Lecture 2: Debates, Issues, Controversies and Dissensions:
The globalisation debate involves discussions on:
1. Is it really happening?
Up to approximately three or four years ago, the core of the debate on globalisation
concerned whether the phenomenon existed at all. Many people felt that all the talk about
globalisation did not signify a reality. These people have sometimes come to be called
globalisation sceptics. They argue that if, for example, you look back to the late nineteenth
century there were already open markets, a good deal of trade in currencies and much
migration across the world where, for the most part, people did not even need passports. Thus
they questioned whether there was anything new about the contemporary phase, suggesting
that all the talk about globalisation is simply hype. There has been a lot of research since
then.
My view is that that debate is over. The first globalisation debate is now over.
Anyone who has studied the phenomenon in depth recognises that this is a new era. Whatever
affinities it might have with it, the current global age is not merely a replica of the past. There
are massive changes affecting our world. The globalisation debate itself has become global in
a way that would simply not have been possible before the advent of recent global
communication systems.
1
, 2. Does it produce convergence or divergence?
A second contested issue in the literature on globalization has to do with its consequences as
to the convergence of societies toward a uniform pattern of economic, political, and even
cultural organization. Most famously expressed in modernization theory, the spread of
markets and technology is predicted to cause societies to converge from their preindustrial
past, although total homogeneity is deemed unlikely. This line of thinking was advanced
during the 1950s and 1960s by both economists and sociologists.
3. Is globality different from modernity?
Perhaps the most difficult debate surrounding globalization has to do with whether it is
merely a continuation of the trend toward modernity or the beginning of a new era. On one
side of the fence, Giddens argues that "modernity is inherently globalizing," and that
"globalization [makes] the modes of connection between different social contexts or regions
become networked
On the other side of the fence, British social theorist Martin Albrow argues that globalization
is a "transformation, not a culmination," and the "transition to a new era rather than the
apogee of the old."
The debate over the relationship between modernity and globality is a central one for
sociologists. If globality is merely the result of an intensification of modernizing trends, then
the recent surge in the number of books and articles on this subject can hardly be justified.
There is, however, a key theoretical argument to be made in favor of the view that globality is
different from modernity. Modernity - like the distorting Mercator projection - is an
outgrowth of the Western worldview. For reasons of theoretical consistency, one should
reserve the terms "globalization," "global," and "globality" to denote, respectively, processes,
qualities, and conditions that are not set into motion or dominated by any one model,
paradigm, or worldview. In its broadest sense, globality is about a multiplicity of conceptions,
not about cultural or paradigmatic hegemony; it is about the proliferation of crossnational
network ties of an economic, political, social, and cultural nature. This criticism is especially
germane in the case of authors who consider globalization to be an inevitable and sweeping
process - neoliberals and Marxists in particular - as Fligstein has aptly pointed out.
Finally, Kobrin has proposed a distinction between globalization in the late twentieth century
and the previous period of modern expansion of the world economy that is useful empirically.
The international economy of the nineteenth century "links discrete, mutually exclusive,
geographical national markets through cross-border flows of trade and investment." By
contrast, the global economy of the late twentieth century is driven by the increasing scale of
technology, the surge in cross-border collaboration of firms along the value-added chain, and
the cross-border integration of information flows. Thus, globalization has "substantive
meaning" because, this time around, "national markets are fused transnational rather than
linked across borders."
4. What the consequences of globalisation are? Positive or Negative?
That debate is not about whether globalisation exists but what the consequences of
globalisation are. That debate is not just an intellectual debate. It is not just an academic
discussion. That debate has brought people out into the streets. Since the meetings in Seattle,
through to the anticapitalist carnivals in London, massive demonstrations in Buenos Aires,
2
, when the IMF were there, and more recently in Prague, there is a massive confrontation
around the whole notion of globalisation and what it means for us.
Globalisation: content (supporters) and discontent (critics), and
transformationalists
Several competing claims are made about globalization and these make use of three different
sets of forces processes in the world economy. For example, sceptics who deny that
globalization is transforming world politics tend to focus on the `internationalization’
element of globalization. They can then draw upon evidence which throws into doubt
whether the number of transactions taking place among states has indeed risen and make the
argument that there is `nothing new’ in the growing interdependence of states. By contrast,
liberal enthusiasts of globalization focus on technological innovation and the non-political`
`objective’ forces which are shrinking the world economy. They argue that this is creating a
less political, more efficient, more unified world order. Their optimism and emphasis is
rejected by critics who focus on liberalization and the role of states’ policies in shaping
globalization. These critics highlight the role of powerful states in setting the rules of the new
globalized international economy, and their increasing influence over less powerful states.
The three main groups of actors are:
Hyper Globalists or Supporters: opportunities provided by globalisation
By hyperglobalists, globalization is viewed as a legitimate and irrepressible historical
process, which leads to a world order based on the market and supranational institutions.
Globalization presents a new era in the development of civilization, without precedent in
the course of human history. This process is referred to as progressive and socially desirable.
It is also stressed that the intensity and dynamics of current changes in the economy
lead to changes in core framework of social action (Held, McGraw, 2007, p. 5).
Guided by the self-enforcing growth of global markets and technological progress,
globalization inexorably destroys all previously established hierarchical structures. The role
of the nation-state in this context is also significantly diminishing. Multinational corporations
concentrate vast resources, and become the main carriers of economic activity
on a global level. This creates a global civilization in which the market is integrated on
the world level, multinational companies are becoming major actors in the economic
process and international institutions substitute the role of national states. Multinational
companies have fundamental influence on the economy and represent natural response to
the "borderless" economy that is characterized by homogenous consumer tastes. These
companies crowd out national models of economy as relevant units of economic activity
(Ohmae, 1990).
Hyperglobalists conceive globalization as a process, which has the internal logic and
predictable outcome, the global society based on a fully integrated market. In other
words, all the variety of heterogeneous cultures withdraws in front of the unique social
pattern, based on markets and institutions derived from the radically liberal cultural
framework. In this sense, a well-known assumption about the ''end of history'' is generated,
which implies that the modern, global capitalism with liberal democracy as the political
framework, represents the last word of socio-economic evolution (Fukuyama,
1992).
The aforementioned approach has evident deterministic character. Globalization is
seen as a kind of final stage in the spontaneous and self-enforcing process of creating a
global society, as the most efficient model of society, which stops the further process of
3
The globalisation debate involves discussions on:
1. Is it really happening?
Up to approximately three or four years ago, the core of the debate on globalisation
concerned whether the phenomenon existed at all. Many people felt that all the talk about
globalisation did not signify a reality. These people have sometimes come to be called
globalisation sceptics. They argue that if, for example, you look back to the late nineteenth
century there were already open markets, a good deal of trade in currencies and much
migration across the world where, for the most part, people did not even need passports. Thus
they questioned whether there was anything new about the contemporary phase, suggesting
that all the talk about globalisation is simply hype. There has been a lot of research since
then.
My view is that that debate is over. The first globalisation debate is now over.
Anyone who has studied the phenomenon in depth recognises that this is a new era. Whatever
affinities it might have with it, the current global age is not merely a replica of the past. There
are massive changes affecting our world. The globalisation debate itself has become global in
a way that would simply not have been possible before the advent of recent global
communication systems.
1
, 2. Does it produce convergence or divergence?
A second contested issue in the literature on globalization has to do with its consequences as
to the convergence of societies toward a uniform pattern of economic, political, and even
cultural organization. Most famously expressed in modernization theory, the spread of
markets and technology is predicted to cause societies to converge from their preindustrial
past, although total homogeneity is deemed unlikely. This line of thinking was advanced
during the 1950s and 1960s by both economists and sociologists.
3. Is globality different from modernity?
Perhaps the most difficult debate surrounding globalization has to do with whether it is
merely a continuation of the trend toward modernity or the beginning of a new era. On one
side of the fence, Giddens argues that "modernity is inherently globalizing," and that
"globalization [makes] the modes of connection between different social contexts or regions
become networked
On the other side of the fence, British social theorist Martin Albrow argues that globalization
is a "transformation, not a culmination," and the "transition to a new era rather than the
apogee of the old."
The debate over the relationship between modernity and globality is a central one for
sociologists. If globality is merely the result of an intensification of modernizing trends, then
the recent surge in the number of books and articles on this subject can hardly be justified.
There is, however, a key theoretical argument to be made in favor of the view that globality is
different from modernity. Modernity - like the distorting Mercator projection - is an
outgrowth of the Western worldview. For reasons of theoretical consistency, one should
reserve the terms "globalization," "global," and "globality" to denote, respectively, processes,
qualities, and conditions that are not set into motion or dominated by any one model,
paradigm, or worldview. In its broadest sense, globality is about a multiplicity of conceptions,
not about cultural or paradigmatic hegemony; it is about the proliferation of crossnational
network ties of an economic, political, social, and cultural nature. This criticism is especially
germane in the case of authors who consider globalization to be an inevitable and sweeping
process - neoliberals and Marxists in particular - as Fligstein has aptly pointed out.
Finally, Kobrin has proposed a distinction between globalization in the late twentieth century
and the previous period of modern expansion of the world economy that is useful empirically.
The international economy of the nineteenth century "links discrete, mutually exclusive,
geographical national markets through cross-border flows of trade and investment." By
contrast, the global economy of the late twentieth century is driven by the increasing scale of
technology, the surge in cross-border collaboration of firms along the value-added chain, and
the cross-border integration of information flows. Thus, globalization has "substantive
meaning" because, this time around, "national markets are fused transnational rather than
linked across borders."
4. What the consequences of globalisation are? Positive or Negative?
That debate is not about whether globalisation exists but what the consequences of
globalisation are. That debate is not just an intellectual debate. It is not just an academic
discussion. That debate has brought people out into the streets. Since the meetings in Seattle,
through to the anticapitalist carnivals in London, massive demonstrations in Buenos Aires,
2
, when the IMF were there, and more recently in Prague, there is a massive confrontation
around the whole notion of globalisation and what it means for us.
Globalisation: content (supporters) and discontent (critics), and
transformationalists
Several competing claims are made about globalization and these make use of three different
sets of forces processes in the world economy. For example, sceptics who deny that
globalization is transforming world politics tend to focus on the `internationalization’
element of globalization. They can then draw upon evidence which throws into doubt
whether the number of transactions taking place among states has indeed risen and make the
argument that there is `nothing new’ in the growing interdependence of states. By contrast,
liberal enthusiasts of globalization focus on technological innovation and the non-political`
`objective’ forces which are shrinking the world economy. They argue that this is creating a
less political, more efficient, more unified world order. Their optimism and emphasis is
rejected by critics who focus on liberalization and the role of states’ policies in shaping
globalization. These critics highlight the role of powerful states in setting the rules of the new
globalized international economy, and their increasing influence over less powerful states.
The three main groups of actors are:
Hyper Globalists or Supporters: opportunities provided by globalisation
By hyperglobalists, globalization is viewed as a legitimate and irrepressible historical
process, which leads to a world order based on the market and supranational institutions.
Globalization presents a new era in the development of civilization, without precedent in
the course of human history. This process is referred to as progressive and socially desirable.
It is also stressed that the intensity and dynamics of current changes in the economy
lead to changes in core framework of social action (Held, McGraw, 2007, p. 5).
Guided by the self-enforcing growth of global markets and technological progress,
globalization inexorably destroys all previously established hierarchical structures. The role
of the nation-state in this context is also significantly diminishing. Multinational corporations
concentrate vast resources, and become the main carriers of economic activity
on a global level. This creates a global civilization in which the market is integrated on
the world level, multinational companies are becoming major actors in the economic
process and international institutions substitute the role of national states. Multinational
companies have fundamental influence on the economy and represent natural response to
the "borderless" economy that is characterized by homogenous consumer tastes. These
companies crowd out national models of economy as relevant units of economic activity
(Ohmae, 1990).
Hyperglobalists conceive globalization as a process, which has the internal logic and
predictable outcome, the global society based on a fully integrated market. In other
words, all the variety of heterogeneous cultures withdraws in front of the unique social
pattern, based on markets and institutions derived from the radically liberal cultural
framework. In this sense, a well-known assumption about the ''end of history'' is generated,
which implies that the modern, global capitalism with liberal democracy as the political
framework, represents the last word of socio-economic evolution (Fukuyama,
1992).
The aforementioned approach has evident deterministic character. Globalization is
seen as a kind of final stage in the spontaneous and self-enforcing process of creating a
global society, as the most efficient model of society, which stops the further process of
3
