GLOBALIZATION REMAINS A CONTROVERSIAL ISSUE
Duca Ioana
Titu Maiorescu University, Bucharest, ducaioana@yahoo.com
Globalization is the key concept of the 21st century. Although the term in itself is vaguely defined and it is
used with different meanings, we could talk about a real “cult of globalization”. The term globalization is
nowadays present in the speeches of nearly all statesmen or high officials of international organizations,
and suffers various mutations according to the pursued objectives. It can be stated that globalization is
viewed as a new and complex configuration, a transformation of historical proportions, challenging
traditional concepts such as the national state, the national borders, rendering the classical economics
theory obsolete. Beyond the interesting aspect of this concept, globalization affects us all, directly or
indirectly. Therefore, a synthesis of the most interesting views upon the topic is needed, without launching
a pro and con dispute. There is more an attempt of highlighting the different facets of this concept.
Keywords: globalization, global market, globalisation with a human face, interdependence, polarisation
1. Facets of globalisation
Globalisation is a phenomenon that is easier to explain that to define, due to the diversity of its facets and
to its permanent association with the majority of challenges, opportunities and dangers in the world today.
The concept of globalisation transcends several dimensions – economic, political, historical, social,
cultural, ecological ones, being a grand idea which comprises absolutely everything, from financial
markets to the Internet (Held&McGrew, 2004, p. 25). In the last decades an entire literature has developed,
and the speeches on this topic are omnipresent. Some of them still suffer from „diseases” such as
exaggerations, simplifications, distortions of reality, ideological absolutisations.
It is interesting to emphasize that there is no convergence regarding the definition of this phenomenon, its
origins, advantages and disadvantages, components, actors and even its mere existence. From the common
core of globalisation theses we can derive the fact that this is a non-fluent, diversified and asymmetric
process with numerous facets (economic, social, historical, political, cultural ones), one of the most
powerful forces that shape the world today (Waters, 1995, p. 1; Brittan 1997) a change with historic
significance which renders the explanatory paraphernalia and the classical economic paradigms obsolete.
Although its origins are not very clear, the term globalisation appears in all the international languages
today. In many papers it is mentioned that the term globalisation, with reference to international exchanges,
was first used in 1983 by Théodore Levitt, in a famous article published in Harvard Business Revue, to
designate the convergence of all the markets in the world, which would operate as a unique entity (Levitt,
1983, p. 92-93).
A comprehensive definition is the one given by Held&McGrew – globalisation is a process or a set of
processes which embodies a transformation in the spatial organisation of the social relations and
transactions – analysed in terms of their extent, intensity, velocity and impact – generating transcontinental or inter-regional activity flows and networks, interaction and manifestation of power
(Held&McGrew, 2004, p. 40). Therefore, globalisation renders national borders permeable,
accommodating the flows of capital, good and services, workforce, technology and information, changing
the fundamental way of organizing society.
A complex approach to the phenomenon is presented by George and Wilding as well, according to whom
the globalisation process is characterised by compressing space and time, increasing and strengthening
interdependences, unrestrained flows of capital, cultural news and information, intensifying the activities
of trans-national corporations and supranational bodies, economic growth accompanied by an increase in
risks, the global culture of consumption, the more intense migration and awareness of globalising
problems at world level (George&Wilding, 2002, p. 2).
Regarding the types of globalisation, at least five must be emphasised, according to Chase-Dunn: economic
globalisation, political globalisation, ecological constraints globalisation, cultural values globalisation and
communication globalisation (Chase-Dunn, 1989). Other authors identify the following five facets of
globalisation: the global infrastructure, the globalisation or convergence of certain common characteristics,
the opening of national borders, the global dissemination of local phenomena and the geographical
dispersion of competences in key domains (Hart&Prakash, 1996, p. 205-211). Bretherton and Poynton in
their turn perceive globalisation as a composite made up of four parts: technological exchanges, global
economy, political globalisation and the globalisation of ideas (Bretherton&Poynton, 1996, p. 20).
199
2. How „new” is the globalisation phenomenon and what are its dynamics?
In the UNDP report from 1999 (UNDP, 1999, p. 30), it is stated that globalisation is not a new
phenomenon, but its current state has features that differ from those in the 16th century or the beginning of
the 20th century: new inter-connected markets, operating 24 hours a day, in real time, new means of
communication (Internet, mobile phones, media networks), new actors (institutions with supranational
authority, political decision groups – G7, G8, G10, OECD, trans-national corporations, regional blocs,
NGO global networks), new rules (multilateral agreements which significantly constrain the span of
national policies, international agreements, global agendas on various issues, etc.)
George and Wilding, as well as Wallerstein, date the roots of globalisation as a phenomenon, at the same
time with those of capitalism, at the beginning of the 16th century, after the collapse of feudalism in
Europe and the discovery of the New World. D’Agostino sees globalisation as a process that appeared in
the 1960s and spread along the 1980s, and which is currently defined by the involvement of international
institutions (D’Agostino, 2002, p. 7). In other studies, it is considered that globalisation is a process that
began after 1945, as a result of technological mutations and telecommunication progress, a process which
focuses on industrial societies. One of the most renowned theories in this sense is that put forward by Kerr
in 1973 (Kerr et al, 1973, p. 54). He emphasises that technology has the effect of rendering things
homogenous, industrial societies speaking a universal language. Other researchers regard the phenomenon
mainly through a technological determinism as well, such as Robertson and Axford for whom globalisation
is a process of compression on a global market, possibly first of all due to the progress in communications
and which at the same time intensifies the perception on the world as a whole (Robertson, 1992, p. 8;
Axford, 1995, p. 4.). In his turn, Langhorne refers to globalisation as the last stage in a long process of
technological development which provides people with the possibility to carry on with their activity and do
business anywhere in the world, at any time, irrespective of nationality and residence (Langhorne, 2001, p.
2).
At the other end, other researchers consider that globalisation is often mistakenly understood as being
generated mainly by the technological and information revolution (Plihon, 2001, p. 64-73). They associate
the current economic changes with the actions of the states and governments in their attempt to respond to
internal economic crises, crises also intensified by a series of external shocks, by the need to finance
budget and trade balance deficits. Once the process was initiated, though, it gained its own logic, especially
in the financial field. There are also moderate opinions, which associate the increase in interdependencies
at world level both with the progress of science and technology and with the political events and decisions
(George&Wilding, 2002, p. 19).
We must emphasise the fact that there is a set of theories according to which globalisation is an economic
phenomenon par excellence. Globalisation is the process of integrating and merging national economies
as a result of the companies’ trans-national activities (Clark, 1998, p. 21). In the UN perspective as well,
globalisation is understood first in economic-financial terms, being a product of liberalisation. The
liberalisation policies are those that generated the enlargement of economic spaces, which operate as if the
world economy were a single market (UNDP, 1999, p.2).
3. Globalisation ideology
A theory generally used at world level is that globalisation is ideologically compatible only with the
principles of neo-liberalism. The worldwide spread of liberal democracy also supports this idea, that
globalisation is in fact global capitalism, and its progress represents in a way the triumph of capitalism on
centralised economy (Fukuyama, 1992, p. 96-97; Wilkin, 1996, p. 228; Wallerstein, 1998). Various studies
also emphasise the „competition” between various models of capitalism that appeared in the context of
globalisation, due to the attempts of more powerful states to externalize their own model (Huntington,
1998, p. 29). This will eventually lead to an uniformisation, accommodating the convergence to a single
model.
There are also challengers of this theory who argue that because globalisation is a lengthy process it is
accompanied by several ideologies (George&Wilding, 2002, p. 20). They are also convinced that the
generalized neo-liberalism can be held responsible to a certain extent for the increase in poverty and the
propagation of inequalities at world level. G. Soros, in his turn, argues that the danger caused by a
capitalism of an exaggerated laissez-faire type is as significant as the threat of a totalitarian ideology
(Soros, 2002). Therefore, globalisation currently requires a more humane ideology, in accordance with the
sustainable development principles (George&Wilding, 2002, p. 20).
4. The effects of globalisation
In analysing the benefits and the disadvantages brought by globalisation, at the extremes there are those
who either support globalisation without reservation, considering it a cure-all, or reject it completely.
200
Beyond the extremist theses, it is obvious that the globalisation process has deeply changed the world
“geography”, proliferating inequalities, limiting the states’ action capacity and underlining the limits of the
welfare state. Among the consequences of globalisation, in numerous papers attention is also drawn to the
tendency to render ideas, cultures, values and life styles homogenous, to the amplification of supranational
political regimes, the increase in the risk of economic and social instability and of marginalising certain
countries.
In the World Bank perspective, the main negative effect of globalisation is the countries’ exposure to
strong external shocks caused by the financial-banking crises, which are more and more numerous. The
deterioration of the world distribution of incomes is not ignored either, which in fact contradicts the basic
globalisation suppositions regarding the general and sustainable growth of the states (World Bank, 2002).
Mc Grew and Lewis show that the world is in fact more and more divided because globalisation stimulates
opposing vectors: interdependence and marginalisation (McGrew&Lewis, 1992, p. 23). Despite the
progress made by certain “marginal countries”, the system is more and more polarised, and polarisation can
lead to fundamental crises, which can no longer be solved as they were before by means of finding and
exploiting new markets (Wallerstein, 1998). Under these circumstances, the traditional options regarding
the social protection of the welfare state are more and more difficult to support in practice (Held&McGrew,
2004, p. 28). The idea of social polarisation and inequality appears more and more in public debates; it is
mentioned by D. Coyle, too, who warns that the world economy cannot be “milked” for too long to the
benefit of a minority without generating devastating crises and conflicts (Coyle, 2005, p. 7).
Martin and Schumann are extremely critical of globalisation, considering that this phenomenon condenses
the world and simultaneously exposes it to disintegration. Regarding the role of the state in the age of
globalisation, it plays the game of helplessness, losing its legitimacy. Thus, globalisation becomes a trap
for democracy (Martin&Schumann, 1999, p. 20-23). The states are at the same time dependent on the
investors’ goodwill, being forced to favour the minority of financial assets owners. These force the states
into a competition in which the winner is the one that creates the best conditions for capital owners.
R. Keohane and H. Milner argue that the clearest effect of globalisation was undermining the states’
authority in the field of macroeconomic policy, especially as a result of the increase in capital mobility
(Keohane&Milner, 1996, p. 256). They are thus forced to abandon a part of their duties and accept a logic
of the market with universal vocation and replace the decisions that until not long ago were more political.
If we see them in this perspective, the concepts of national economy, national corporation, national capital,
national production begin to lose their meaning (Reich, 1991, p. 8), globalisation creating new forms of
social organisation that end up replacing the traditional structures.
Ohmae argues that the age of state governance is over, national regimes are obsolete, and the states have
exhausted their propelling force (Ohmae, 1990). They stop being economic managers, becoming the local
authorities of the global system. The task of nation-states in the global economy is similar to that
performed by municipalities in a state: to provide the infrastructure and the public goods at the lowest cost.
Ohmae picks up his idea in the paper from 1995, where he argues that the nation-states will be just a
transitory way of administrering economic problems (Ohmae, 1995, p. 149).
However, the thesis of the nation-state euthanasia in the age of globalisation is strongly counter-argued by
George and Wilding, who show that although globalisation is currently led by economic, not political
forces, the states are active participants, not victims, because the multinational corporations need many
facilities and goods that only the state can provide: social stability, solid infrastructure, highly qualified
workforce and a proper legislative framework. (George&Wilding, 2002, p. 27). R. Boyer, in his turn,
considers that the nation-state is far from disappearing from the international scene, only the number of
independent states increasing from 50 in 1945 to almost 225 in 1996 (Boyer, 2001, p. 29-31). He notices an
interesting aspect – the majority of speeches on globalisation give the impression that the rationalities that
were once applied to companies, in an ocean of competition, are today extended to a nation-state caught in
the tangles of international relations. Thus, its sole mission would be only to render more competitive the
economic space it is in charge of, being close to an irreversible decline. This view is belied, however, as
Boyer says, by elementary data regarding prices, which are still dependent on the local conditions, even if
the variables tend to develop in interrelation at world level. In short, the nation-state remains one of the
essential components of an international system that has multiplied the sources of interdependence, without
depriving the existing entities of substance. Hirst and Thompson also look optimistically at the future of the
national governance mechanism, but admit that certain competences are changing and certain institutions
are being reformed (Hirst&Thompson, 2002, p. 364).
In the Human Development Report from 1999, a globalisation with a human face is mentioned, in which
the benefits should be allocated evenly, and the increasing interdependences among countries should work
for people, not just for profits. Thus, the globalisation with a human face emphasises values such as: ethics,
equity, social inclusion and security, economic sustainability and development (UNDP, 1999, p. 2).
Openness, the exchange of opportunities and technological progress are seen as the main globalisation
201
means. The UNDP Report, however, draws attention to the fact that, led by the market forces, the current
globalisation attempts at promoting economic efficiency, growth and profit. But it overlooks purposes such
as equity, the eradication of poverty and the increase in security (UNDP, 1999, p. 44). Thus, the big
challenge of globalisation in the new millennium is not how to stop the expansion of the global market, but
to find certain rules and institutions for a better governance at local, national, regional and global level,
so as to ensure the advantages of the global market and competition, but also enough room for the
development of human and environmental resources.
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
22.
23.
24.
Axford, B. - „The Global System, Economics, Politics and Culture”, Cambridge, Polity Press,
1995
Boyer R. – „Les mots et les réalités”, study included in the volume coordinated by S. Cordellier –
„La mondialisation au-delà des mythes”, Trei Publishing House, Bucharest, 2001 (Romanian
edition)
Bretherton, C., Poynton, G. (publishers) – „Global Politics. An Introduction”, Oxford, Blackwell,
1996
Brittan, L. – „Globalisation vs. Sovereignty? The European Response”, The 1997 Rede Lecture
and Related Speeches, Cambridge University Press, 1997
Chase-Dunn, C. – “Global Formation. Structures of the World-Economy”, Oxford, Basil
Blackwell, 1989
Clark, I. – „Globalization and Fragmentation. International Relations in the Twentieth Century”,
Oxford University Press, 1998
Coyle, D. – „Governance in a Global Economy: Myth and Reality on Financial Markets”,
Bucharest, Antet Publishing House, second edition, 2005
D’Agostino, S. – „La mondialisation”, Paris, Bréal, 2002
Fukuyama, F. – „The End of History and the Last Man”, New York, The Free Press, 1992
George, V., Wilding, P. – “Globalisation and Human Welfare”, London, Palgrove, 2002
Hart, J. A., Prakash, A. - “Globalisation and Regionalisation: Conceptual Issues and Reflections”,
International Trade Law & Regulation, 1996
Held, D., McGrew, A., Goldblatt, D., Perraton, J. – „Global Transformations. Politics, Economics
and Culture”, Iaúi, Polirom Publishing House, 2004 (Romanian edition)
Hirst, P., Thompson, G. – „Globalisation in Question. The International Economy and the
Possibilities of Governance”, Trei Publishing House, Bucharest, 2002 (Romanian edition)
Huntington, S. P. – „The Clash of Civilisations”, Bucharest, Antet Publishing House, 1998
(Romanian edition)
Keohane, R., Milner, H. – “Internationalization and Domestic Politics: a conclusion”, New York,
Cambridge University Press, 1996
Kerr, C., Dunlop, J. T., Harbison, F. H., Myers, C. A. – „Industrialism and Industrial Man: The
Problems of Labor and Management in Economic Growth”, 2nd edition, Harmondsworth,
Penguin, 1973
Langhorne, R. – „The Coming of Globalization, Its Evolution and Contemporary Consequences”,
Hampshire, Palgrave, 2001
Levitt T. – „The Globalization of Markets”, Harvard Business Revue, May - June 1983
Martin, H. P., Schumann, H. – „Die Globalisterungsfalle”, Economică Publishing House,
Bucharest, 1999 (Romanian edition)
McGrew, A. G., Lewis, P. G. – „Global Politics: Globalization and the Nation-State”, Oxford
University Press, 1992
Ohmae, K. – „The Borderless World: Power and Strategy in the Interlinked Economy”, Collins,
New York, 1990
Ohmae, K. – „The End of the Nation State”, NY, Free Press, 1995
Plihon, D. – „Les mécomptes de la globalisation financière” study included in the volume
coordinated by S. Cordellier – „ La mondialisation au-delà des mythes”, Trei Publishing House,
Bucharest, 2001 (Romanian edition)
202
25. Reich, R. B. – „The Work of Nations: Preparing Ourselves for 21st Century Capitalism”, London,
Simon&Schuster, 1991
26. Robertson, R. – „Globalisation, Social Theory and Global Culture”, London, Sage Publications,
1992
27. Soros, G. - „On Globalisation”, Polirom Publishing House, Iaúi, 2002
28. UNDP – „Human Development Report - Globalization with a Human Face”, New York, Oxford,
Oxford University Press, 1999
29. Wallerstein, I. – „Utopistics: Or, Historical Choices of the Twenty-First Century”, NY, 1998
30. Waters, M. - „Globalization”, London, Routledge, 1995
31. Wilkin, P. – „New myths for the South: globalisation and the conflict between private power and
freedom”, Third World Quarterly, Vol. 17, No 2, 1996
32. Williamson, J. G. – “Globalisation and the Labour Market: Using History to Inform Policy”, in
the volume published by Ph. Aghion and J. G. Williamson – “Growth, Inequality and
Globalisation”, Cambridge University Press, 1998
33. World Bank - „Globalization, Growth and Poverty: Building an Inclusive World Economy”,
Washington DC, 2002
203