Conceptions of Globalization Research Paper

The first step toward a clearer view of globalization is to distinguish the word, as a noun used to describe a phenomenon or an existing condition, from the use of globalize, a verb implying a process. In the former example, we witness globalization to the extent that consumer goods from all parts of the world are now available in the market shelves of the richest countries. Similarly, in practically every corner of the globe one can find islands of consumption similar to those enjoyed in the rich countries. Globalization has drastically reduced the time these transactions take, and dramatically improved the ease with which they are arranged. We now can travel practically anywhere in the world in less time that it would have taken to go from the capital to a provincial town a century ago. It is also possible to phone or obtain information on faraway regions in literally seconds.

If we use the term globalization in this way, the Spanish sociologist Manuel Castells (2000) contends that we are living through a dramatic transformation into a global economy distinct from the “world” economy born in the sixteenth century. Yet Paul Hirst and Grahame Thompson (1999), in their book Globalization in Question, offer evidence indicating that the current process of global interconnection is much less dramatic than what occurred in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Whatever the specific years of its beginning, there is no question that certainly beginning in the mid-nineteenth century, and then following World War II, the world has seen an unprecedented degree of globalization, especially as we include all the new forms of noneconomic contact (e.g., tourism and the Internet).

If we prefer to understand the concept by using globalize, the verb, then we can speak of the thickening of contacts between previously isolated regions, and the facilitation and institutionalization of such flows. In this way, “global” would not refer exclusively to processes involving the whole world, but the integration of known areas of possible interaction. As such, globalization has occurred in various other historical periods. Empires such as the Roman, Chinese, and Ottoman, as well as the Islamic community by the fifteenth century, could be perceived as engaging in a process of globalization. One could argue that the initial migration of hominids from Africa and their subsequent colonization of the Earth was the first example of this process, as was the network of trade routes along the Silk Roads between China and the Mediterranean, which began in earnest during the second century BCE. The degree of European expansion in the fifteenth century would be another, as would the creation of subsequent empires through the nineteenth century. The revolutions in communication and transportation culminating in cheap airfares and the Internet are thus merely means in the latest phase of globalization.

Measuring Globalization

Precisely because it is so apparently ubiquitous, measuring the extent of globalization has not been easy. The development of international trade has been the most immediate (or most visible) phenomenon associated with it, but money, in and of itself, has come to play an arguably even larger role than does the transfer of material goods. Labor, while still subject to much greater control than capital, moves transnationally while international tourism now involves millions of people yearly. The ubiquity of American culture is already a cliche, but it is also possible to eat sushi, drink Beaujolais, and buy curry in any metropolitan center.

Perhaps the most often used figures involve the increases in the global exchange of goods and money. In the 1960s trade accounted for one quarter of the global production of goods and services. By the twenty-first century international flows accounted for roughly half of these. Cross-border trade became so prevalent that the world actually traded more than it made each year (accounted for by goods moving back and forth across borders during production and because of transshipments). More spectacular was been the growth of global finance. Foreign exchange dealings totaled US$15 billion in 1973, but in 2001 the total was nearly one hundred times as much. Foreign direct investments tripled during the 1990s to equal nearly US$750 billion dollars and represented the lifeline for many economies. The United States itself financed its government and commercial deficits by relying on a global community willing and able to purchase its debts. In 2010, as governments, businesses, and individuals attempt to recover from a global financial crisis, it has never been clearer how economies worldwide are inextricably linked.

But contemporary globalization is different from previous epochs, precisely because it involves many other forms of contact other than exchange of goods and services. Migration, for example, obviously played a huge role in the nineteenth century, but in the twenty-first, it has become even more critical to the survival of both sending and receiving countries. Three major networks seem to exist: from Africa and eastern Europe to western Europe, from Latin America and China to the United States, and from Southeast Asia to the Persian Gulf. There are also smaller cycles in western Africa and South America, and within countries. It is difficult to measure much of the migration as it is illegal, but estimates for the 1990s include 25 million for politically induced migration and 100 million for economically or socially induced migration. By 2005 a United Nations estimate put the total figures worldwide at 185–192 million. Tourism is an even more recent phenomenon and one that has shifted the way many people view other countries and cultures. Estimates of tourists for 2001, at 700 million travelers, increased to about 900 million in 2008. While citizens of rich countries are obviously overrepresented in such flows, tourism has become infinitely more democratic since the 1970s.

Culture has also become globalized, ranging from secular to sacred. Popular music, movies, and television shows have now become global commodities. This began with the export of easily dubbed American action movies in the 1970s and 1980s, but now features marketing strategies of multiple premieres separated by oceans. References that once would have made no sense to those outside of a particular culture can now be understood by millions of people who don’t even speak that culture’s language. To a great extent, this process has involved the “Americanization” of global culture, but in the twenty-first century it appears that this will be much more of a polyglot phenomenon than many would suspect. Among the global Indian diaspora, “Bollywood” (the center of Hindi-language filmmaking) is as important as its Californian counterpart. There is a broad geographical representation among the “global celebrities.” Consumer products have also become globalized; where before each country had a national cigarette, beer, soap, and sports team, the last two decades of the twentieth century saw the rise of Marlboro, Heineken, Ivory, and Michael Jordan. Music has also become less of a provincial taste with phenomena from Madonna to the “Three Tenors” on worldwide tours.

Perhaps the most important cultural development of the last quarter of the twentieth century is the ideological hegemony of markets and elections as the operating mechanism for societies. While practiced in myriad ways and never approaching theoretical perfection, capitalism and democracy have become the assumed economic and political options. Other auxiliary political cultural trends include the disappearance of social revolution as an oppositional trope and the rise of nationalist and ethnic appeals. Religion is perhaps our oldest global cultural phenomenon, but no more so than in the twenty-first century. At least in 2010, it is not clear the extent to which a global Islamic movement has moved from organizational conspiracies to a truly social movement, but certainly the Muslim community is much more aware of itself as a global presence than in the past. Similarly the Roman Catholic Church has had to broaden its leadership as its base shifts away from western Europe. The Dalai Lama is recognizable in large parts of the world and pictures of Vishnu can be purchased in almost any city.

Assessing the Pros and Cons

Over the past decade there has been a great deal of discussion of whether the phenomenon of globalization benefits or hurts the majority of the global population. On the pro side, some argue that globalization combines the greatest economies of scale and productive efficiencies to provide everything from consumer goods to medical vaccines to a broader part of humanity. Globalization has also made it more difficult for local despots to hide their crimes or for disasters to remain secret. Explicitly using the model of the market as their base, such arguments defend globalization as providing more for many in unprecedented ways. Opponents of globalization deny that the balance of benefits justifies the costs of globalization. These include the homogenization of cultures, and the loss of autonomy by smaller regions or ethnic groups. They point, for example, to the eradication of languages over the past few decades as a sign of what is to come. For the opponents of globalization the variety and number of products that it makes available have only led to the creation of a global class divide allowing a small minority of the world’s population to emulate the rich. The increase in the relevant market size and the disappearance of national borders have also made it easier for large conglomerates to create effective monopolies. This has led to a “race to the bottom” among societies where each competes to offer the cheapest labor and loosest government regulations.

Part of the argument regarding the overall benefits of globalization concerns the extent to which it is seen as inevitable. For those who judge globalization positively, it seems perfectly obvious that the functional efficiencies of this phenomenon account for its rise. The world was looking for a “better mousetrap,” and globalization has allowed us to buy it in several different colors. Attempts to resist globalization can only result in unnecessary suffering, as those left in its wake will not be able to survive. Opponents of globalization do not see it as arising naturally out of the needs of global population, but as a product of the political domination of the United States following the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the preferences of multinational corporations seeking ever greater profits. Producers and sellers want to be able to operate on a global scale and look to the American policeman to protect their interests. A third group that does not necessarily take sides on the benefits associated with globalization sees it as a product of the technological developments of the past decades. Here the ubiquitous computer and that which it makes possible are responsible for creating a global web of connections that forces states, firms, and individuals to perform on a worldwide stage.

If we treat globalization as a process rather than a final state—as a verb rather than a noun—then much of this debate becomes irrelevant. A historical process can lead to positive or negative results depending on its context or its timing. It may benefit different groups at different times and in different ways. To judge globalization as a final state is particularly dangerous as there has been so little time to appropriately measure and analyze its characteristics and consequences. The process of globalization is also not historically universal, but can proceed in different ways at different times. What defines it is not the end state, but the process of reducing the isolation of territorially defined communities and increasing the interaction and variety of contacts between such communities. It can lead simultaneously to a broader menu of cultural, social, and political choices and to the standardization of models adopted by previously unique groups. If understood as a recurring historical cycle, globalization loses much of its mystery and becomes yet another social phenomenon subject to study and comparison.

There remains considerable debate on the importance of globalization as a social phenomenon (and even about the analytical coherence of such a concept). Not surprisingly, there remains considerable debate on the extent to which the current wave of globalization will continue or be stopped (as were previous ones) by the collapse of the connections and the rise of violent conflicts between regions. Some argue that we are moving toward an ever more globalized world and that nothing can push it back. On the one hand, the dependence on complex technology and advanced engineering do make the current stage susceptible to crashes of one sort or another. On the other, enough of the world’s population has enjoyed at least limited benefits from globalization (at least vicariously) to make them strong advocates of the maintenance of some sort of global web of connections.

Bibliography:

1. Bentley, J. H. (1993). Old world encounters. New York: Oxford University Press.
2. Bordo, M. D., Taylor, A. M., & Williamson, J. G. (Eds.). (2003). Globalization in historical perspective. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
3. Castells, M. (2000). The rise of the network society. Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell.
4. Chase-Dunn, C. K., & Hall, T. D. (1997). Rise and demise: Comparing world systems. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
5. Curtin, P. (2000). The world and the West: The European challenge and the overseas response in the age of empire. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
6. Guillen, M. (2001). Is globalization civilizing, destructive or feeble? A critique of five key debates in the social science literature. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 235–260.
7. Hirst, P., & Thompson, G. (1999). Globalization in question: The international economy and the possibilities of governance. Cambridge, U.K.: Polity.
8. McNeill, J. R., & McNeill, W. H. (2003). The human web: A bird’s eye view of world history. New York: W. W. Norton.
9. Mittelman, J. (2000). The globalization syndrome: Transformation and resistance. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
10. Rodrik, D. (1997). Has globalization gone too far? Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics.