Globalisation: Proliferation of American Hegemony - Coursework Example

Globalisation: proliferation of American hegemony 2009 Outline: A) Introduction. B) Globalization definitions. C) American impact on world culture. D) McDonaldization. Mc Donald’s in India. E) Conclusion Globalization has become widely discussed and argued issue in recent decades. Much more discussion is raised by the question if globalization equals Americanization. Globalists view globalization as an inevitable result of world development, supporting the idea of world being an economically and socially shared space. Opponents view global changes as American and western cultural imperialism, colonialism and neo-colonialism. Globalists believe in the existence of a new world order eroding regionalism while sceptics consider globalization as nothing more than an aggregation of existing nation-states. While globalists predict the emergence of single global economy with flows of global capitals and erosion of sovereignty of the states, sceptics argue global states participation in global market pointing at the flaws of economic activity internationalization. This paper is aimed to explore the notions of ‘globalization’ vs ‘Americanization’ and investigate the degree of their interrelation. General notion of Americanization embraces the views of the US political, social, cultural, and economic values dominating national traditions. Globalization perceived as American influence has been claimed to ruin cultural heritage of many nations across the globe from Latin American to Asian. It is true that nations all over the world are enjoying products or services of such giants as Coca-Cola, McDonald’s, P&G, Pizza Hut, Hollywood movies and MTV music. However, are they harmful for cultural heritage of local cultures which have been developing for thousands of years? Does the USA really employ superpower to ruin these cultures and set its universal order? Is the power of brands so enormous that traditions observed by many generations are dissolved in American corporate environment? These are questions to be answered within the scope of this paper. There’s no universal definition of globalization. Friedman (1999) talks about “global village” in which capital, technology, and information cross national borders. Stiglitz (2002) supports the main idea of the Friedman’s definition and views globalization as “the closer integration of the countries and peoples of the world which has been brought about by the enormous reductions of costs of transportation and communication, and the breaking down of artificial barriers to the flows of goods, services, capital, knowledge, and (to a lesser extent) people across borders.” (p.7) These definitions as many others point out two aspects – sharing tangible or intangible assets across the borders and breaking formal barriers. Negative aspects of globalization opposed and protested are related to the spread of American values or western capitalism to other countries. Ritzer (2004) views Americanization as “the propagation of American ideas, customs, social patterns, industry, and capital around the world.” (p.80) Transmitting values and practices to other cultures is going to smother local cultures and result in the hegemony of American culture. However, globalization is not a homogenous process and it has various manifestations. “Transnational expansion of common codes and practices” vs “cultural hybrids” as a result of “the interaction of many global and local cultural inputs” are defined as grobalization and glocalization. (Ritzer 2004, p.87) So, in relation to globalization researchers are noting different forms which embody globalization process. Globalization can be viewed from different perspectives – from direct cultural influence through mass media channels (Hollywood movies, MTV music) to indirect business channels fueled by consumption. The power of mass media has never been doubted. The influence of American culture in this respect is really huge. For example, MTV available in over 140 countries with an audience of 340 million viewers worldwide is not concentrated only on music issues but aims “to positively influence the global teenage audience into accepting commercial habits and products that are predominantly from core nations” (McPhail 2006, p. 137 in Vincent 2007). It is also true that American dominance is evident from the status of the English language. Truchot (2002), tracking educational initiatives concerning the study of foreign languages from the 16th century and noting that English becomes preferred as the second language after the First World War, proves that higher education is being internationalized and English is becoming a tool of adopting better in the global world. However, what makes other cultures so susceptible to American influence? The reason is that American culture is very adaptable to other cultures so it can be easily reconstructed to match the needs of different nations. Ritzer (2004) notes “… things like Levi’s, Coke, Mickey Mouse hats, Barbie dolls, and the like come to be disconnected from their American roots and become forms that fit anywhere and everywhere . . . they can move effortlessly from one culture to another and be sold widely in all cultures” (p. 91). This universal nature of American products is strengthened by the power of brands as representatives of both economic and cultural influence which have also a great communicative power. However, it is not only U.S. multinationals but other European corporations which expand globally, introducing their products to other nations or outsourcing their operation to less developed countries with cheap labor force. Why is the USA blamed for imposing its values and practices? The reasons are evident from the Interbrand’s list of “World’s Most Valuable Brands” which contains 62% of American brands against 38% non-US brands. Coca-Cola, Starbucks, Microsoft, Disney, McDonald’s, Nike, Budweiser are names known almost in the whole world, being in top ten brands list. America is really driving globalization in terms of global brands. (Haygood 2004) Concerning the United States brand value its share was 72% of the total brand value in 2003. However, the growth of American brand value has been minute in comparison to non-US brands - 2% decrease vs 18% increase since 1999. The advantage of the US is in the representation of the US companies in different industry segments which is solid as the United States has brands in every segment including knowledge economy and information technology except for electronics. (Haygood 2004) Another important factor which contributes to the Americanization charges is a significant presence of the USA global corporations in such industry segments as food & beverage, leisure goods, media, personal care, and retail which makes it more noticeable and recognizable. Americanization is often replaced by McDonaldization referring to the successful expansion of the Corporation around the globe. It is the biggest fast food network represented in 119 countries of the world with over 30 000 restaurants in 2006 taking the 8th place in the world according brand value. It has managed to enter such specific markets as China and Japanese, Singapore and Hong Kong markets. However, it does mean that McDonald’s entering new markets was smooth and easy. A vivid example of how the company has to adapt to local traditions and values is McDonald’s in India. McDonald’s entered India in 1996. Such late appearance of McDonald’s in India is explained by specifics of this country. India is very peculiar country with its religious, tastes and cultural specialties. McDonald’s had to consider local peculiarities to turn its strategy to success. The adaptation to local culture included refusal from beef and pork, introduction of vegetarian dishes and more spicy sauces. Besides, the prices for the food also needed adaptation to local profits. They were the smallest in comparison to other Asian countries. As 40% of Indians are vegetarians, the menu includes more dishes for vegetarians: Mc Chicken kebab sandwich, McAloo Burger and special salads. In 1998 McDonald’s set a research to know the customer’s feedback on the menu and found out that people wanted a wider range of products and lower prices. As a result the company introduced Veg Pizza McPuff with very attractive price. That shows how Indian market required a greater flexibility on the part McDonald’s to satisfy local tastes. It is clear evidence that brands are “reflective of the beliefs and values of the country of origin.” (Haygood, 2004) The strategy used by McDonald’s in India was directed to integrate into local culture transforming common practices customary to the US market. Due to the adaptation process McDonald’s managed to survive in a complicated Indian environment while many alien companies failed to satisfy local customers. Like McDonald’s global player P&G with its adaptive culture also outperforms its competitors in global arena. As an international company P&G also takes into account peculiarities of different national cultures where it operates. As the great number of companies expand abroad global businesses must recognize that their internal systems and structures are now being applied to a more heterogeneous workforce. Expanding internationally companies bring in some cultural and social attributes such as attitudes to working conditions or labor-management relations acquired in the home country. However, it does mean they totally change the culture of the host country. It is true that global companies exert influence on business practices of the host country. However, the influence does not necessarily mean ‘negative influence.’ Returning to McDonald’s example it is evident that the company has a reasonable stakeholder policy in all countries where it is represented. McDonald’s stakeholders acquire only benefits from cooperation with the company. For example, suppliers working with McDonald’s have an opportunity to expand. They gain access to innovative technologies and enhance the quality of their products. Distributors are taught how to store food. Employees represented mainly by diverse local population get superior advantage of working in McDonald’s as they are offered comprehensive medical/dental/vision & life insurance, quarterly cash incentive, 401(k) & profit sharing, tuition reimbursement, paid-vacation and short-term/long-term disability. The next stakeholder who is a supplier gets the benefits as the company invests into the development of a supply chain helping its suppliers to grow and expand their business. The example is the company which grows iceberg lettuce. McDonald’s assisted the company in such activities as seed selection, farming practices, knowledge of foreign technologies. Along with the creation of the sourcing network, McDonald’s improved distribution system teaching distributors and retailers how to handle distribution to meet restaurant’s requirements and how to enhance storage operations. The care for community makes McDonald’s a welcome partner. McDonald’s participates in maintenance of public parks and historic heritage structures. It cares for environment applying three R’s (Reduce, Recycle and Reuse) principle. It uses recycled materials, refuses from polypropylene bags, invests in local supply chain, building geographically diverse sourcing network, developing distribution channels, using data analysis software to improve customer service, developing Quality Inspection Program and Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) system. Opponents of McDonaldalization overlook the fact that global companies fuel economy of the host countries. For example, McDonald’s restaurants in France purchase 80% of their products in the French market supporting approximately 45,000 French beef producers. (Keaten, 2002). McDonald’s jobs are filled by the local French workers and restaurants are owned by French or other locals. (Meunier 2008). The representation of American cultural attributes is really noticeable around the world. The USA has also the largest number of brands known in many countries around the globe. Their total value is also huge. The US advantage is also in representation of brands almost in all industry segments. However, this overall visibility cannot be a proof of hegemonic sentiments of the United States. It suggests of the successful strategies the US companies utilize to expand abroad. The researchers remark the universality of American culture which is easily transformed and integrated in the align environment. However, as the practice shows (the case of McDonalds) any cultural or business activity requires transformation and new approaches to meet the expectations of people from other cultures and the company to be successful in host country. US companies have to transform their own business practices to adapt to local conditions. It is true that any penetration of align elements (in this case – foreign companies, be it American or European) is going to change certain aspects of life in the host country. Analyzing McDonalds activity in India it is evident that changes the corporation brought with it created opportunities for all stakeholders. The company employed diversity as a force to run successfully restaurants investing its time, energy, expertise and human capital. Whatever opponents may say, the country with hegemonic objectives will never fuel the economy of other countries. It will never invest knowledge and expertise, participate in community problems and assist in solving these, it won’t support local producers or maintain historic heritage. That’s why there’s no firm ground to asset that successful expansion of American companies abroad is proliferation of American hegemony. BIBLIOGRAPHY About McDonald’s. 2009, (Online) http://www.mcdonalds.com/corp/about.html. [27 January 2009] Friedman, T.L, 1999, The Lexus and the olive branch. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York. Haygood, D. 2004, "Globalization through Global Brands: Purely an American-Made Phenomenon?" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, New Orleans Sheraton, New Orleans, LA, May 27, (Online) . 2009-01-26 http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p113175_index.html [27 January 2009] Keaten, J. 2002, French farmer Jose Bove leads new McDonald’s protest. Common Dreams News Center. (On-line) http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/081301.htm [27 January 2009] Laxer, J. 2000, Discovering America: Travels in the land of guns, god & corporate gurus. New Press, New York. McPhail, T. 2006, Global communication: Theories, stakeholders, and trends. Blackwell Publishing Malden, MA. Meunier, S. 2008, "Globalization, Americanization, and Sarkozyism" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the APSA 2008 Annual Meeting, Hynes Convention Center, Boston, Massachusetts, Aug 28, (Online) . 2009-01-26 http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p281149_index.html [27 January 2009] P&G Values and Policies (Online) http://www.pg.com/jobs/corpinfo/diversity. [27 January 2009] Ritzer, G. 2004, The globalization of nothing. Sage Publications Thousand Oaks, CA. Stiglitz, J. 2002, Globalization and its discontents. W.W. Norton & Co, New York. Truchot, C. 2002, Key aspects of the use of English in Europe. Paper commissioned for the Conference on Languages, diversity, citizenship: policies for plurilingualism in Europe, Strasbourg. Vincent, C. 2007, "Becoming a Member of the International Society: A Closer Examination of the Glocalized International Community" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, TBA, San Francisco, CA, May 23, (Online) . 2009-01-26 http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p172868_index.html [27 January 2009] Read More