Globalization or (Globalisation) refers to the increasingly global relationships of culture, people and economic activity. Most often, it refers to economics: the global distribution of the production of goods and services, through reduction of barriers to international trade such as tariffs, export fees, and import quotas. Globalization accompanied and allegedly contributed to economic growth in developed and developing countries through increased specialization and the principle of comparative advantage.[1][2] The term can also refer to the transnational circulation of ideas, languages, and popular culture.
Opponents alleged that globalization's benefits have been overstated and its costs underestimated. Among other points, they argued that it decreased inter-cultural contact while increasing the possibility of international and intra-national conflict.[3]
Contents |
The term was first employed in a publication entitled Towards New Education in 1930, to denote a holistic view of human experience in education.[4] In the 1960s the term began to be used by economists and other social scientists. The term reached the mainstream press in the later half of the 1980s. Since its inception, the concept of globalization has inspired competing definitions and interpretations, with antecedents dating back to the great movements of trade and empire across Asia and the Indian Ocean from the 15th century onwards.[5]
Charles Taze Russell coined the related term 'corporate giants' in 1897,[6] to describe the largely national trusts and other large enterprises of the time.
The United Nations ESCWA says globalization is:
"a widely-used term that can be defined in a number of different ways. When used in an economic context, it refers to the reduction and removal of barriers between national borders in order to facilitate the flow of goods, capital, services and labour... although considerable barriers remain to the flow of labour... Globalization is not a new phenomenon. It began towards the end of the nineteenth century, but it slowed down during the period from the start of the first World War until the third quarter of the twentieth century. This slowdown can be attributed to the inward-looking policies pursued by a number of countries in order to protect their respective industries... however, the pace of globalization picked up rapidly during the fourth quarter of the twentieth century..."[7]
Tom G. Palmer of the Cato Institute defines globalization as "the diminution or elimination of state-enforced restrictions on exchanges across borders and the increasingly integrated and complex global system of production and exchange that has emerged as a result."[11]
Thomas L. Friedman popularized the term "flat world", arguing that globalized trade, outsourcing, supply-chaining, and political forces had permanently changed the world, for better and worse. He asserted that the pace of globalization was quickening and that its impact on business organization and practice would continue to grow.[12]
Takis Fotopoulos defined "economic globalization" as the opening and deregulation of commodity, capital and labour markets which led to the present neoliberal globalization. "Political globalization" named the emergence of a transnational elite and the phasing out of the nation-state. "Cultural globalization" was the worldwide homogenization of culture. Other elements included "ideological globalization", "technological globalization" and "social globalization".[13]
In 2000 the IMF identified four basic aspects of globalization:[14]
Economic globalization can be measured in different ways. The most common track national and regional imports and exports of output and capital, as well as the balance of trade. At a more detailed level, measurements monitor employment in specific sectors such as auto manufacturing and functional activities such as customer service. For example, China in 2009 surpassed Germany as the world's largest exporter.[18]
However, globalization is not purely an economic phenomenon. Swiss think tank KOF adopted a multivariate approach to measuring globalization. The index measures economic, social, and political dimensions of globalization. It provides sub-indices referring to actual economic flows, economic restrictions, data on personal contact, data on information flows and data on cultural proximity. Annual data was available for 122 countries.[19] According to the index, the world's most globalized country was Belgium, followed by Austria, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. The least globalized countries were Haiti, Myanmar, the Central African Republic and Burundi.[20]
Through 2011, A.T. Kearney and Foreign Policy Magazine jointly published another globalization index. According to the 2006 index, Singapore, Ireland, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Canada and Denmark were the most globalized, while Indonesia, India and Iran were the least.
The historical origins of globalization remain subject to debate. Though in common usage it refers to the period beginning in the 1970s, some scholars regard it as having an ancient history that encompasses all international activity.[21]
Perhaps the most extreme proponent of a deep historical origin for globalization was Andre Gunder Frank, an economist associated with dependency theory. Frank argued that a form of globalization began with the rise of trade links between Sumer and the Indus Valley Civilization in the third millennium B.C.[22]
This archaic globalization existed during the Hellenistic Age, when commercialized urban centers enveloped the axis of Greek culture that reached from India to Spain, including Alexandria and the other Alexandrine cities. Others pointed to the trade links between the Roman Empire, the Parthian Empire, and the Han Dynasty. The increasing commercial links between these powers took form in the Silk Road, which started in western China, reached the boundaries of the Parthian empire, and continued to Rome.[23] As many as three hundred Greek ships sailed each year between the Greco-Roman world and India. Annual trade volume may have reached 300,000 tons.[24]
The Islamic Golden Age showed another stage of globalization, when Jewish and Muslim traders and explorers established trade routes, resulting in a globalization of agriculture, trade, knowledge and technology. Crops such as sugar and cotton became widely cultivated across the Muslim world in this period, while widespread knowledge of Arabic and the Hajj created a cosmopolitan culture.[25]
The advent of the Mongol Empire, though destabilizing to the commercial centers of the Middle East and China, greatly facilitated travel along the Silk Road. The Pax Mongolica of the thirteenth century included the first international postal service, as well as the rapid transmission of epidemic diseases such as bubonic plague across Central Asia.[26] Up to the sixteenth century, however, the largest systems of international exchange were limited to Eurasia.
The next phase, known as proto-globalization, was characterized by the rise of maritime European empires, in the 16th and 17th centuries, first the Portuguese and Spanish Empires, and later the Dutch and British Empires. In the 17th century, globalization became developed greater when chartered companies like British East India Company (founded in 1600), often described as the first multinational corporation, as well as the Dutch East India Company (founded in 1602) were established.
The Age of Discovery added the New World to the phenomenon.[27] It began in the late 15th century, when Portugal and Castile sent the first exploratory voyages[28] around the Horn of Africa and to the Americas, reached in 1492 by Christopher Columbus. Global integration continued with the European colonization of the Americas initiating the Columbian Exchange,[29] the exchange of plants, animals, foods, human populations (including slaves), communicable diseases, and culture between the Eastern and Western hemispheres. New crops that had come from the Americas via the European seafarers in the 16th century significantly contributed to world population growth.[30]
In the 19th century globalization approached its modern form. Industrialization allowed cheap production of household items using economies of scale, while rapid population growth created sustained demand. Globalization in this period was decisively shaped by nineteenth-century imperialism. After the First and Second Opium Wars and the completion of England's conquest of India, vast populations became ready consumers of European exports. Parts of sub-Saharan Africa and the Pacific islands were incorporated into the world system. Meanwhile, the conquest of new parts of the globe, notably sub-Saharan Africa, by Europeans yielded valuable natural resources such as rubber, diamonds and coal and helped fuel trade and investment between the European imperial powers, their colonies, and the United States.[31]
The growth of trade was interrupted by World War I and the Great Depression, resurfacing only after World War II. This resurgence was partly the result of planning by politicians to lower borders that hampered trade. Their work led to the Bretton Woods conference, an agreement by major governments to lay down the framework for international monetary policy, commerce and finance, and the founding of several international institutions intended to facilitate economic growth. This facilitated the global expansion of multinational corporations based mostly in the United States and Europe.
Institutions including the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (the World Bank), International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Trade Organization (WTO) laid the foundations of the explosive growth of the phenomena in the post-Cold War era.
Multiple rounds of trade opening simplified and lowered trade barriers. Initially, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), led to a series of agreements to remove trade restrictions. GATT's successor was the World Trade Organization (WTO), which created an institution to manage the trading system. Exports nearly doubled from 8.5% of total gross world product in 1970 to 16.2% in 2001.[32] The approach of using global agreements to advance trade stumbled with the failure of the Doha round.[33] Many countries then shifted to bilateral or smaller multilateral agreements, such as the 2011 South Korea–United States Free Trade Agreement.
In the 1990s, the growth of low cost communication networks allowed work done using a computer to be performed without regard to location. This included accounting, software development, and engineering design. In late 2000s, much of the industrialized world entered into the so-called Great Recession,[34] which may have slowed the process, at least temporarily.[15][35][36][37]
International trade in manufactured goods increased more than 100 times (from $95 billion to $12 trillion) between 1955 and 2007.[41] China's trade with Africa rose sevenfold during 2000–07 alone.[42][43]
By the early part of the 21st century more than $1.5 trillion in national currencies were traded daily to support the expanded levels of trade and investment.[44]
Survival in the new global business market required companies to upgrade their products and use technology skilfully in order to survive increased competition.[45]
According to Jagdish Bhagwati, a former adviser to the U.N. on globalization, although there are obvious problems with overly rapid development, globalization is a very positive force that lifts countries out of poverty. According to him, it causes a virtuous economic cycle associated with faster economic growth.[1]
The costs and benefits of globalization have not been equally distributed across regions and nations. For example, manufacturing employment in the Midwestern section of the United States declined while growing exponentially in developing countries.[47]
Opportunities in rich countries attract skilled workers from poor countries, leading to brain drains. For example, nurses from poorer countries come to the US to work.[48] This phenomenon cost Africa over $4.1 billion for the employment of 150,000 expatriate professionals annually.[49] The Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry estimates costs to India of $10 billion per year.[50]
In some developing countries labor policies provide less protection than in developed countries. One example is the use of sweatshops by manufacturers. Clothing makers such as The Gap were accused of contracting with factories that used child labor in violation of local and US law.[51]
In the USA, the National Labor Committee proposed the Decent Working Conditions and Fair Competition Act, which would legally require companies to respect human and worker rights by prohibiting the import, sale, or export of sweatshop goods.[52] Specifically, these core standards include no child labor, no forced labor, freedom of association, right to organize and bargain collectively, as well as the right to safe working conditions.[53]
In rich countries, business process outsourcing has been a double-edged sword; it enabled cheaper services but displaced some service-sector jobs. However, in lower-cost locations such as India, the outsourcing industry is the "primary engine of the country’s development over the next few decades, contributing broadly to GDP growth, employment growth, and poverty alleviation".[54][55]
World Bank figures indicate that the number of people living on less than $1 per day-the international standard for extreme poverty-dropped from 1.25 billion (29%) in 1990 to 986 million in 2004 (18% of the larger total population).[56]
Critics allege globalization increased income inequality, both between and within nations. On 7 out of 8 metrics, income inequality increased in the twenty years ending 2001. Also, "incomes in the lower deciles of world income distribution have probably fallen absolutely since the 1980s". The article was skeptical of the World Bank's claim that the number of people living on less than $1 a day had held steady at 1.2 billion from 1987 to 1998, because of biased methodology.[57]
A chart that gave the inequality a very visible and comprehensible form, the so-called 'champagne glass' effect,[58] was contained in the 1992 United Nations Development Program Report, which showed the distribution of global income to be very uneven, with the richest 20% of the world's population controlling 82.7% of the world's income.[59]
| Quintile of Population | Income |
|---|---|
| Richest 20% | 82.7% |
| Second 20% | 11.7% |
| Third 20% | 2.3% |
| Fourth 20% | 2.4% |
| Poorest 20% | 0.2% |
Source: United Nations Development Program. 1992 Human Development Report[60]
In December 2007, World Bank economist Branko Milanovic questioned previous empirical research on global poverty and inequality because improved estimates of purchasing power parity indicated that developing countries were worse off than previously believed. Milanovic remarked, "literally hundreds of scholarly papers on convergence or divergence of countries’ incomes have been published in the last decade based on what we know now were faulty numbers." The new data held considerable implications estimates of global inequality and poverty levels. Earlier inequality was estimated at around 65 Gini points, versus 70 using the new numbers.[61]
The globalization of the job market had positive and negative consequences in developed countries. White-collar workers (engineers, attorneys, scientists, professors, executives, journalists, consultants) were able to compete successfully in the world market and command high wages. For example, Boeing Corp. is the US' largest exporter. In late 2011 the company closed orders worth more than $50 Billion for US aircraft, justifying the 11,000 additional workers it hired that year.[62] Conversely, production workers and service workers were unable to compete directly with much lower-cost workers in developing countries.[63] Low-wage countries gained the low-value-added element of work formerly done in rich countries, while higher-value work remained; for instance, the total number of people employed in manufacturing in the US declined, but value added per worker increased.[64]
This resulted in growing income inequality in rich countries. This trend seems to be greater in the United States, where it started to rise in the late 1970s, accelerating in the 21st century; it has now reached a level comparable with that found in many developing countries.[65]
Consumer goods exports such as televisions, radios, bicycles, and textiles into the United States, Europe, and Japan fueled the economic expansion of Asian tiger economies.[66] China exports were worth 157.5 Billion USD in October 2011. In that year exports of goods and services constituted 39.7% of China's GDP.[67] The increasing U.S. trade deficit with China cost 2.4 million American jobs between 2001 and 2008, according to a study by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI).[68] From 2000 to 2007, the United States lost a total of 3.2 million manufacturing jobs.[69] Chinese success cost jobs in developing countries as well as well as the West. As of 26 April 2005 "In regional giant South Africa, some 300,000 textile workers have lost their jobs in the past two years due to the influx of Chinese goods".[70]
A 2007 report by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP predicted that by 2050 the economies of the E7 emerging economies (the BRIC countries: China, India, Brazil, and Russia, plus Mexico, Indonesia and Turkey) would be around 50% larger than the current G7 (US, Japan, Germany, UK, France, Italy and Canada). The report forecast that China would overtake the US as the largest economy around 2025, followed by India in 2050.[71] A 2010 report issued by Goldman Sachs predicted that China was about to overtake Japan and could become the world's largest economy by 2020.[72]
The collapse of the subprime mortgage market in the U.S. led to a global financial crisis and recession on a scale not seen since the Great Depression.[73] According to critics, government deregulation and failed regulation of Wall Street's investment banks were important contributors to the subprime mortgage crisis.[74][75]
In 2010 the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) reported that the global drug trade generated more than $320 billion a year in revenues.[76] Worldwide, the UN estimates there are more than 50 million regular users of heroin, cocaine and synthetic drugs.[77] The international trade of endangered species was second only to drug trafficking among smuggling "industries".[78] Traditional Chinese medicine often incorporates ingredients from all parts of plants, the leaf, stem, flower, root, and also ingredients from animals and minerals. The use of parts of endangered species (such as seahorses, rhinoceros horns, saiga antelope horns, and tiger bones and claws) resulted in a black market of poachers who hunt restricted animals.[79][80]
Globalization reduced the importance of nation states. Sub-state and supra-state institutions such as the European Union, the WTO, the G8 or the International Criminal Court, replace national functions with international agreement.[81] Some observers attribute the relative decline in US power to globalization, particularly due to the country's high trade deficit. The led to a global power shift towards Asian states, particularly China, that unleashed market forces and achieved tremendous growth rates. As of 2011, China was on track to overtake the United States by 2025.[82]
Mandarin is the first language of 845 million speakers, followed by Spanish (329 million speakers) and English (328 million speakers).[83] However the most popular second language is undoubtedly English, the "lingua franca" of globalization:
Cultural globalisation has increased cross-cultural contacts but may be accompanied by a decrease in the uniqueness of once-isolated communities: sushi is available in Germany as well as Japan, but Euro-Disney outdraws the city of Paris, potentially reducing demand for "authentic" French pastry.[86][87][88] Globalisation's contribution to the alienation of individuals from their traditions may be modest compared to the impact of modernity itself, as alleged by existentialists such as Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus.
Globalisation expanded recreational opportunities by spreading pop culture, particularly via the Internet and satellite television.
WHO estimates that up to 500,000 people are in flight at any one time.[89] In 2010, international tourism reached $919B, growing 6.5% over 2009.[90]
The IOM found more than 200 million migrants around the world in 2008,[91] including illegal immigration.[92][93] Remittance flows to developing countries reached $328 billion in 2008.[94]
Non-governmental organizations influence public policy across national boundaries, including humanitarian aid and developmental efforts.[95]
Religious movements were among the earliest cultural forces to globalize, spread by force, migration, evangelists, imperialists and traders. Christianity, Islam, Buddhism and more recently sects such as Mormonism have taken root and influenced endemic cultures in places far from their origins.[96]
Conversi claimed in 2010 that globalization was predominantly driven by the outward flow of culture and economic activity from the United States and was better understood as Americanization.[97][98] For example, the two most successful global food/beverage outlets are American companies, McDonald's and Starbucks, are often cited as examples of globalization, with over 32,000[99] and 18,000 locations operating worldwide, respectively as of 2008.[100]
The term globalization implies transformation. Cultural practices including traditional music can be lost and/or turned into a fusion of traditions. Globalization can trigger a state of emergency for the preservation of musical heritage. Archivists must attempt to collect, record or transcribe repertoire before melodies are assimilated or modified. Local musicians struggle for authenticity and to preserve local musical traditions. Globalization can lead performers to discard traditional instruments. Fusion genres can become interesting fields of analysis.[101]
Globalization gave support to the World Music phenomenon by allowing locally-recorded to reach western audiences searching for new ideas and sounds. Western musicians adopted many innovations that originated in remote cultures.
Music flowed outward from the west as well. Anglo-American pop music spread across the world through MTV. Dependency Theory explained that the world was an integrated, international system. Musically, this translated into the loss of local musical identity.[102]
Bourdieu claimed that the perception of consumption can be seen as self-identification and the formation of identity. Musically, this translates into each being having his/her own musical identity based on likes and tastes. These likes and tastes are greatly influenced by culture as this is the most basic cause for a person’s wants and behavior. The concept of one’s own culture is now in a period of change due to globalization. Also, globalization has increased the interdependency of political, personal, cultural and economic factors.[103]
Environmental challenges such as climate change, cross-boundary water and air pollution and over-fishing of the ocean, require trans-national/global solutions. Since factories in developing countries increased global output and experienced less environmental regulation, globalism substantially increased pollution and impact on water resources.[104]
State of the World 2006 report said India and China's high economic growth was not sustainable. The report stated:
The advent of global environmental challenges that might be solved with international cooperation include climate change, cross-boundary water and air pollution, over-fishing of the ocean, and the spread of invasive species. Since many factories are built in developing countries with less environmental regulation, globalism and free trade may increase pollution and impact on precious fresh water resources.[104][107]
International foreign investment in developing countries could lead to a “race to the bottom” as countries lower their environmental and resource protection laws to attract foreign capital.[108][109] The reverse of this theory is true, however, when developed countries maintain positive environmental practices, imparting them to countries they are investing in and creating a “race to the top” phenomenon.[108]
At the same time, developing countries like Peru and Ethiopia are working to preserve their unique ecosystems by encouraging economic growth through investments like ecotourism, allowing for the economic gain of locals, an educational experience for visitors, and a low impact way to utilize and preserve their natural resources.[110]
The distances are shrinking between continents and countries due to globalization, causing developing and developed countries to find ways to solve problems on a global rather than regional scale. Agencies like the United Nations now must be the global regulators of pollution, whereas before, regional governance was enough.[111] Action has been taken by the United Nations to monitor and reduce atmospheric pollutants through the Kyoto Protocol, the Clean Air Initiative, and studies of air pollution and public policy.[112]
Global traffic, production, and consumption are causing increased global levels of air pollutants. The northern hemisphere is the leading producer of carbon monoxide and sulfur oxides.[113]
China and India substantially increased their fossil fuel consumption as their economies switched from subsistence farming to industry and urbanization.[114][115] Chinese oil consumption grew by 8% yearly between 2002 and 2006, doubling from 1996–2006.[116] In 2007, China surpassed the United States as the top emitter of CO2.[117] Only 1 percent of the country’s 560 million city inhabitants (2007) breathe air deemed safe by the European Union. In this way, developed countries outsource some of the pollution associated with consumption in countries where pollution-intensive industries moved.
A major source of deforestation is the logging industry, driven by China and Japan.[119]
At present rates, tropical rainforests in Indonesia would be fully harvested in 10 years and Papua New Guinea in 13 to 16 years.[120]
Societies utilize forest resources in order to reach a sustainable level of economic development. Historically, forests experience “forest transitions”, a period of deforestation and reforestation as a surrounding society becomes more developed, industrialized and sustainable. Forest transitions can have an effect on the hydrology, climate change, and biodiversity of an area by impacting water quality and the accumulation of greenhouse gases through the re-growth of new forest into second and third growth forests.[121]
Without more recycling, zinc could be used up by 2037, both indium and hafnium could run out by 2017, and terbium could be gone before 2012.[122]
Societies assign environmental conservation to different levels of importance depending on the stage of development and economic security they have reached. Those societies which have reached a “Postmaterialist” level of living, having high living standards and quality of life, value conservation of natural resources more than a “Materialist” society, which has not had the chance to reach heightened levels of economic stability or high standards of living.[123]
With human consumption of seafood having doubled in the last 30 years, seriously depleting multiple seafood fisheries and destroying the marine ecosystem as a result, awareness is prompting steps to be taken to create a more sustainable seafood supply.[124]
The head of the International Food Policy Research Institute, stated in 2008 that the gradual change in diet among newly prosperous populations is the most important factor underpinning the rise in global food prices.[125] From 1950 to 1984, as the Green Revolution transformed agriculture around the world, grain production increased by over 250%.[126] World population has grown by about 4 billion since the beginning of the Green Revolution and without it, there would be greater famine and malnutrition than the UN presently documents (approximately 850 million people suffering from chronic malnutrition in 2005).[127][128]
It is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain food security in a world beset by a confluence of "peak" phenomena, namely peak oil, peak water, peak phosphorus, peak grain and peak fish. Growing populations, falling energy sources and food shortages will create the "perfect storm" by 2030, according to UK chief government scientist John Beddington. He noted that food reserves were at a 50-year low and the world would require 50% more energy, food and water by 2030.[129][130] The world will have to produce 70% more food by 2050 to feed a projected extra 2.3 billion people and as incomes rise according to the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO).[131] Social scientists have warned of the possibility that global civilization is due for a period of contraction and economic re-localization, due to the decline in fossil fuels and resulting crisis in transportation and food production.[132][133][134] Helga Vierich predicted that a restoration of sustainable local economic activities based on hunting and gathering, shifting horticulture, and pastoralism.[135]
In 2003, 29% of open sea fisheries were in a state of collapse.[136] The journal Science published a four-year study in November 2006, which predicted that, at prevailing trends, the world would run out of wild-caught seafood in 2048.[137] Conversely, globalisation created a global market for farm-raised fish and seafood, which as of 2009 was providing 38% of global output, potentially reducing fishing pressure.[138]
Globalization helped to spread some of the deadliest infectious diseases.[139] Starting in Asia, the Black Death killed at least one-third of Europe's population in the 14th century.[140] Even worse devastation was inflicted on the American supercontinent by European arrivals. 90% of the populations of the civilizations of the "New World" such as the Aztec, Maya, and Inca were killed by small pox brought by European colonization. Modern modes of transportation allow more people and products to travel around the world at a faster pace, but they also open the airways to the transcontinental movement of infectious disease vectors.[141] One example of this occurring was AIDS/HIV.[142] Due to immigration, approximately 500,000 people in the United States are believed to be infected with Chagas disease.[143] In 2006, the tuberculosis (TB) rate among foreign-born persons in the United States was 9.5 times that of U.S.-born persons.[144]
There is little common ground between proponents and opponents of globalization.[145]
Fiss, et. al., surveyed opinion in 1993. Their survey showed that in 1993 more than 40% of respondents were unfamiliar with the concept of globalization. When the survey was repeated in 1998, 89% of the respondents had a polarized view of globalization as being either good or bad. At the same time, discourse on globalization, which began in the financial community before shifting to a heated debate between proponents and disenchanted students and workers. Polarization increased dramatically after the establishment of the WTO in 1995; this event and subsequent protests led to a large-scale anti-globalization movement.[146]
Initially, college educated workers were likely to support globalization. Less educated workers, who were more likely to compete with immigrants and workers in developing countries, tended to be opponents. The situation changed after the financial crisis of 2007. According to a 1997 poll 58% of college graduates said globalization had been good for the U.S. By 2008 only 33% thought it was good. Respondents with high school education also became more opposed.[147]
Philip Gordon stated that “(as of 2004) a clear majority of Europeans believe that globalization can enrich their lives, while believing the European Union can help them take advantage of globalization’s benefits while shielding them from its negative effects.”[148] The main opposition consisted of socialists, environmental groups, and nationalists.
US workers were more impacted by automation and outsourcing than Europeans. US income inequality is much higher than in the EU.[65] Gordon points out that EU workers feel less threatened by globalization. The EU job market was more stable and workers were less likely to accept wage/benefit cuts. Social spending was much higher than in the US.[149]
In Japan, the debate takes a different form. According to Takenaka Heizo and Chida Ryokichi, as of 1998 there was a perception that the economy was “Small and Frail”. However Japan was resource poor and used exports to pay for its raw materials. Anxiety over their position caused terms such as internationalization and globalization to enter everyday language. However, Japanese tradition was to be as self-sufficient as possible, particularly in agriculture.[150]
The situation may have changed after the 2007 financial crisis. A 2008 BBC World Public Poll as the crisis began suggested that opposition to globalization in developed countries was increasing. The BBC poll asked whether globalization was growing too rapidly. Agreement was strongest in France, Spain, Japan, South Korea, and Germany. The trend in these countries appears to be stronger than in the United States. The poll also correlated the tendency to view globalization as proceeding too rapidly with a perception of growing economic insecurity and social inequality.[151]
A number of international polls have shown that residents of developing countries tend to view globalization more favorably.[152] The BBC found a growing feeling in developing countries that globalization was proceeding too rapidly. Only a few countries, including Mexico, the countries of Central America, Indonesia, Brazil and Kenya, where a majority felt that globalization is growing too slowly.[151]
Many in the Third World see globalization as a positive force that lifts countries out of poverty.[1] The opposition typically combined environmental concerns with nationalism. Opponents consider governments as agents of neo-colonialism that are subservient to multinational corporations.[153] Much of this criticism comes from the middle class; the Brookings Institute suggested this was because the middle class perceived upwardly mobile low-income groups to threaten their economic security.[154]
Although many critics blame globalization for a decline of the middle class in industrialized countries, the middle class is growing rapidly in the Third World.[155] Coupled with growing urbanization, this led to increasing disparities in wealth between urban and rural areas.[156] In 2002, in India 70% of the population lived in rural areas and depended directly on natural resources for their livelihood.[153] As a result, mass movements in the countryside at times objected to the process.[157]
Rapid growth in China resulted in 0.4% of the population possessing 70% of the nation’s wealth.[158] Increasing unrest in rural China was attributed to the growing gap in wealth between rural and urban areas.[159] This, plus growing worker discontent in industrialized areas, caused concern among the nation's leadership.[160]
David Held and Anthony McGrew, in an article in The Oxford Companion to Politics of the World, suggested that discourse can be separated into three frames. 1) Hyperglobalists hold that globalization eclipsed autonomy and national sovereignty; 2) Sceptics hold that global economic interdependence was considerably exaggerated; while 3) Transformationalists emphasized globalization spatially redistributed economic, political, military and cultural power.[161]
The majority of books, newspaper articles and press releases in this frame represent the neo-liberal view of globalization. Supporters claim that free trade increases economic prosperity as well as opportunity, especially among developing nations, enhances civil liberties and leads to a more efficient allocation of resources. 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, this leads to lower prices, more employment, higher output and a higher standard of living.[162][163]
Libertarians claim that higher degrees of political and economic freedom in the form of democracy and capitalism in the developed world are ends in themselves and also produce higher levels of material wealth. They see globalization as the beneficial spread of liberty and capitalism.[162]
Marshall McLuhan popularized the term Global Village beginning in 1962.[164] His view suggested that globalization would lead to a world where people from all countries will become more integrated and aware of common interests and shared humanity.[165]
Supporters of democratic globalization believe that the economic development was the first phase of globalization, and should be followed by a phase of building global political institutions.
Dr. Francesco Stipo, Director of the United States Association of the Club of Rome, advocated for unifying nations under a world government, suggesting that it "should reflect the political and economic balances of world nations. A world confederation would not supersede the authority of the State governments but rather complement it, as both the States and the world authority would have power within their sphere of competence".[166]
Former Canadian Senator Douglas Roche, O.C., viewed globalization as inevitable and advocated creating institutions such as a directly elected United Nations Parliamentary Assembly to exercise oversight over unelected international bodies.
This involves a form of discourse that portrays globalization as a natural, evolutionary, and largely inevitable development. This type of discourse became less prominent as the issue of globalization became increasingly politicized. The percentage of articles exhibiting neutral framing decreased from nearly 90% in 1986 to around 25% in 1998,[146] while the number of newspaper articles dealing with globalization increased almost tenfold.[146]:Table 2 Therefore, the total number of neutral articles has probably increased.
This discourse synthesized elements of the above forms. It accepted the reality of international integration. It asserted that international cooperation could solve important problems. At the same time, it acknowledged globalization's negative effects and proposed mitigating responses. A movement began in 2001 at the World Social Forum (WSF) to bring about this synthesis. It adopted the term alter-globalization (or altermondialization).
Peer Fiss and Paul Hirsch, in an article on the discourse of globalization, suggested using the notion of framing as a way to study this polarization. By framing, they mean the way “interested actors and entrepreneurs articulate particular versions of reality to potential supporters…”[146] They identified three main frames:
The Hiss study claimed that newspaper articles and corporate press releases prior to 1989 employed neutral frame of reference. In 1986, for example, nearly 90% of newspaper articles exhibited neutral framing. After the collapse of the stock market in Oct.19, 1987 and the subsequent recession, newspapers began to voice concerns about globalization and the interconnectedness of international markets. By 1998, neutrally framed articles had been reduced to 25% of the total.
The study also showed a large increase in negative articles. Prior to 1995, positive articles were more common. By 1998, negative articles outpaced positive articles by two to one.[146] In 2008 Greg Ip claimed this rise in opposition to globalization can be explained, at least in part, by economic self-interest.[147]
The number of newspaper articles showing negative framing rose from about 10% of the total in 1991 to 55% of the total in 1999. This increase occurred during a period when the total number of articles concerning globalization nearly doubled.[146] This discourse takes two very different forms:
In industrialized countries discourse about globalization centered on economic self-interest. Newspaper articles about globalization typically expressed concerns involve the interconnectedness of international financial markets and the potential for economic crisis, as well as threats to the worker livelihoods.[146]
The establishment of the WTO in 1995 led to an anti-globalization movement that was primarily concerned with the negative impact of globalization in developing countries. Their concerns ranged from environmental issues to issues like democracy, national sovereignty and the worker exploitation.
Opponents in developed countries were disproportionately middle-class and college-educated. This contrasted sharply with the situation in developing countries, where the anti-globalization movement was more successful in enlisting a broader group, including millions of workers and farmers.[167]
"Anti-globalization" activities include attempts to demonstrate sovereignty, practice democratic decision-making, restrict the international transfer of people, goods and disfavored beliefs, particularly free market deregulation. Naomi Klein argued that the term could denote either a single social movement or encompass multiple social movements such as nationalism and socialism.[168]
Hirst and Thompson reject the term as too vague.[169][170][171] Podobnik states that "the vast majority of groups that participate in these protests draw on international networks of support, and they generally call for forms of globalization that enhance democratic representation, human rights, and egalitarianism."
Other terms include Global Justice Movement, the Anti-Corporate-Globalization , the Movement of Movements (Italy), the Alter-globalization (France) and Counter-Globalization.
Joseph Stiglitz and Andrew Charlton write:
The anti-globalization movement developed in opposition to the perceived negative aspects of globalization. The term 'anti-globalization' is in many ways a misnomer, since the group represents a wide range of interests and issues and many of the people involved in the anti-globalization movement do support closer ties between the various peoples and cultures of the world through, for example, aid, assistance for refugees, and global environmental issues.[172]
Critiques of economic globalization typically look at both the damage to the planet as well as the human costs. They challenge directly traditional metrics, such as GDP, and look to other measures, such as the Happy Planet Index.[173][174] They point to a "multitude of interconnected fatal consequences–social disintegration, a breakdown of democracy, more rapid and extensive deterioration of the environment, the spread of new diseases, increasing poverty and alienation"[175] which they claim are the unintended consequences of globalization.
The terms globalization and anti-globalization are used in various ways. Noam Chomsky stated:
The term "globalization" has been appropriated by the powerful to refer to a specific form of international economic integration, one based on investor rights, with the interests of people incidental. That is why the business press, in its more honest moments, refers to the "free trade agreements" as "free investment agreements" (Wall St. Journal). Accordingly, advocates of other forms of globalization are described as "anti-globalization"; and some, unfortunately, even accept this term, though it is a term of propaganda that should be dismissed with ridicule. No sane person is opposed to globalization, that is, international integration. Surely not the left and the workers movements, which were founded on the principle of international solidarity — that is, globalization in a form that attends to the rights of people, not private power systems.
The dominant propaganda systems have appropriated the term "globalization" to refer to the specific version of international economic integration that they favor, which privileges the rights of investors and lenders, those of people being incidental. In accord with this usage, those who favor a different form of international integration, which privileges the rights of human beings, become "anti-globalist." This is simply vulgar propaganda, like the term "anti-Soviet" used by the most disgusting commissars to refer to dissidents. It is not only vulgar, but idiotic. Take the World Social Forum, called "anti-globalization" in the propaganda system – which happens to include the media, the educated classes, etc., with rare exceptions. The WSF is a paradigm example of globalization. It is a gathering of huge numbers of people from all over the world, from just about every corner of life one can think of, apart from the extremely narrow highly privileged elites who meet at the competing World Economic Forum, and are called "pro-globalization" by the propaganda system. An observer watching this farce from Mars would collapse in hysterical laughter at the antics of the educated classes.[176]
Critics argue that globalization results in:
Critics charged that globalization developed according to corporate interests. They advocated global institutions and policies that they believe better addressed the moral claims of poor and working classes as well as environmental concerns.[179]
Critics included church groups, national liberation factions, peasant unionists, intellectuals, artists, protectionists, anarchists, those in support of relocalization (e.g., consumption of nearby production) and others. Some were reformist, (arguing for a more moderate form of capitalism) while others were revolutionary (power shift from private to public control) or reactionary (public to private).
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.[180]
Americanization related to a period of high political American clout and of significant growth of America's shops, markets and object being brought into other countries. So globalization, a much more diversified phenomenon, relates to a multilateral political world and to the increase of objects, markets and so on into each others countries.
Critics of globalization talk of Westernization. A 2005 UNESCO report[181] showed that cultural exchange is becoming more frequent from Eastern Asia but Western countries are still the main exporters of cultural goods. In 2002, China was the third largest exporter of cultural goods, after the UK and US. Between 1994 and 2002, both North America's and the European Union's shares of cultural exports declined, while Asia's cultural exports grew to surpass North America. Related factors are the fact that Asia's population and area are several times that of North America.
Some opponents of globalization see the phenomenon as the promotion of corporatist interests.[182] They also claim that the increasing autonomy and strength of corporate entities shapes the political policy of countries.[183][184]
|
|||||||||||||||||