How Justified Are the Sceptics in Suggesting that Globalization is in Fact a Myth - Essay Example

? Globalization Module Module Number: Academic Year: Seminar Essay Question: How justified are the sceptics in suggesting that globalization is in fact a myth? Student Number: Globalisation Globalisation refers to the development of a common ground upon which different nation-states can effectively interrelate. Globalisation is a long process that is marked by an increase in the participation of people from various societies around the world. In general, the term embodies various inter-societal aspects and systems such policies, approaches to the challenges facing people, and a common ideological inclination. Essentially, globalization has elicited mixed reactions with regard to its definition, the reason being its diverse facets that attract conceptual standpoints taken by scholars. These varied definitions eventually and perceived problems occasioned by globalization lend credence to its mythical aspect. This paper explores whether globalization is a myth. Pillars of globalization Globalization has several facets depending on the approach an individual takes: these ranges from economic activities, to interactions of people and cultural mix, to communication. In light of these factors, Busemeyer (2009, p.457) narrows down the facets by indicating that globalisation encompasses a real-time communication caused by electronic passage of information; it enhances interrelation between the economies of nation-states; and triggers a shrinking global society where territorial borders play a less significant role in socio-economic processes. Moreover, globalization leads to the growth and integration of cultures, economies and political systems (Andreas, 2011, p.408). Despite, the clear consensus on the term globalisation, different ideologies on globalisation have come up, trying to explain these factors in diverse ways. The first school of thought seeks to outline the significance globalization, arguing that it is the only way out of sociological problems facing the world. But the second one sees globalization as a myth. The global economy The pro-globalization forces are at the fore-front of the processes leading to globalisation. From this standpoint, globalisation embodies a new period of history in which the importance of separate nation-states is slowly being wiped out of existence by a common and ‘fair’ economy governing the whole world (Busemeyer, 2009, p.456). Supporters of this theory perceive globalisation as causing a transfer of the influence of nation-states and economies to international systems supporting greater economic activities like manufacturing of commodities, improved business opportunities and easier acquisition of capital. From this perspective, global assets and the post-modern market environment are marked by liberal trade, forming part of globalisation. These developments are attributed to capitalism. Moreover, the hyperglobalist approach to globalization also holds that the world is entering an era in which global governance will be a reality. For example, with global organizations controlling finance and trade through multinationals, globalization is increasingly being felt if not realized Hill, 2010, p.266). Today, international bodies such as International Monetary Fund (IMF), The World Bank, and The World Trade Organization (WTO) are increasingly taking a more active role than nation-states in ensuring that uniform growth takes effect in every corner of the specific countries and the general world through funding programs. This perception holds that due to globalization, the international community through its financial capacity has achieved successes where nation-states have failed. A typical example is the recent bailout of Greece (Hill, 2010, p.264). This has led to the erosion of the influence of the nation-state within the society. Supporters of the globalization process have also lauded the development of a united civil society outlining the key issues that need addressing by various leaders, in order to spur economic development not only of individual states, but the world in general (Neal, & Sonsino, 2012, p.71). Through, non-governmental organisations (NGO’s), various civil society figures have found a platform upon which to voice their development agenda and reservations as far as political leadership is concerned. Cultural integration Cultural integration as a way of ensuring that unity in diversity takes effect can be attributed to globalization. Ghemawat (2012, p.102), argues that a development of a unifying popular culture across the world is taking shape. This tends to usher in culture the fusion of different societies in the world. This cultural mix has come to be, following the invention and exploitation of cheaper and more efficient means of transport and communication such as the Internet and digital television. These means of communication have made it easier for occasions taking place in one region to be shared instantly with the rest of the audience anywhere in the world. Open and easier means of communication has taken the art of information sharing to greater heights as ideologies, media clips, art and cuisine move across diverse cultures, eliminating territorial boundaries and cultural impediments that have hindered cultural integration in society. Despite the significance of cultural integration and the development of closer economic ties among nation-states, globalization has resulted in disparities (Ravenhill, 2007, p.14). It is arguable, though, that capitalism and the expansion of liberal markets have played a pivotal role in limiting the pangs of globalization among the marginalized segments of society. Regardless, globalization in the modern world is set to develop along this line in the coming years. This will result in a global era that is governed by universal forces, but to the chagrin of nationalist forces. Some have interpreted the reality that is globalization as mythical, nonetheless. Western influence as ‘globalization’ The sceptical opinion on globalisation holds a divergent understanding of its repercussions to the global society (Ghemawat, 2012, p.103). They argue that globalisation lacks a global face in it, especially with regard to economic issues. The school of thought totally refuses the idea of modern globalisation, suggesting that it has been happening since time immemorial. Sceptics argue that the notion of an ideological antecedent that has been constructed by modern theorists to root for the current liberalization of economy through capitalism remains a myth (Vaseth, 2005, p.13). Sceptics point to the parallels of globalisation and Marxism, arguing that capitalism is the main factor behind globalization, and as such, it plays out in this context to open up more economic opportunities through liberal markets (Neal, & Sonsino, 2012, p.71). In light of this, globalisation fails to go beyond western imperialism that is currently being implemented through capitalism. Albrow (1997, p.32) indicates that contemporary globalisation only varies from the ancient period in the nature of relations between societies, but the whole system has been playing out for many centuries now. From a cultural perspective, sceptics argue that cultural influences have taken place for quite some time, and as such globalisation merely provides a different way in which cultural mixing is taking place. Globalization arguably began more than ten centuries ago (Hill, 2010, p.264). In light of this, the modern world is not actually being globalized in any new ways. Sceptics have pointed out that the current economic interrelations, which can be attributed to the global system are traceable to the ancient world and cultural dynamics. The sceptics also indicate that globalisation underscores its scope, with the modern global economic structures and processes not essentially being felt on the ground. In this scenario, sceptics opine that ‘globalization’ has resulted in heightened cases of regionalisation, with countries within geographical regions working as economic partners (Weber, Davis, & Lounsbury, 2009, p.1321). European Union (EU), for example, is an example of a regional organization that serves as evidence for the mythical aspect of globalization. EU was cobbled up to advance the individual interests of the members countries rather than that of the whole world. This, the sceptics hold, implies the world is less inclusive, but more regional (Weber, Davis, & Lounsbury, 2009, p.1323). The marginalization of poor economy in the wake of globalization points to the mythical aspect of the school of thought. Most of poor countries continue to grapple with the problem of scarcity of wealth. This serves to underscore the perception of sceptics that globalisation serves only the interests of a few influential people in society and advances the colonialist philosophies in society. Colonialism Basically, many critics argue that globalization is in itself a form of Western colonialism led by the United States and her closest European allies Weber, Davis, & Lounsbury, 2009, p.1323). The end result is the domination of global markets with rich technological advancements, where a privileged few have an upper hand, while the rest of the population languish in poverty and shrinking opportunities. For a number of countries, taking a place among leading world economies embodies high costs, as domestic markets are impacted by uncertainties in global financial markets. For example, most of leading global powers root for the implementation of austerity measures in nation-states that experience economic crises, but this has led to the widening of income gaps and an increase in poverty level as more people lose their jobs and sources of livelihood. Ghemawat (2012, p.101), points to the impact of globalization on equality, arguing that in weaker economies, the public are accustomed to the fact that regardless of their choices of leadership, a lack of resources erodes nationalism and prompts the elected governments to transform into puppets of the international community and donors. The liberal market is not just economically challenging, it tears away whatever strong social constructs supporting nation-states (Weber, Davis, & Lounsbury, 2009, p.1323). Countries have closed local industries in the face of debilitating competition from multinationals’ cheaper imports, which normally characterize the liberal markets. The reality is that soaring employment opportunities in the service sector does little to contain the negative impacts of social disintegration ripped apart by globalization. In some place, especially in developing countries, globalization has prompted the shrinking of fertile lands in the face of development and settlement, massive rural-urban migration, rapid transformations of social relations and, even the erosion of cultural values 9Weber, Davis, & Lounsbury, 2009, p.1324). A number of these developments may yield positive outcomes in the long run, but the dilemma lies in the speed at which these transformations happen and the mostly forceful nature as the globalization process. The value of free market extends past the economy to various important social units such as family, tearing away strong family values that form the foundation of a stable society. Increase in inequality According to Hill (2010, p. 265) globalization has primarily resulted in the aggravation of economic disparities across the world and within nation-states as well. There is a developing trend of inequality in various social quarters including among nation-states, business organizations, and individuals. People are increasingly being forced to grapple with the problem of income inequalities; for example highly skilled people are highly paid, while the unskilled labour force takes home peanuts. And as such, while the higher-end segment of population and the middle classes across societies may count benefits and support globalization processes, the lower classes have nothing to be happy about. The disparities that poor people grapple with within their respective nation-states are even more serious in the global area. Gottesman (2006, p.38) argues that with globalization, the disparities between the wealthy and the less privileged members of the society becomes more complex, following the hegemony of influential powers in the global economic and cultural spheres. As a result, there has been an increasing gap between the rich and the poor, and such unfair competition pitting the underprivileged nations and individuals against the rich has degenerated into a situation, where ever-increasing powerful rivals have outdone the inferiority. Sceptics of globalization have argued that the administration of labour through unions has led to selfishness, in which case, workers receiving better pay have tried to block the attempts of employees in underprivileged countries to improve their conditions, arguing that such an attempt to make the working conditions safer and rewarding is misguided (Shaikh, 2007, p.34). This implies that, though, workers in poor countries have a reason and obligation to organize and fight for their employment rights within the western multinationals by virtue of their status, they often enter the equation from a point of weakness. As such, there are slim chances of success. Additionally, in most of these poor nations, labour organizations are highly influenced and manipulated, thus weakening the stance taken by parties that want to correct the excesses of globalization in such societies. Threats to human safety Globalization and economic development has been attributed to environmental damage. Many forest covers have been removed, more pollutants released to the environment, and the menace of global warming is increasingly becoming real following rich technological innovation and massive industrialization in the world. Whereas economic growth has positive prospects with regard to environmental conservation, balancing growth and conservation programs will be a hard nut to crack. This means that due to globalization, future generations will be expected to breathe polluted air and bear the brunt of global warming. The widespread development of technology and interactions has complicated the security situation in the world. Today, most countries are more vulnerable to terrorism than it was the case before globalization took a centre-stage. For example, more people, especially in poor countries are increasingly becoming victims of cyber crime due to globalization and liberal market. Conclusion Generally, globalisation has good effects and evils. This makes it difficult to tell whether the phenomenon is right. On the one hand, globalization has improved better interrelationships among nation-states in the world, and offered a platform upon which diverse cultures often integrate for the betterment of the people and the global economy. On the other hand, globalization has created divisions between various segments of the society. Through globalization, poor countries have not had anything good to show, mainly because they have been pitted against richer economies with better economic power of competition. Bibliography Albrow, M., (1997), The Global Age: State and Society Beyond Modernity, Stanford University Press, London, 32-67 Andreas, P., (2011), Illicit Globalization: Myths, Misconceptions, and Historical Lessons, Political Science Quarterly, 126(3), 403-425. Busemeyer, M.R., (2009), From myth to reality: Globalisation and public spending in OECD countries revisited, European Journal of Political Research, 48(4), 455-482. Ghemawat, P., (2012), Developing global leaders, McKinsey Quarterly, 3, 100-109. Gottesman, A.E., (2006), Two Myths of Globalization, World Policy Journal, 23(1), 37-44. Hill, M.D., (2010), Myth, Globalization, and Mestizaje in New Age Andean Religion: The Intic Churincuna (Children of the Sun) of Urubamba, Peru, Ethnohistory, 57(2), 263- 289. Hill, M.D., (2010), Myth, Globalization, and Mestizaje in New Age Andean Religion: The Intic Churincuna (Children of the Sun) of Urubamba, Peru, Ethnohistory, 57(2), 263- 289. Neal, A., & Sonsino, D., (2012), Seven Career-Limiting Myths for Talent Management Pros, T+D, 66(8), 70-72. Ravenhill, J., (2007), Global Political Economy, Oxford University Press, London, 14-77. Shaikh, A., (2007), Globalization And the Myths of Free Trade: History, Theory, And Empirical Evidence. Taylor & Francis, London, 3-34. Vaseth, M., (2005), Globaloney: Unravelling The Myths of Globalization, Rowman & Littlefield, London, 2005, 13-43. Weber, K., Davis, G.F., & Lounsbury, M., (2009), Policy as Myth and Ceremony? The Global Spread of Stock Exchanges, 1980—2005, Academy of Management Journal, 52(6), 1319-1347. Read More