean the gradual integration of economies and societies driven by
new technologies, new economic relationships and the national and international
policies of a wide range of actors, including governments, international
organizations, business, labor and civil society. It embraces trade and
long-term direct foreign investment by multinationals as well as flows of
short-term portfolio capital.
Globalization
is essentially about markets; the citizen is now redefined as a global consumer.
According to Gibbins (1997), the concept of globalization is ‘a pretty pale and
innocuous form of citizenship.’ Globalization is an environment where
individuals and, in some instances, sovereign states appear to have little or no
influence (Gibbins, 1997).
Globalization is taking place
also in the context of rapid development in information, communication, and
computer technologies. In fact these developments are “the biggest technological
juggernaut that ever rolled.” As Mander (1996) points out, “the global
corporation of today could not exist without computers. The technology makes
globalization possible by conferring a degree of control beyond anything we have
seen before” (p.10).
Globalization is more than
economic: it is multidimensional, with political, ideological, and cultural
elements.(Geyer, Ingebritsen and Moses, as cited in Boase, 2001, p.110). As an
ideology, it is based on a system of free trade among predominantly capitalist
market economies dominated by multinational corporations, and it holds that this
is the ideal system for the welfare of humanity.
Unfortunately, the only
freedom inherent in the system, according to Mander (1996), “is the freedom it
provides corporate players to deprive everyone else of their freedoms, including
the freedom hitherto enjoyed by democratic nations to protect their domestic
economies, their communities, their culture, and their natural environments”
(p.12). Citizens and local communities all over the world, in fact, are having
less and less to say about globalization because they are so small in
relationship to it.
There have many debates and
different perspectives towards globalization. Some become skeptics and some
others are globalists. Most often people can not understand the concept of
globalization since it is since as an inevitable concept. Many are trying to
against and still others go for it. Globalization is a broad term which consists
of economic globalization, political globalization and cultural globalization.
Economic
Globalization
Economic
globalization refers to the intensification and stretching of economic
interrelations across the globe (Hoogvelt, 2001). Gigantic flows of capital and
technology have stimulated trade in goods and services. Markets have extended
their reach around the world, in the process creating new linkages among
national economies.
Globalists argues that globalization is responsible for
economic growth by providing several catalysts (Hirst and Thompson, 1999).
Additionally, globalization alleviates poverty and has the effect of extending
life expectancy and reducing infant mortality. However, critics of globalization
have argued that globalization will result in a general deterioration of
protection for labor and the environment (Hirst and Thompson, 1999)..
Political
Globalization
Political
globalization refers to the intensification and expansion of political
interrelations across the globe (Cable, 1999). These processes raise an
important set of political issues pertaining to the principle of state
sovereignty, the growing impact of intergovernmental organizations, and the
future prospects for regional and global governance. Obviously, these themes
respond to the evolution of political arrangements beyond the framework of the
nation-state, thus breaking new conceptual ground.
Globalists consider
political globalization a mere secondary phenomenon driven by more fundamental
economic and technological forces (Bryan and Farrell, 1996). They argue that
politics has been rendered almost powerless by an unstoppable techno-economic
juggernaut that will crush all governmental attempts to reintroduce restrictive
policies and regulations. Endowing economics with an inner logic apart from, and
superior to, politics, these commentators look forward to a new phase in world
history in which the main role of government will be to serve as a
superconductor for global capitalism (Thurow, 1996).
Pronouncing the
rise of a ‘borderless world’, globalists seek to convince the public that
globalization inevitably involves the decline of bounded territory as a
meaningful concept for understanding political and social change (Ohmae, 1990).
Consequently, this group of commentators suggests that political power is
located in global social formations and expressed through global networks rather
than through territorially based states. In fact, they argue that nation-states
have already lost their dominant role in the global economy (Ohmae, 1990). As
territorial divisions are becoming increasingly irrelevant, states are even less
capable of determining the direction of social life within their borders.
Globalists insist that the minimalist political order of the future will be
determined by regional economies linked together in an almost seamless global
web of production and exchange.
However, a group of
globalization skeptics disagrees, highlighting instead the central role of
politics in unleashing the forces of globalization, especially through the
successful mobilization of political power. In their view, the rapid expansion
of global economic activity can be reduced neither to a natural law of the
market nor to the development of computer technology (Weiss, 1998). Once those
decisions were implemented, global markets and new technologies came into their
own. The clear implication of this perspective is that territory still matters (Kapstein,
1999). Hence, globalization skeptics insist on the continued relevance of
conventional political units, operating either in the form of modern
nation-states or global cities.
A number of skeptics also have challenged the idea that
optical globalization is moving in the direction of democracy. Most criticism
boil down to the charge that such a vision indulges in an abstract idealism that
fails to engage current political developments on the level of public policy.
Skeptics have also expressed the suspicion that the proponents of
cosmopolitanism do not consider in sufficient detail the cultural feasibility of
global democracy (Gowan, 1999). In other words, the worldwide intensification of
cultural, political, and economic interaction makes the possibility of
resistance and opposition just as real as the benign vision of mutual
accommodation and tolerance of differences (Singer, 1999).
Cultural Globalization
Cultural
globalization refers to the intensification and expansion of cultural flows
across the globe (Tomlinson, 1999). According to Tomlinson (1999), ‘culture’ is
a very broad concept; it is frequently used to describe the whole of human
experience. In order to avoid the ensuing problem of overgeneralization, it is
important to make analytical distinctions between aspects of social life.
Globalists suggest that cultural practices lie at the very
heart of contemporary globalization (Freidman, 2000). Facilitated by the
Internet and other new technologies, the dominant symbolic systems of meaning of
our age – such as individualism, consumerism, and various religious discourses –
circulate more freely and widely than ever before. As images and ideas can be
more easily and rapidly transmitted from one place to another, they profoundly
impact the way people experience their everyday lives. Today, cultural practices
frequently escape fixed localities such as town and nation, eventually acquiring
new meanings in interaction with dominant global themes.
Skeptics suggest that we are not moving towards a cultural
rainbow that reflects the diversity of the world’s existing cultures. Rather,
witnessing the rise of an increasingly homogenized popular culture underwritten
by a Western ‘culture industry’ based in New York, Hollywood, London, and Milan
(Latouche, 1996). As evidence for their interpretation, these commentators point
to Amazonian Indians wearing Nike training shoes, denizens of the Southern
Sahara purchasing Texaco baseball caps, and Palestinian youths proudly
displaying their Chicago Bulls sweatshirts in downtown Ramallah (Latouche,
1996). Referring to the diffusion of Anglo-American values and consumer goods as
the ‘Americanization of the world’, the proponents of this cultural
homogenization thesis argue that Western norms and lifestyles are overwhelming
more vulnerable cultures.
Skeptics of
globalization include groups who blame globalization for most of the economic,
political, and cultural ills afflicting their home countries or regions. Fearing
the loss of national self-determination and the destruction of their cultures,
they pledge to protect their traditional ways of life from those ‘foreign
elements’ they consider responsible for unleashing the forces of globalization (Appadurai,
1996). Skeptics are more concerned with the well-being of their own citizens
than with the construction of a more equitable international order based on
global solidarity.
Neoliberals
Neoliberals
advocate free trade and a good deal of laissez-faire but not the free movement
of people. Neoliberals argue that there are substantial benefits of foreign
capital for creating economic development. According to the standard
neoclassical theories, economic growth occurs with the utilization of land,
labor, and capital in the productive process. These growth models predict that
the more the labor, the more the land; or the more the capital, the faster the
growth.
Since
developing nations in general have underutilized land and labor and exhibit low
savings rates, the marginal productivity of capital is supposed to be greater in
these areas. Thus, neoclassical growth theory has viewed that open-capital flows
between the developed and the developing countries would serve to benefit the
latter because capital will flow from rich to poor areas where the returns to
capital investments would be highest. Capital-poor developing states should be
the beneficiaries of the expected infusion of capital from the capital-rich,
industrialized states.
Moreover,
neoliberals are apt to place particular emphasis on the benefits of foreign
direct investment as an “engine of growth.” This reasoning stems from the
orthodox belief that capital accumulation, human capital augmentation, and the
transfer of technology are the hallmarks of development. Simon Kuznets linked
the productivity of the industrialized, Western states purely to the extended
application of science and technology to the problems of production (Kuznets,
1966). According to Kuznets, the basis of modern society is inextricably linked
to the application of advanced technologies, and the economic prospects of
developing states depend mostly on the transfer of transnational knowledge and
technology from rich to poor states.
Neoliberals also
argue the importance of open markets for economic development. States with small
markets gain access to the much larger markets of the industrialized areas. This
process allows small states to exploit economies of scale. Moreover, trade is
expected to diffuse knowledge because it encourages “learning by doing” (Arrow,
1962). For neoliberals, the growth and development hinge crucially on the issue
of trade and investment. Since the “stuff” of development is the growth of the
productive capacity of an economy, these theorists believe that “efficiency” is
best realized through continued specialization and exposure to the global
marketplace.
Radicals
On the other
hand the radicals are argues on the fundamental social change. Tabb (2000)
quoted that “Change does not come about from the mere fact of oppression. In the
absence of hope for meaningful change, a sense that a better alternative exists
and is possible, pessimism and cynicism prevail. A radical vision consists first
of anger at the way things are, the feeling that conditions are intolerable, but
if this is to lead beyond thoughtless and futile rebellion, it must be
accompanied by a belief that a better alternative is not only desirable but
possible; not necessarily tomorrow, but when the momentum can be turned around.”
Resistance can have a strong element of moral witness speaking truth to power,
of rebellion, of reformist goals, and of revolutionary transformation (the
institutions of structured inequality and destruction are necessary to preserve
their power, the system must be overthrown, and a fundamentally different one
put in its place).
The fault line
which separates more moderate from more radical critics is that of the labor
standards and environmental concerns. Radical critics point out that given the
massive movement, there is a little choice but to give at least rhetorical lip
service to such demands.
Transformationalists
The
transformationalist argues that the direction of this process remains uncertain
and in contest. The transformationalist disputes the claim that the sovereign
state is a thing of the past, but also challenges the claim that states remain
as strong as ever. He argues rather that globalization transforms the
relationship between states, markets, sovereignty, and the transnational sphere.
It challenges the governing and legitimation of capacities of old political
arrangements, domestically and internationally. And it thus adds new incentives
to the search for political innovation (Held et. al., 2002).
Scholars from
various “transformationalist” perspectives (Held et al. 1999) argue for a more
multifaceted approach to globalization. Globalization is not purely economic,
but also involves other changes such as the expansion of global institutions and
governance, which may have important implications for both environmentalism and
national economies.
Reference
Appadurai, Arjun (1996) Modernity
At Large. University of Minnesota Press
Arrow, K. (1962) “The Economic Implications of Learning by Doing,”
Review of Economic Studies 29: 155-79.
Boase, J. (2001). Globalization forces and social policy choices: Glass
half-full or hall-empty? Canadian Public Administration, 44(1), 110-118.
Bryan, Lowell and Diana Farrell (1996) Market Unbound. John
Wiley & Sons
Cable, Vincent (1999) Globalization and Global Governance. The
Royal Institute of International Affairs
Friedman, Thomas (2000) The Lexus and the Olive Tree. Anchor
Gibbins, R. (1997). Alberta 2010, CBC ideas transcript. Toronto:
Westmount Productions Inc.
Gowan, Peter (1999) The Global Gamble. Verso
Kapstein, Ethan B. (1999) Sharing the Wealth. WW Norton
Kuznets, S. (1966) Modern Economic Growth: Rate, Structure, and
Spread, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Held et al. Global Transformations, 2-10. David Held and Anthony
McGrew, Globalization/AntiGlobalization (Oxford: Polity Press. 2002)
Held, David, Anthony G. McGrew, David Goldblatt and Jonathan Perraton.
1999. Global Transformations: Economics, Politics, and Culture. Polity.
Hirst, Paul and Grahame Thompson, (1999) Globalization in Question,
2nd edn. Polity Press
Hoogvelt, Ankie (2001) Globalization and the Postcolonial World,
2nd edn. The Johns Hopkins University Press
Latouche, Serge (1996) The Westernization of the World. Polity
Press
Mander, J. (1996). Facing the rising tide. In J. Mander & E. Goldsmith
(Eds.), The case against the global economy. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.
Ohmae, Kenichi ( 1995) The End of the Nation-State. The Free
Press
Olson, Elizabeth (1999) “Anger on Agenda for World Trade Meeting,” New
York Times, October 14, 1999.
Singer, Daniel (1999) Whose Millennium? Monthly Review Press
Tabb, William K. (2000) After Seattle: Understanding the Politics of
Globalization Monthly Review
Tomlinson, John (1999) Globalization and Culture. University of
Chicago Press
Thurow, Lester (1996) The Future of Capitalism. William Morrow
Weiss, Linda (1998) The Myth of the Powerless State. Cornell
University Press
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment