Why Is Globalization a Contentious Term - Essay Example

? Why is globalization a contentious term?  Introduction “Globalization has dramatically increased inequality between and within nations” (Mazur, 2000, p. 79). “The benefits of globalization are obvious: faster growth, higher standards of living, and new opportunities” Annan, 2001, p. 1). The term globalisation arouses strong emotions among its supporters as well as its opponents, which is evident from the two above-mentioned diametrically opposite statements. While the supporters perceive globalization as equivalent to economic freedom that brings in improved standards of living and greater degrees of transparency, the opponents associate it with exploitation of the developing and underdeveloped economies, cultural homogenisation and widespread destruction of environment (McGrew, 2010). The opponents of globalisation until now have achieved greater success in garnering support from the public, owing to their ability for framing arguments in their favour, focussing on issues like use of child labour by MNCs in developing economies, and indifference of the developed nations towards serious health issues like AIDS seen rampantly spreading in the developing nations. The proponents of globalisation on the other hand present statistical data in their favour that though scientifically sound evidences are often difficult to comprehend from the viewpoint of a layman (ibid). Despite the contentions over globalisation and its effects, in the past three decades, observations reveal that large-scale globalisation and worldwide interconnectedness have gained increased popularity in all spheres of life, ranging from economic to technology to cultural. Globalisation of world economy has occurred due to rapid expansion of trade, financial activities, production of goods, which links economic growth and development of all nations across the world within the main trading zones (developed nations) and beyond (emerging economies of developing nations). As was evident during the global economic crunch of 2007-2008, currently globalisation has taken place to such extent that no national economy can safeguard itself from the ‘contagion effect’ of the disturbances within global financial markets (Baylis, Smith and Owens, 2011). The term globalisation can be interpreted in various ways. According to the most popular interpretation, the term means creation of a uniform platform at global basis, where there is synchronisation of technology, economy and culture, to create a standardised world. This perspective primarily translates into referring globalisation as westernisation of the oriental world. According to another perspective, globalisation is a form of hybridisation that creates a melange of various cultures and socioeconomic structures worldwide. However, from a study of the various perspectives it is not easy to derive a particular ‘correct’ interpretation, as the meaning of the term can vary based on the context on which it is used. As for example, economics globalisation, which takes place through the integration of national economies with the global economy via foreign direct investments or FDIs, capital flows, immigration and spread of technological knowledge in all fields, refers to liberalisation of trade markets and spread of capitalist market values (Bhagwati, 2004). In the arena of international relations, it refers to the development of global power play with more focus on interstate relations. Globalisation within sociology relates to changes within the present society its effects and the development of the so-called ‘global society,’ while in cultural context globalisation pertains to the study of effects of global interconnectedness on the culture and identity of various communities worldwide. Therefore, it is quite clear that globalisation has many facets and is hence difficult to delineate and ascertain whether it is a panacea (as per the neo-liberals who are strong proponents of globalisation) or a plague (as per the leftists or the anti-neoliberal group forum that are against globalisation). This article will explore globalisation through its various dimensions in order to find out why the term is an issue of strong contention.  Discussion What is globalisation? Owing to multidimensional nature of globalisation, there is no single standardised definition of the term, and as UN framed it, globalisation "is a widely-used term that can be defined in a number of different ways” (The United Nations ESCWA, 2002, p. 1). From perspective of a common person, globalisation refers to the integration of culture, society and economy of the different countries around the world, through the communication and trade networks that are integrating nations and making the world a smaller place to live in. Globalisation may also be referred to as a force driven by combined biological, technological, economic, social, cultural and political factors (Croucher, 2004, p.10). Mittelman (1996) along with Hirst and Thompson (1996), delineated globalization chiefly in the context of various economic processes, while Waters viewed globalization in a context where it is driven primarily by various social or cultural processes. He suggested that globalization is a “social process in which the constraints of geography on social and cultural arrangements recede and in which people become increasingly aware that they are receding” (1996, p. 3). Waters further contended that in a world that is truly globalised, there would be no central government or authority and only one culture would prevail worldwide. Mittelman (1996) on the other hand firmly believed that globalization is a process that is based only on economically derived factors. He further suggested that globalisation, as a process, is contradictory in nature, which supports disintegration and integration, a neoliberal process that is a part of capitalist development. Hirst and Thompson (1996) however, considered globalisation as mere myth, and contended that changes brought about by the so-called globalisation are not exceptional in nature. They further claimed that transnational corporations in their true form are rare; the OECD nations still enjoy highest employment and investment rates; global economy does not exist in its true form but is concentrated in areas like North America, Japan and Europe, while control of global markets are in the hands of states and other financial institutions (1996, pp. 2-3). Therefore, it is quite evident that globalisation being multidimensional in nature does not have any clear definition and depends on the context and perspective in which it is viewed. Globalisation and economy In the opening paragraph, the statement by Jay Mazur, a union leader, summed up the views of the anti-neoliberal camp that opposed globalisation, mainly in the context of economic liberalisation. The leftists or the anti-neoliberal group forum, contend that the developed (industrialised) nations and the powerful social sections have no interest in creating social equality. They put forward their anti-globalization stance and claim that global integration of economies has created more poverty and has increased inequality factors within the social index, while creating an even more unequal balance of power amongst the nations in the world. In this context, the anti-globalization forum called for stringent public policy norms for trade market operations to ease out the adverse effects of globalization factors, keeping in view that this factor has actually done more harm than is actually projected (Haynes, Hough, Malik and Pettiford, 2011, pp. 152-172). The neo-liberal stance on the other hand presents an opposing viewpoint. As James Wolfensohn, former President of the World Bank, claimed, “Over the past 20 years the number of people living on less than $1 a day has fallen by 200 million, after rising steadily for 200 years’ (World Bank, 2002). From the above statement, it is clear that there are implications that poverty rates are decreasing, worldwide. Martin Wolf in his column in The Financial Times also presented a similar picture in his analysis, where he wrote “Evidence suggests the 1980s and 1990s were decades of declining global inequality and reductions in the RR proportion of the world’s population in extreme poverty” (Wolf, The Financial Times, 2002). Thus, here we find that the neoliberals presenting strong statistical figures in their favour, where there are also claims of a worldwide movement towards creating parity in the income distribution of people (Haynes, Hough, Malik and Pettiford, 2011, pp. 114-151). The significant drop in the number of people living in abject poverty are attributed by the neoliberals to open economic conditions between countries that allow free trading and efficient use of resources worldwide, as countries take stock of their own comparative advantage and make full use of it to better their economies (Bhagwati, 2004). Thus, neoliberals claim that after the break down of Bretton Woods rule in the 1970’s, and the start of the rule of the ‘dollar-wall street’ economic rule along with globalization, has led to the betterment of the lives of a majority of the people globally (Gowan, 1999). Economic globalisation has long been controversial, with neoliberals believing globalisation to be the only route to worldwide economic prosperity, and all critics and opponents of this process of integration are either ignorant or have certain stakes of their own (Bardhan, 2003). As Prof. Bhagwati framed it, “No one can escape the antiglobalists today.....This motley crew comes almost entirely from the rich countries and is overwhelmingly white, largely middle class, occasionally misinformed, often wittingly dishonest, and so diverse in its professed concerns that it makes the output from a monkey's romp on a keyboard look more coherent” (Bhagwati, 2000, p.134). A look into the economies of various countries show that developing nations with globalized economies have shown a rise in per capita growth rate from 1% (1960s) to around 5% in the 1990’s (Collier and Dollar, 2002, p. 5). The World Bank in its papers “Globalisation, growth and poverty” showed that globalised countries have a reduction in poverty rates, no increase in their inequality ratios and high economic growth (Rodrik, 1999). However, Wade with an anti-globalisation stand, contended that WB figures are manipulated where the true picture of globalisation is not reflected correctly (2004, p. 14). Here further contended that World Bank did not take into consideration other factors of globalisation like cultural and social aspects, where a country may be closed in the context of economic globalisation, but ready for cultural exchanges, thus making it a global country in a true sense. World Bank also fails to take into consideration that to have an efficient open trade policy one needs to have a strong, competent and a good government operating as the nation’s head. An ineffective, corrupt government holding the reins of power will eventually destroy the nation, however open and liberal the trade policies are in that country. The main source of worry for globalisation lies in the fact that in the name of economic convergence the large MNCs are increasing their daily profits. This is evident in the report by Anderson & Cavanagh where it was claimed that during the period between 1983 and 1999, combined sales of Top 200 corporations grew from the equivalent of 25.0 % to 27.5 % of World GDP. During the same years their profits increased by 362.4 %, while their employment rate grew by a mere 14.4 % (Anderson & Cavanagh, 2000). While undoubtedly, the authors claimed, some locals did make profit via globalisation, majority of the farmers and workers with only limited or specific skills, lost out during the wave of globalisation. In this context, Rolando Katigbak, a Philippino ex-patriot, made a very interesting observation “Of course. If you get rich in your own country, I don't care. But our resources are being used by other people who came over” (Katigbak, PBS Online NewsHour, 2003). Therefore, the anti-neoliberals claim that colonialism is taking over the developing nations, using a new form. The western world is also plagued by issues related to immigrants from the developing nations, and a case study by Demeny in 2003, found that almost two –thirds of the people agreed that there should be less ‘foreigners’ in their country. Globalisation though beneficial in a certain sense, where technology, knowledge dissemination and integration have helped in the fields of health and life expectancy has not yet established its role clearly in reducing world poverty and inequality, which is clear from the arguments presented above, where both sides have presented strong evidences in their favour. Does globalisation produce convergence? According to some social researchers, globalisation is a process that causes worldwide social convergence owing to which a uniform pattern is formed within the current political, economic, and cultural institutions. This line of thinking known as the modernisation theory, was expounded during 1950- 60s by sociologists and economists. Daniel Bell, a well-known sociologist, claimed that there would be a technologically oriented convergence of societies all over the world in post-industrial era, while Jeffrey Williamson, an economist, claimed that convergence and parity would be visible in the labour markets and wages of workers across the globe. Meyer (2000) supported this theory in his detailed empirical research work, where he contended that there is a self-sustaining momentum seen within the growth of deliberated state activities that are not influenced by variations in trans-national economic development and political framework. He conceptualised that the deliberated state systems tend to follow the requirements of a global social framework whose objectives and logical derivations are found within almost all countries worldwide (Meyer, 2000, pp. 235-50). This has resulted in a situation where as a whole the world reveals more structural likeness in social form. However, Meyer in his researches did not speak of increasing equalities in social outcomes (ibid). He further added that nation-states have started revealing convergence through their structural likenesses, even though decoupling is observed between objectives and framework, meanings and outcomes. According to Meyer, convergence or compliance comes from both global-based culture of justified modernity and domestic organisations that assert their claims on states after a general concurrence over formal acknowledgement of matters related to human and citizen rights, education, socioeconomic development and the environmental and related scienti?c investigation (Meyer, 2000, pp. 235-50). However there a large number of counterarguments to this modernisation theory that do not believe in this concept of social convergence. In this context, Cox argued that ethical and social matters of economies vary across countries, and no two states have the same values (1996, pp. 21-30). Similarly, Mazlish (2006) claimed that there are no possibilities of a single and uniform global history, thus rejecting all possibilities of social convergence at a global level. Giddens (2009) also expressed similar views when he claimed globalization to be a procedure that produced unequal development and produced fragmentation with its progress, where the results may not be (and, in most cases are not) a generalized series of modifications taking place in one direction, but revealed diametrically opposite tendencies. He further clarified that globalisation, is a dialectical process, where incidents at far end of a relation (through interconnectedness) often create different and even diametrically opposite incidents at another (Giddens, 2009). Garrett (2004) in his empirical analysis countered simplistic theories on social convergence, and instead conceptualised the balancing of global political power-play (leftists vs. rightists) and the institutions of labour market, as two main variables in analysing economic growth and development of a globalised nation Here it is clear that from the contentious issue of social divergence theory, globalization does not force governments, institutions or even individuals to converge in terms of values or behavioural patterns. However, this theory again brings back the main area of contention within globalisation, which is related to the issue of economic growth and development, where sociologists and economist both have pointed at possibilities of a rise in global income disparity, and wage disparity internally within countries, owing to large-scale foreign direct investments and liberalised trade activities (globalisation). Globalisation and nation-state authority Further contention within the issue of globalisation surrounds the discussion on whether this process does not require further support from governing bodies within various international organisations, and whether it has weakened the power of nation-states. In this context, economist Vernon (1966) had long contended that worldwide expansion of the MNCs might create an atmosphere of political stress that may lead to socio-economic destruction, thus, making it essential for all states to re-balance their socio-economic and political institutions. Reaffirming Vernon’s viewpoint, historian Kennedy (1989) maintained that states are systematically losing control over socio-economic institutions, and the process of globalization slowly corrodes the position of developing nations and their existing labour systems, and destroying their environment, while profits move toward the developed nations. Similarly, Kobrin (2008) claimed that globalization challenges the state’s autonomy (power to make decisions independently), while defying sovereignty in terms of reciprocally independent territoriality. Mazlish (2006) also maintained that global history, in the context of globalisation, in its own way tries to cross the border of nation-states, as the focal point in sociology and history. As counterargument, many sociologists and economists claimed that globalization is by nature a weak process; it cannot undermine the authority of the nation-states and in reality, quite under their control. The main proponents of this viewpoint were Hirst and Thompson (1996), and Wade (2004), who asserted that states were powerful enough to face the challenges issuing from globalization, despite losing some freedom in the ?nancial sector. Macrosociology, as a subject has also long held the notion that the world arena is the “playground” for nation-states, fit for competition in terms of political, military, and economic dominance (Russett, Starr, and Kinsella, 2009). Thus, it is clear that the current form of globalisation, instead of challenging the nation-states, actually works towards supporting them. According to the neoliberalists, globalization works towards strengthening national policies, as the nation-states work towards sectoral protectionism, economic competition, and regionalisation, in answer to the changes brought about by globalisation, which creates a mixed format that is increasingly globalized yet fragmented in nature (Brown, 2001, 43-67). Modern theories of globalization contend that the process is authored by the nation- states, and instead of bypassing the authors, the process aims at reorganizing them (ibid). Is globalisation creating a homogenised culture? The most popular debate on globalization is related to the issue of creation of a global-based uniform culture. Marshall McLuhan first propounded the theory of a ‘global village,’ which was later supported by some well-known researchers who contended that owing to globalisation there were an increasing number of cosmopolitan (homogenised) consumers, worldwide (Wise, 108-148). Keeping this theory in mind, Sklair (2000) maintained that culture based consumerism type had developed in the modern world, that was driven by images, symbols, self-identity and aesthetic lifestyle and had spread globally, leading to standardization of desires and tastes and even a change in the world power game (fall of the Soviet Union). However, a majority of the scholars are against this theory of a homogenised global culture created via globalisation (Mathews, 2002). In this context, Clifford Geertz (1973) observed that while the world is becoming more globalised and interconnected through globalisation and use of technology, it is also showing signs of greater divisions and intricate partitions. He further contended that the concepts of seamless capitalism and the creation of a ‘global village’ are based on superficial notions, while internally the rift amongst nations is now greater than before (Geertz, 1973). Conclusion From the above discussion, it is evident that globalisation has many facets, which can be viewed from various perspectives, and hence the process is liable to various interpretations. This makes it difficult for the sociologists and economists to make a clear and comprehensive delineation of the term, and ascertain whether it is a panacea (as claimed by the strong proponents of globalisation), or a plague (as claimed by the anti- globalisation group). References Anderson, S., and Cavanagh, J., December 2000. Top 200: The Rise of Corporate Global Power. Institute for Policy Studies, Washington, D.C. Annan, K., 2001. The Millennium Report of the United Nations Secretary-General: An overview. [Online] available at, http://www.un.org/cyberschoolbus/briefing/report/overview.pdf. [Accessed 26th April 2012] Bardhan, P, 2003. Globalization and the Limits to Poverty Alleviation. University of California at Berkeley. [Online] Available at, http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/macarthur/inequality/papers/BardhanGlobLimit.pdf [accessed 26th April 2012] Baylis, J., Smith, S., and Owens, P., 2011. The Globalization of World Politics. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Bhagwati, J, 2004. In Defense of Globalization. OUP, Oxford. Bhagwati, J, 2000. Globalization in your face - A new book humanizes global capitalism. Foreign Affairs 79(4): 134-39. Brown, C., 2001. Understanding International Relations. Palgrave Macmillan, NY. Collier, P., and Dollar, D., 2002. Globalization, growth, and poverty: building an inclusive world economy. Oxford University Press, NY. Cox, R., 1996. A Perspective on Globalization. In, James H. Mittelman, Globalization: Critical Reflections. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers. Demeny, 2003. Population policy dilemmas in Europe at the dawn of the twenty-?rst century. Population and Development Review, 29(1), 1–28. Garrett, G., 2004. Globalization's Missing Middle. Foreign Affairs Vol. 83 (6), Nov. - Dec., 84-96. Geertz, C., 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures. Basic Books, NY. Giddens, A., 2009. Sociology (Sixth Edition). Polity Press, Cambridge. Gowan, P, 1999. The Global Gamble. London: Verso. Haynes, J., Hough, P., Malik, S., and Pettiford, L., 2011. World politics. Pearson (Longman), Harlow. Hirst, P., and Thompson, G., 1996. Globalization in Question: The International Economy and the Possibilities of Governance. Polity Press, Cambridge. Katigbak, R., 12th September 2003. In, Paul Solman, PBS Online NewsHour, Online Focus: Global Trade. [online] available at, http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/international/july-dec03/wto_9-12.html[accessed 26th April 2012] Kennedy, P., 1989. The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic Change and Military Conflict from 1500 to 2000. Vintage Books, NY. Kobrin, S., 2008. “Globalization, Transnational Corporationsand the Future of Global Governance.” In, Andreas Georg Scherer and Guido Palazzo (eds.), Handbook of Research on Global Corporate Citizenship. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK. Mathews, G., 2002. Global Culture / Individual Identity. Routledge, London. Mazlish, B., 2006. The new global history. Routledge, NY. Mazur, J, 2000. Labor’s new internationalism. Foreign A?airs, 79 (January/February), 9–93. Mcgrew, A., 2010. “Globalization and world politics.” In, J Baylis (ed.), The Globalization of World Politics: an Introduction to International Relations. OUP, Oxford. Meyer, J., 2000. Globalization: Sources, and Effects on National States and Societies. International Sociology, 15 (2), 235-50. Mittelman, J., (ed)., 1996. Globalization: Critical Reflections Boulder. Lynne Rienner Publishers, Colorado. Rodrik, D., 1999. The new global economy and developing countries: making openness Work. Policy Essay 24, Overseas Development Council. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. Russett, B., Starr, H., & Kinsella, D., 2009. World Politics the Menu for Choice. Cengage Learning, Wadsworth. Sklair, L., 2000. “The sociology of the global system.” In, Lechner, Frank and Boli, John, (eds.) The globalization reader. Routledge, NY. Vernon, R., 1966. International investment and international trade in the product cycle. Quarterly Journal of Economics 80, 190-207. Wade, R., 2004. Is Globalization Reducing Poverty and Inequality? [Online] available at, http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.131.1901&rep=rep1&type=pdf. [Accessed 25th April 2012] Waters, M., 1995. Globalization. Routledge, London. Wolf, M., May 8th 2002. Doing more harm than good. Financial Times. World Bank, 2002. Global economic prospects and the developing countries 2002: making trade work for the world’s poor. The World Bank, Washington DC. Read More