Q. Do you think that the impact and significance of globalization have been exaggerated?

It is the truth that globalization is as true for the world in present scenario as is history for historians,
making globalization the reality of the present. The historical roots of the process go back to 1648
when the Treaty of Westphalia ended the Thirty Years War in Europe and led to the emergence of
modern nation-states. The concept has been well summarized by Arvind Sinha and Perry Anderson.
Centuries later, during the 1960s and 1970s, as the world powers were getting involved in the
international sphere for diplomatic purposes, the term internationalization was used to denote the
process. It was only in the 1980s and 1990s that the term globalization replaced the previously used
term. Globalization was coined by Theodore Levitt in 1983 and has been in constant use since then.
The term was important due to the reason that multilateral political, economic and territorial
spheres were emerging during this time signifying a global process.

David Held (2002) has given some important characteristics of the process:

1. Action at a distance: meaning an action or a policy in one part of the world will impact
another part of the world.
2. Time-space compression: informational interconnectedness reducing or transcending the
boundaries of time and space.
3. Accelerating interdependence: the amalgamated impact of previous two points.
4. A shrinking world: since the process transcends time, space and cultures, the world is
shrinking.
5. Global integrity

Hence, globalization is the interconnectedness, interdependence and interaction between various

countries of the world. Thus, globalization has made the world an integral whole.

The biggest reasons for the rapid globalization of the world in 1990s were coming up of international
institutions, the debt problem of many countries and the collapse of Soviet Socialism.

There are 3 differing positions on globalization: globalist, sceptic and transformationalists.

The globalists are proponents of globalization and belong to the post-Marxist school of thought.
Santos (Portugal) was the first to theorize this. The globalists argue that there is one world shaped by
highly extensive military flows as well as rapid and free flows of capital in various parts of the world.
Also, they argue that state sovereignty eroded due to globalization because now a state has to
depend as well as think of other states and consequences of its actions before taking one. They
further argue for the emergence of a homogenous world, a globalistic culture and hybridization of
varying cultures. Further, they talk of a transnational economy which has come up due to the boom
in MNCs and TNCs and this further impact the policies of a country. Further, their take on labour is
that there is now international division of labour which transcends the geographical limits of regions.
Also, there is widening rich-poor disparity. Lastly, due to the reasons mentioned above, there is
encountered the emergence of a global polity.

The eminent globalists in this scenario are Freidman, who argued for the breaking of a link between
territories and political power, Jagdish Bhagwati, who talks of a global culture and homogenous
world and Ohmae who argued that due to the increased number and role of MNCs and TNCs, there
is a new division of labour in the international sphere. Lastly, Giddens has argued of a new
international order and nation-state as being actors in the international sphere and military
hegemons. Also, the globalists challenge the notion of a post-Westphalian state.
The second take is of sceptics. They question the very idea of globalization and argue that
globalization is not global and internationalization is there as there are various states interacting in
the international sphere leading to the rule of nation-states and intergovernmentalism. Also, a
rejection of homogenous world order is seen in their arguments. Instead, they argue that there is
resurgence of national identity. They belong to Marxist and Realist schools of thought and argue that
globalization is the New Imperialism of the capitalist regimes and see it as an ideological myth. They
also have a determinist and historicist view of the concept. Lastly, they believe the state to be the
ultimate power holder and international arenas and institutions to be an international society of
states. They are proponents of regionalization too as is evident by their take on the emergence of
new power blocks – Triadization.

The important scholars belonging to this line of thinking are David Korten, who argued for
globalization being an ideological construction of the neoliberalists to promote the capitalist project,
and Joseph Stiglits, who defends national culture and rejects the notion of homogenous world.

The third take on this topic is of the transformationalists who argumentatively are in between the
globalists and the sceptics. Their take is the middling between the previous two takes and they argue
that there has been a considerable change in many spheres, but not everything has been changed.

To conclude, in totality of the arguments, the best take is those of the transformationalists, who do
not deny both parts of the concept and produce a non-partisan judgement. Also, the concept
subscribes to the Indian concept of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam – the world is one family – meaning
that in present scenario everything is seen and found everywhere leading to direct heterogenization
as well as homogenization of the world in some aspects. For instance, McDonaldisation of the world
happened in the post-Cold War era. Here, Raja Choudhary (London, 2022) has argued that during
this time some other foods got marginalized which, in present scene, are getting opened up to the
world – chhole bhature – marking post-homogenous world heterogeneity. Hence, the impacts and
significance of globalization have been exaggerated in some aspects and ignored in some.