These terms, however, are not at all synonymous. A world economy with high levels of international trade and investment, would not necessarily make a globalized economy. It may remain a highly internationalized economy in which most companies trade from their countries in distinct national economies (Weiss, 1997 , see Hirst and Thompson, 1996: 185).
The term 'global' could be meant to represent a new or different level of interaction. For example , Michael Mann's (1997) fruitful distinction of five different socio-spatial networks of social interaction in the contemporary world order: local, national, international, transnational, and global. Local and national networks refer to relationships formed within the nation-state , for example, regional support groups. Inter-national networks involve relations between nations and state networks. A multinational corportion would be a good example including more formal institutions for regulating economic and military affairs, such as the EU, the WTO, NATO, and the UN. (Weiss, 1997)
Transnational networks carry within them the ability to operate without regard to national boundaries and without being affected by them. Thus, although typically understood as worldwide, transnational networks are not necessarily the same as 'global' ones , since they could also comprise of neighbouring economies .
Global networks operate on a worldwide basis, these networks could range from political netowrks to economic networks.. The Red Cross, although Swiss in origin, appears to fit the bill. Most of the global organizations been prey to the 'national' differences. (Weiss, 1997 see Hu, 1992: 120)
Globalization means the overlapping and diffusion of national economies to the point where the significance of national and international networks is reduced in relation to transnational and global networks. The notion of globalization thus conveys a 'widening' and 'deepening' of international ties to a degree that creates a qualitatively new (i.e. global) network of social interaction. There is therefore thetwin issue of globalization that needs to be addressed. Firstly, whether transnational and global networks are growing in importance relative to national and inter-national ones. Secondly, even if global networks have advanced very far - as in financial markets -the extent to which national and inter-national networks contribute to their continued operation and existence. (Mann,1997).
"The real issue, then, is whether the kind of world economy in the making is a transnational one in which displacement of national and inter- n a t i o n a l networks of interaction is occurring, or one in which such networks (and thus the state) retain a pivotal, if changing, role. In sum, the power of the global idea (and, indeed, the purported weakness of state power) turns on whether or not 'national' and 'inter-national' networks of interaction are being both outweighed and displaced by 'transnational' networks." (Weiss, 1997)
The use of the word 'globalization' could meant to claim that the nation-state is no longer an important entity. It is possible for a globalization tendency to