MODULE Week-1-2 GE WORLD

Republic of the Philippines
NUEVA VIZCAYA STATE UNIVERSITY

Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya
INSTRUCTIONAL MODULE
IM No.: IM-GEWORLD-1stSEM-2023-2024
College of Arts and Sciences

Bayombong Campus
DEGREE PROGRAM General COURSE NO. GE WORLD

Education
SPECIALIZATION COURSE TITLE The Contemporary World
YEAR LEVEL All level TIME FRAME 6 hrs WK NO. 2-3 IM NO. 1
I. CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION TO GLOBALIZATION
II. LESSON TITLE:
⮚ The Conceptions of Globalization
⮚ Approaches to the Study of Globalization
⮚ Working Definition of Globalization
III. CHAPTER OVERVIEW
This chapter introduces the students the various concepts of globalization leaning from different
perspectives and context on the use of the term by political scientists, economists and many social
scientists. It aims to 1) differentiate the competing conceptions of globalization and 2) identify the
underlying philosophies of the varying definitions of globalization. Generally, globalization is a term used
as a process, condition, and ideology. While this chapter intends to adapt a working definition of
globalization, this does not mean, however, to disregard the other concepts and meanings of
globalization. Contextualization of conditions of time and settings is thus necessary. Further, theories
and the importance and the challenges of globalization are to be tackled to better understand its context.
IV. DESIRED LEARNING OUTCOMES

At the end of the chapter, the students should be able to:
1. Examine the various conceptions of globalization
2. Distinguish the different definitions from experts
3. Adapt a working definition of globalization
NVSU-FR-ICD-05-00 1
Social Sciences and Humanities/gmolaya
“In accordance with Section 185. Fair Use of a Copyrighted Work of Republic Act 8293, the copyrighted works
included in this material may be reproduced for educational purposes only and not for commercial distribution.”
V. LESSON CONTENT
Many researches have admitted the difficulty on coming up with an exact meaning of
globalization due to various context that the term can be applied and used. The term is used
differently in the field of economics, political sphere, culture and so forth. This is manifested on
the study below.
What is Globalization?
Ritwik Bhattacharjee (2007)
The reasons behind the conceptual difficulty of identifying globalization in exact terms of what it is
and what it does, lie in the cyclic logic used to define it. Most researches on globalization tend to extract
the meaning of globalization from the effects it has on a society’s economy, political sphere, culture and
the like. For example, a particular society’s culture can be studied and the traits of globalization as might
be found in them can be attributed back to the definition of globalization. Robertson (1990) found
globalization to be the ‘form’ by which the world became ‘united’. The perceived unity of the world gives
globalization a definitional quotient, that of a ‘grand unifier’. But this unity happens through different
channels, varied planes of understanding. The multiple layers associated with globalization must be
identified and addressed separately yet under a conceptual whole to decipher the meaning of the word.
Tomlinson (1999: 22) for example identifies this multi-dimensionality as a natural concomitant of what he
terms ‘complex-connectivity’. However, he also points out that to understand globalization its multi-
dimensionality must be reduced to a single dimension (Tomlinson, 17). But this reductionism cannot be
sweeping in its scope. What Tomlinson underlines is that an analysis of a single dimension for example,
culture as a part of the complex-connectivity associated with globalization—helps to identify globalization
in relation to that specific dimension.
So, the question remains: what is globalization? Without going into the debates concerning the
problematic definition of the term itself, it can be roughly identified as a non-linear phenomenon based on
accumulation, ordering and restructuring. It has no ‘top’ or ‘bottom’, no ‘start’ or ‘end’. Globalization has
no fixed point of departure from any previous historical socio-economic processes. It is much like a circle
with no point of initiation or completion. In fact, globalization is a form of forced social evolution. It is man-
made and yet its development and effects are natural to the extent that the results follow naturally from
within the idea. It is an ideational construct encompassing all aspects of the modern (some would say
post-modern) society. The idea of a ‘globalizing world’ in academic spheres relate to a ‘shrinking’ of
distances, of a ‘time-space compression’; a world where connections between and amongst people have
become so easy, rapid and intricate that the ‘territoriality’ associated with the term ‘space’ has lost its
relevance. Globalization in effect means becoming a part of the globe, not the world. This distinction is
essential in marking the chief trajectory of the concept. World is the real-time association that we
have presently. An association with the self and the surroundings, the ‘immediates’ such as family,
friends, offices, clubs etc, where there is no place for the ‘others’, the strangers, the unknown. Globe as a
word signifies the unity of mankind, of the people living on the planet. It is a universal attachment to a
particular social life/being. Here, you take notice of someone in a different country a thousand miles
away, or are affected by the economic downturns they are facing. Here, you develop ties and bonds with
the other, the ‘non-immediates’. Globalization thus becomes the process by which you become one with
the globe.
NVSU-FR-ICD-05-00 2
But how did this significant change come to happen? How did the Hobbesian ‘selfish, nasty and
brutish’ individual come to terms with such a magnanimous connectivity where existence is supposedly
more about the ‘other’ than the ‘self’? Sadly it turns out that this beautiful thought of becoming one with
the globe was a by- product of an agenda, an ideology. As noted earlier globalization has no fixed point
of initiation but that it evolved from the historical socio-economic processes already in place.
Globalization can be traced out from the inherent human tendency to look beyond, move forward and
expand his senses. In a crude explanation it can be said that the roots of globalization were in human
romanticism i.e. in the beauty of knowing the unknown. From deriving mere aesthetic pleasures this
slowly made way to the greater socio-economic implications with the unrestrained movements of human
beings, capital, information and culture. As human knowledge increased the dissemination of such
knowledge became a priority along with movements. In the 16th century Europeans established
worldwide trade connections and started spreading their culture. On the other hand, movements also
resulted in territorial expansion and domination. Especially during the late 19th century period along with
the rise in migration, trade increased and so did the formation of new norms and orders upon different
colonies. After the end of World War II colonies created due to such expansion entirely on the basis of
economic and material gains (the high ideal of disseminating knowledge or the romanticism associated
with discovery has long died) gained independence and complete political sovereignty. What also
happened was that the links, institutions that were in place during the colonial period transformed in to
cultural residues, remnants of consciousness from the past (Lechner and Boli, 2004).
However, the imperialist drive of the colonial powers riding on the back of military prowess had to
wither away with the acceptance of core and intrinsic human values e.g. freedom etc. legalized through
international organizations as the United Nations.But capital as an entity itself remained and kept on
flourishing with the help of capitalist- industrialist societies, largely associated with the Western world.
The collapse of the communist bloc in the early 1990s with the end of the Cold War saw the completion of
capitalism as an accumulative and regenerative mechanism. But capitalism cannot flourish without new
markets; newer territories must be conquered by capital for it to survive. Thus the military dimension of
imperialism gave way to the economic imperialism through capital. Globalization as we experience
it today originates specifically through the brisance of such a capitalist explosion situated in the
commodity-plenitudes, mass consumption patterns etc. Featherstone’s (1990) formulation that
globalization is not a form of cultural imperialism driven by economic imperialism can be contested only
when we are talking about globalization as it started anew in the late 1990s. With the help of
technological inventions in communication, information-sharing gathered immense speed and thus
globalization became truly ‘global’.
Globalization had thus gone through several phases in history before it reached the present state. It
had evolved through time.Scholte (cited in Greig: 2002) on the other hand identifies three distinctive
descriptions of globalization. First, globalization involves cross-border internationalization, effectuating
increase in the movements of people, goods, ideas, thoughts, capital, technology etc. Second,
globalization is described as amounting to or resulting in removals of barriers to large-scale movements
of those previously stated items. As such, here globalization itself becomes a by-product of the removal
of barriers. The third conception of globalization sees it as transcending borders diminishing territories
and distances. Rupal Oza calls this ‘the simultaneous solidification of global flows and the consolidation
of the local identities’ (2006, 4). This is termed the ‘global-local nexus’ or glocalisation’, one of the chief
claims of globalists, where the global and local interactions submerge, transcending and bypassing any
national level interactions.
NVSU-FR-ICD-05-00 3
Approaches to the Study of Globalization

Manfred B.Steger (2014)
I. Globalization as Economic Process
The widespread scholarly emphasis on the economic dimension of globalization derives partly
from its historical development as a subject of academic study. For various accounts of economic
globalization, see, for example, Cohen (2006), Dicken (2001), Rodrik (2007), Sassen (1998) and
Stiglit (2006). Some of the earliest writings on the topic explore in much detail how the evolution of
international markets and corporations led to an intensified form of global interdependence. These
studies point to the growth of international institutions such as the European Union, the North
American Free Trade Association, and other regional trading blocs. The most comprehensive
treatment of this nature is Keohane (1984). For a more recent update of his position on globalization,
see Keohane (2001, 2002) and Keohane and Nye (2000). Economic accounts of globalization convey
the notion that the essence of the phenomenon involves ‘the increasing linkage of national economies
through trade, financial flows, and foreign direct investment … by multinational firms’ (Gilpin, 2000:
299). Thus expanding economic activity is identified as both the primary aspect of globalization and
the engine behind its rapid development.
Many scholars who share this economic perspective consider globalization a real phenomenon
that signals an epochal transformation in world affairs. Their strong affirmation of globalization
culminates in the suggestion that a quantum change in human affairs has taken place as the flow of
large quantities of trade, investment, and technologies across national borders has expanded from a
trickle to a flood (Gilpin, 2000: 19). They propose that the study of globalization be moved to the
centre of social-scientific research. According to this view, the central task of this research agenda
should be the close examination of the evolving structure of global economic markets and their
principal institutions.
Studies of economic globalization are usually embedded in thick historical narratives that trace
the gradual emergence of the new post-war world economy to the 1944 Bretton Woods Conference
and its post-war evolution (Schaeffer, 2005). During its operation for almost three decades, the
Bretton Woods system contributed greatly to the establishment of what some observers have called
the ‘golden age of controlled capitalism’ (Luttwak, 1999: xii, 27). According to this interpretation,
existing mechanisms of state control over international capital movements made possible full
employment and the expansion of the welfare state. Rising wages and increased social services
secured in the wealthy countries of the global north a temporary class compromise.
Most scholars of economic globalization trace the accelerating integrationist tendencies of the
global economy to the collapse of the Bretton Woods system in the early 1970s and the rise of ‘neo-
liberalism’ in the 1980s and its ascendancy to dominance with the 1989–91 collapse of command-
type economies in Eastern Europe. In addition to the issue of free trade, perhaps the two most
important aspects of economic globalization relate to the changing nature of the production process
and the liberalization and internationalization of financial transactions. Indeed, many analysts
consider the emergence of a transnational financial system the most fundamental economic feature of
NVSU-FR-ICD-05-00 4
our time. Its key components include the deregulation of interest rates, the removal of credit controls,
and the privatization of government-owned banks and financial institutions. As sociologist Manuel
Castells (2000: 53) points out, the process of financial globalization accelerated dramatically in the
late 1980s as capital and securities markets in Europe and the United States were deregulated. The
liberalization of financial trading allowed for the increased mobility among different segments of the
financial industry, with fewer restrictions and a global view of investment opportunities.
Moreover, these scholars emphasize advances in data processing and information technology
that contributed to the explosive growth of tradable financial value. New satellite systems and fibre-
optic cables provided the nervous system of Internet-based technologies that further accelerated the
liberalization of financial transactions. Most of the growth occurred in the purely money-dealing
currency and securities markets that trade claims to draw profits from future production. Aided by
new communication technologies, global rentiers and speculators earned spectacular incomes by
taking advantage of weak financial and banking regulations in the emerging markets of developing
countries. However, since these international capital flows can be reversed swiftly, they are capable
of creating artificial boom-and-bust cycles that endanger the social welfare of entire regions. The
1997–8 Southeast Asia crisis was one such economic disaster created by unregulated speculative
money flows, followed by similar debacles in Russia (1998), Brazil (1999), Argentina (2000–3), and,
most importantly, the Global Financial Crisis (2008–9), which, in turn, contributed greatly to the
current European Debt Crisis.
While the creation of international financial markets represents a crucial aspect of economic
globalization, many scholars utilizing this approach point to another important economic
development of the last three decades that involves the changing nature of global production:
powerful transnational corporations (TNCs) with subsidiaries in several countries. Their numbers
skyrocketed from 7,000 in 1970 to 80,000 in 2011. Consolidating their global operations in an
increasingly deregulated global labour market, enterprises like Wal-Mart, General Motors, Exxon-
Mobil, Mitsubishi, and Siemens belong to the 200 largest TNCs, which account for over half of the
world's industrial output. The availability of cheap labour, resources, and favourable production
conditions in the Third World enhanced both the mobility and the profitability of TNCs. Accounting
for over 70 per cent of world trade, these gigantic enterprises expanded their global reach as their
direct foreign investments rose approximately 15 per cent annually during the 1990s (Gilpin, 2000:
20). Their ability to ‘outsource’ manufacturing jobs – that is, to cut labour costs by dispersing
economic production processes into many discrete phases carried out by low-wage workers in the
global south – is often cited as one of the hallmarks of economic globalization.
II. Globalization as Political Process
Economic perspectives on globalization can hardly be discussed apart from an analysis of

political processes and institutions. Most of the debate on political globalization involves the
weighing of conflicting evidence about the fate of the modern nation-state. In particular, two
questions have moved to the top of the research agenda. First, what are the political causes for the
massive flows of capital, money, and technology across territorial boundaries? Second, do these
flows constitute a serious challenge to the power of the nation-state? These questions imply that
economic globalization might be leading to the reduced control of national governments over
economic policy. The latter question, in particular, involves an important subset of issues pertaining
to the principle of state sovereignty, the growing impact of intergovernmental organizations, and the
prospects for global governance.
An influential group of scholars considers political globalization as a process intrinsically

connected to the expansion of markets. In particular, steady advances in computer technology and
communication systems such as the World Wide Web are seen as the primary forces responsible
NVSU-FR-ICD-05-00 5
for the creation of a single global market. See, for example, Bryan and Farrell (1996), Kurdle (1999),
Rao (1998) and Weiss (2011). As Richard Langhorne (2001: 2) puts it, ‘Globalization has happened
because technological advances have broken down many physical barriers to worldwide
communication which used to limit how much connected or cooperative activity of any kind could
happen over long distances.’ According to even more extreme technological-determinist
explanations, politics is rendered powerless in the face of an unstoppable and irreversible
technoeconomic juggernaut that will crush all governmental attempts to reintroduce restrictive
policies and regulations. Economics is portrayed as possessing an inner logic apart from and
superior to politics. As Lowell Bryan and Diana Farrell (1996: 187) assert, the role of government will
ultimately be reduced to serving as ‘a superconductor for global capitalism’.
Perhaps the most influential representative of this view in the 1990s was Kenichi Ohmae (1990,
1995, 2005). Projecting the rise of a ‘borderless world’ brought on by the irresistible forces of
capitalism, the Japanese business strategist argues that, seen from the perspective of real flows of
economic activity, the nation-state has already lost its role as a meaningful unit of participation in the
global economy. In the long run, the process of political globalization will lead to the decline of
territory as a meaningful framework for understanding political and social change. No longer
functioning along the lines of discrete territorial units, the political order of the future will be one of
regional economies linked together in an almost seamless global web that operates according to
free-market principles. For a more recent example of the ‘end of the nation-state thesis’ from the
opposite end of the ideological spectrum, see Prem Shankar Jha (2006).
A second group of scholars disputes the view that large-scale economic changes simply
happen to societies in the manner of natural phenomena such as earthquakes and hurricanes.
Instead, they highlight the central role of politics – especially the successful mobilization of political
power – in unleashing the forces of globalization (see, for example, Gowan, 1999; Kapstein, 1999;
Korten, 2001; Luttwak, 2000). Hence, this group of scholars argues for the continued relevance of
conventional political units, operating either in the form of modern nation-states or ‘global cities.
Saskia Sassen's (1991, 2007, 2008) work emphasizes the key role played by global cities in the
organization and control of globally oriented economic and social processes. See also Amen et al.
(2006) and Brenner (2006). At the same time, most proponents of this view understand that the
development of the last few decades has significantly constrained the set of political options open to
states, particularly in developing countries.
Jan Aart Scholte (2005), for example, points out that globalization refers to gradual processes of
‘relative deterritorialization’ that facilitate the growth of ‘supraterritorial’ relations between people.
Scholte emphasizes, however, that his concession to deterritorialization does not necessarily mean
that nation-states are no longer the main organizing forces in the world. Equipped with the power to
regulate economic activities within their sphere of influence, states are far from being impotent
bystanders to the workings of global forces. If concrete political decisions were responsible for
changing the international context in the direction of deregulation, privatization, and the globalization
of the world economy, then different political decisions could reverse the trend in the opposite
direction. For an excellent exposition of this argument, see Cohen (2001). See also Garrett (1998),
Helleiner (1994, 1996) and Panitch (1996: 83–113). The core message of this group of academics is
loud and clear: politics is the crucial category upon which rests a proper understanding of
globalization.
A third group of scholars suggests that globalization is fuelled by a mixture of political and
technological factors. John Gray (1998: 218), for example, presents globalization as a long-term,
technology-driven process whose contemporary shape has been politically determined by the
world's most powerful nations. According to Gray, it is the ultimate objective of the neo-liberal Anglo-
American initiative to engineer a global free market. Predicting that the world economy will fragment
as its imbalances become insupportable, Gray foresees a gloomy ending to the current political
efforts to establish a single global market: ‘Trade wars will make international cooperation more
NVSU-FR-ICD-05-00 6
difficult. … As global laissez-faire breaks up, a deepening international anarchy is the likely human
prospect.’
A far less pessimistic version of a perspective that combines technology and politics to explain
globalization can be found in Castells' (1996–8, vol. 3: 356) series of studies over nearly two
decades focusing on the ‘network society’. The Spanish sociologist separates the powerful forces
fuelling globalization into three independent processes: ‘The information technology revolution; the
economic crisis of both capitalism and statism, and their subsequent restructuring; and the blooming
of cultural social movements.’ For a more recent assessment, see Castells (2009). Castells points to
the rise of a new ‘informational capitalism’ based on information technology as the indispensable
tool for the effective implementation of processes of socioeconomic restructuring. In this context, he
acknowledges both the crisis of the nation-state as a sovereign entity and the devolution of power to
regional and local governments as well as to various supranational institutions. On the other hand,
Castells also emphasizes the continued relevance of nation-states as crucial bargaining agencies
that influence the changing world of power relationships. As new political actors emerge and new
public policies are implemented, the role of culture increases. While pointing to the potential for
global economic and ecological disasters brought on by globalization, Castells (1996–8, vol. 3: 379)
ends on a far more positive note than Gray: ‘The dream of the Enlightenment, that reason and
science would solve the problems of humankind, is within reach.’
A fourth group of scholars approaches political globalization primarily from the perspective of
global governance. Representatives of this group analyse the role of various national and
multilateral responses to the fragmentation of economic and political systems and the transnational
flows permeating through national borders. See the various essays collected in Wilkinson (2005).
Some researchers believe that political globalization might facilitate the emergence of democratic
transnational social forces emerging from a thriving sphere of ‘global civil society’. This topic is often
connected to discussions focused on the impact of globalization on human rights and vice versa –
see the essays in Brysk (2002). For example, Martin Shaw (2000: 16) emphasizes the role of global
political struggles in creating a ‘global revolution’ that would give rise to an internationalized, rights-
based Western state conglomerate symbolically linked to global institutions. Thus, he raises the
fascinating prospect of ‘state formation beyond the national level’. Democratic theorist John Keane
(2003: 98) has put forward a similar model of what he calls ‘cosmocracy’ – a messy and complex
type of polity understood as ‘a conglomeration of interlocking and overlapping sub-state, state, and
suprastate institutions and multi-dimensional processes that interact, and have political and social
effects, on a global scale’. In the aftermath of 9/11, however, both Shaw's and Keane's optimistic
vision of a post-imperial multilateralism directed by a Western political conglomerate seems to be
out of step with the reality of a unilateralist American Empire.
Political scientists such as David Held and Anthony McGrew (Held et al. 1999) articulate in their
writings the need for effective global governance structures as a consequence of various forces of
globalization. They portray globalization as diminishing the sovereignty of national governance,
thereby reducing the relevance of the nation-state. Much to their credit, Held and McGrew are two of
the most vociferous advocates for moving the academic debate on globalization in a more ideational
and normative direction.
In Held's view, neither the old Westphalian system of sovereign nation-states nor the post-war
global system centred on the United Nations offers a satisfactory solution to the enormous
challenges posed by political globalization. Instead, he predicts the emergence of a multilayered
form of democratic governance based on Western cosmopolitan ideals, international legal
arrangements, and a web of expanding linkages between various governmental and non-
governmental institutions. Rejecting the charge of utopianism often levelled against his vision, Held
(1995: 96–120) provides empirical evidence for the existence of a tendency inherent in the
globalization process that seems to favour the strengthening of supranational bodies and the rise of
an international civil society. He predicts that democratic rights will ultimately become detached from
NVSU-FR-ICD-05-00 7
their narrow relationship to discrete territorial units. If Held's perspective on political globalization is
correct, then its final outcome might well be the emergence of a ‘cosmopolitan democracy’ that
would constitute the ‘constructive basis for a plurality of identities to flourish within a structure of
mutual toleration and accountability’. For a more detailed elaboration of his vision see Held (1995,
2006). In fact, even in the post-9/11 context, Held refuses to abandon his hopes for restructuring
world order toward a ‘cosmopolitan social democracy’ characterized by 'strong competent
governance at all levels – local, national, regional, and global (Held and McGrew, 2007: 131).
A number of academic critics have challenged the idea that political globalization is fuelling a
development toward cosmopolitan democracy. Most of their criticism boils down to the charge that
Held and McGrew indulge in an abstract idealism that fails to engage with current political
developments on the level of policy. Some critics argue that the emergence of private authority has
increasingly become a factor in the post-Cold War world. In their view, global collective actors like
religious terrorists and organized criminals are not merely symptoms of the weakening nation-state,
but their actions also dim the prospects for the rise of cosmopolitan democracy. See, for example,
Hall and Biersteker (2002). Moreover, sceptics like Robert Holton (2011: 202–3) raise the suspicion
that Held and McGrew do not explore in sufficient detail the cultural feasibility of global democracy.
As cultural patterns become increasingly interlinked through globalization, critics argue, the
possibility of resistance, opposition, and violent clashes becomes just as real as the cosmopolitan
vision of mutual accommodation and tolerance of differences.
III. Globalization as Cultural Process
Held and McGrew might respond to these criticisms by arguing that one major strength of their
approach lies in viewing globalization not as a one-dimensional phenomenon, but as a
multidimensional process involving diverse domains of activity and interaction, including the cultural
sphere. Indeed, any analytical account of globalization would be woefully inadequate without an
examination of its cultural dimension. A number of prominent scholars have emphasized the
centrality of culture to contemporary debates on globalization. As sociologist John Tomlinson (1999:
1) puts it, ‘Globalization lies at the heart of modern culture; cultural practices lie at the heart of
globalization.’ The thematic landscape traversed by scholars of cultural globalization is vast, and the
questions they raise are too numerous to be completely fleshed out in this short survey. Rather than
presenting a long laundry list of relevant topics, this section focuses on two central questions raised
by scholars of cultural globalization. First, does globalization increase cultural homogeneity, or does
it lead to greater diversity and heterogeneity? Or, to put the matter into less academic terms, does
globalization make people more alike or more different? And second, how does the dominant culture
of consumerism impact the natural environment?
Most commentators preface their response to the first question with a general analysis of the
relationship between the globalization process and contemporary cultural change. Tomlinson (1999:
28), for example, defines cultural globalization as a ‘densely growing network of complex cultural
interconnections and interdependencies that characterize modern social life’. He emphasizes that
global cultural flows are directed by powerful international media corporations that utilize new
communication technologies to shape societies and identities. As images and ideas can be more
easily and rapidly transmitted from one place to another, they profoundly impact the way people
experience their everyday lives. Culture no longer remains tied to fixed localities such as town and
nation, but acquires new meanings that reflect dominant themes emerging in a global context. This
interconnectivity caused by cultural globalization challenges parochial values and identities, because
it undermines the linkages that connect culture to fixity of location.
A number of scholars argue that these processes have facilitated the rise of an increasingly
homogenized global culture underwritten by an Anglo-American value system. Referring to the global
NVSU-FR-ICD-05-00 8
diffusion of American values, consumer goods, and lifestyles as ‘Americanization’, these authors
analyse the ways in which such forms of ‘cultural imperialism’ are overwhelming more vulnerable
cultures. The American sociologist George Ritzer (1993), for example, coined the term
‘McDonaldization’ to describe the wide-ranging process by which the principles of the fast-food
restaurant are coming to dominate more and more sectors of American society, as well as the rest of
the world. On the surface, these principles appear to be rational in their attempts to offer efficient and
predictable ways of serving people's needs. Only toward the end of his study does Ritzer allow
himself to address the normative ramifications of this process: when rational systems serve to deny
the expression of human creativity and cultural difference, they contribute to the rise of irrationality in
the world. In the long run, McDonaldization leads to the eclipse of cultural diversity and the
dehumanization of social relations.
The American political theorist Benjamin R. Barber (1996: 17) also enters the normative realm
when he warns his readers against the cultural imperialism of what he calls ‘McWorld’ – a soulless
consumer capitalism that is rapidly transforming the world's diverse population into a blandly uniform
market. For Barber, McWorld is a product of a superficial American popular culture assembled in the
1950s and 1960s and driven by expansionist commercial interests: ‘Its template is American, its form
style … [m]usic, video, theater, books, and theme parks … are all constructed as image exports
creating a common taste around common logos, advertising slogans, stars, songs, brand names,
jingles, and trademarks.’ For a more sceptical assessment of the supposed ‘Americanness’ of
globalization, see Marling (2006).
Barber's account of cultural globalization contains the important recognition that the colonizing
tendencies of McWorld provoke cultural and political resistance in the form of ‘jihad’ – the parochial
impulse to reject and repel Western homogenization forces wherever they can be found. Fuelled by
the furies of ethnonationalism and/or religious fundamentalism, jihad represents the dark side of
cultural particularism. Barber (1996: 19) sees jihad as the ‘rabid response to colonialism and
imperialism and their economic children, capitalism and modernity’. Guided by opposing visions of
homogeneity, jihad and McWorld are dialectically interlocked in a bitter cultural struggle for popular
allegiance. For a neo-Marxist perspective on the rise of a global capitalist monoculture, see Schiller
(1995: 17–33). As might be expected, Barber's dialectical account received a lot of public attention
after the events of 9/11. They also helped to resurrect Samuel Huntington's 1993 thesis of a ‘clash of
civilizations’ involving primarily the West and Islam (Huntington, 1997: 26–7, 45–8).
It is one thing to acknowledge the powerful cultural logic of global capitalism, but it is quite
another to assert that the cultural diversity existing on our planet is destined to vanish. In fact, several
influential academics offer contrary assessments that link globalization to new forms of cultural
diversity. See Appadurai (1996) and Hannerz (1992, 1996). Berger and Huntington offer a highly
unusual version of this ‘pluralism thesis’. Emphasizing that cultural globalization is ‘American in origin
and content’, they nonetheless allow for ‘any variations and sub-globalizations’ on the dominant US
cultural theme in various parts of the world (2002). Roland Robertson (1995: 25–44) has famously
argued that global cultural flows often reinvigorate local cultural niches. Contending that cultural
globalization always takes place in local contexts, Robertson predicts a pluralization of the world as
localities produce a variety of unique cultural responses to global forces. The result is not increasing
cultural homogenization, but ‘glocalization’ – a complex interaction of the global and local
characterized by cultural borrowing. These interactions lead to a complex mixture of both
homogenizing and heterogenizing impulses.
In addition to addressing the question of whether globalization leads to cultural homogeneity or

heterogeneity, scholars like Nederveen Pieterse, Hannerz, and Robertson seek to expand the
concept of globalization by portraying it as a multidimensional ‘field’. In their view, globalization is
both a material and a mental condition, constituted by complex, often contradictory interactions of
NVSU-FR-ICD-05-00 9
global, local, and individual aspects of social life. Cultural theorists such as Ulrich Beck (2000: 102)
and Arjun Appadurai (1996) have refined this argument by contrasting common interpretations of
globalization as a ‘process’ with the less mechanical concept of ‘globality’, referring to ‘the
experience of living and acting across borders’.
Appadurai identifies five conceptual dimensions or ‘landscapes’ that are constituted by global
cultural flows: ethnoscapes (shifting populations made up of tourists, immigrants, refugees, and
exiles), technoscapes (development of technologies that facilitate the rise of TNCs), finanscapes
(flows of global capital), mediascapes (electronic capabilities to produce and disseminate
information), and ideoscapes (ideologies of states and social movements). Each of these ‘scapes’
contains the building blocks of the new ‘imagined worlds’ that are assembled by the historically
situated imaginations of persons and groups spread around the globe (Appadurai, 1996: 33).
Suspended in a global web of cultural multiplicity, more and more people become aware of the
density of human relations. Their enhanced ability to explore and absorb new cultural symbols and
meanings coexists in uneasy tension with their growing sense of ‘placelessness’. Focusing on the
changing forms of human perception and consciousness brought on by global cultural flows, Beck
and Appadurai discuss subjective forms of cultural globalization that are often neglected in more
common analyses of ‘objective’ relations of interdependence.
To some extent, then, scholars of cultural globalization have shown more willingness to engage
in sustained investigations of the normative dimension of globalization than their colleagues in
political science or economics. The same is true for those researchers who have explored the
connection between cultural globalization and the natural environment, especially in light of the
escalating problem of global climate change. After all, how people view their natural environment
depends to a great extent on their cultural milieu. For example, cultures steeped in Taoist, Buddhist,
and various animist religions often emphasize the interdependence of all living beings – a
perspective that calls for a delicate balance between human wants and ecological needs. Nature is
not considered a mere ‘resource’ to be used instrumentally to fulfil human desires. The most
extreme manifestations of this anthropocentric paradigm are reflected in the dominant values and
beliefs of consumerism. The US-dominated culture industry seeks to convince its global audience
that the meaning and chief value of life can be found in the limitless accumulation of material
possessions.
The two most ominous ecological problems connected to the global spread of consumer culture
are human-induced global climate change, such as global warming, and the worldwide destruction
of biodiversity. Indeed, the US Union of Concerned Scientists has presented data suggesting that
the global average temperature increased from about 53.3o F in 1880 to 57.9o F in 2000. Further
increases in global temperatures could lead to partial meltdowns of the polar ice caps, causing
global sea levels to rise by up to three feet by 2100 – a catastrophic development that would
threaten the many coastal regions of the world. The potential economic and political ramifications of
global climate change are dire, particularly for people living in developing countries in the global
south. With regard to the loss of biodiversity, many biologists today believe that we are now in the
midst of the fastest mass extinction of living species in the 4.5-billion-year history of the planet.
Environmental sociologist Franz Broswimmer (2002), for example, fears that up to 50 per cent of all
plant and animal species – most of them in the global south – will disappear by the end of this
century. For a comprehensive overview of facts and data related to global climate change, see
Philander (2008). For a more readable account, see Gore (2006).
An interesting crossover among economic, political and ecological dimensions of globalization is

the use of market based policy instruments to manage environmental problems. Initiatives such as
carbon ‘taxes’, ‘trading’, and biodiversity ‘banks’ have emerged in policy discussions at national and
global levels about approaches to global warming, species extinction, and overpopulation. Implicit in
the use of these market-based policy tools, however, is still the driving neoliberal ideological
assumption that the market can self-regulate and solve all problems, that capitalist-based
NVSU-FR-ICD-05-00 10
consumerism is a sustainable way to live, even an appropriate way to address ecological problems
created by capitalist over-consumption in the first place.
Converging Currents of Globalization
Most scholars agree that the most significant components of globalization is the economic
reorganization of the world. The characteristics of this new world arrangement are:
1. Global communication systems that link all regions of the planet instantaneously and global
transportation systems capable of moving goods quickly by air, sea, and land;
2. Transnational conglomerate corporate strategies that have created global corporations more
economically powerful than many nation-states;
3. International financial institutions that make possible 24-hour trading with new and more-flexible
forms of monetary flow;
4. Global agreements that promote free trade;
5. Market economies that have replaced state-controlled economies, and privatized firms and services,
like water delivery, formerly operated by governments;
6. An abundance of planetary goods and services that have arisen to fulfill consumer demand (real or
imaginary); and, of course,
7. An army of international workers, managers, executives, who give this powerful economic force a
human dimension. (Rowntree, Lewis, Price & Wyckoff, 2008)
Factors That Have Contributed to Globalization
There are a variety of factors which have contributed to the process of globalization. Some of the
most important globalization drivers are numbered below.
1. The price of transporting goods has fallen significantly, enabling good to be imported and exported
more cheaply due to containerization and bulk shipping;
2. The development of the internet to organize trade on a global scale;
3. TNCs have taken advantage of the reduction or lowering of trade barriers;
4. The desire of TNCs to profit from lower unit labor costs and other favorable production factors
abroad has encouraged countries to regulate their tax systems to draw in foreign direct investment
(FDI);
5. Transnational and multinational companies have invested significantly in expanding internationally;
6. The collapse of communism in the Soviet Union; and
7. The opening of China to world trade.
Advocates and Critics of Globalization
Globalization is one of the most controversial issues of our times. Supporters generally believe
that it brings in greater economic efficiency that will eventually result in bring prosperity for the entire
world. Critics think that it will largely benefit those who are already rich, leaving most of the world poorer
than before. Economic globalization is generally applauded by corporate leaders and economists. But
opposition to economic globalization is widespread in the labor and environmental movements for it has
promoted exploitation of workers, children, farmers, and the environment.
Advantages of Globalization Disadvantages of Globalization

 Productivity increases faster when countries  Millions of workers have lost their jobs
produce goods and services in which they because of imports or shifts in production
have a comparative advantage. Living abroad. Most find new jobs that pay less.
standards can increase more rapidly.
 Productivity increases faster when countries  Millions of workers fear getting laid off,
produce goods and services in which they especially at those firms in import-competing
have a comparative advantage. Living industries.
standards can increase more rapidly.
 An open economy promotes technological  Workers face demands of wage concessions
development and innovation, with fresh ideas from their employers, which often threaten to
from abroad. export jobs abroad if wage concessions are
not accepted.
 Jobs in export industries tend to pay about 15  Besides blue-collar jobs, service and white-
percent more than jobs in import-competing collar jobs are increasingly vulnerable to
industries. operations being sent overseas.
 Unfettered capital movements provide  Workers can lose their competitiveness
workers access to foreign investment and when companies build state-of-the-art
maintain low interest rates. factories in low wage countries, making them
as productive as those in the developed
countries.

(Business Week “Backlash Behind the Anxiety over Globalization,” 2000)
A number of experts argue that both the anti-globalization and the pro-globalization
stances are exaggerated. Those in the middle ground tend to argue that economic globalization
is indeed unavoidable. They point out that even the anti-globalization movement is made
possible by the Internet and is, therefore, itself an expression of globalization. They further
contend that globalization can be managed, at both the national and international levels, to
reduce economic inequalities and protect the natural environment. Such scholars stress the need
for strong yet efficient governments and international institutions (such as the UN, World Bank,
and IMF), along with networks of watchdog environmental, labor, and human rights groups.
(Rowntree, Lewis, Price & Wyckoff, 2008)
Theories of Globalization
from PoliticalScienceNotes.com
All theories of globalization have been put hereunder in eight categories: liberalism, political
realism, Marxism, constructivism, postmodernism, feminism, Trans-formationalism and eclecticism. Each
one of them carries several variations.
1. Theory of Liberalism
Liberalism sees the process of globalization as market-led extension of modernization. At the

most elementary level, it is a result of ‘natural’ human desires for economic welfare and political liberty.
As such, transplanetary connectivity is derived from human drives to maximize material well-being and
to exercise basic freedoms. These forces eventually interlink humanity across the planet.
They fructify in the form of:
(a) Technological advances, particularly in the areas of transport, communications and

information processing, and,
(b) Suitable legal and institutional arrangement to enable markets and liberal democracy to
spread on a trans-world scale.
Such explanations come mostly from Business Studies, Economics, International Political
Economy, Law and Politics. Liberalists stress the necessity of constructing institutional
infrastructure to support globalization. All this has led to technical standardization, administrative
harmonization, translation arrangement between languages, laws of contract, and guarantees of
property rights.
But its supporters neglect the social forces that lie behind the creation of technological and
institutional underpinnings. It is not satisfying to attribute these developments to ‘natural’ human drives
for economic growth and political liberty. They are culture blind and tend to overlook historically situated
life-worlds and knowledge structures which have promoted their emergence.
All people cannot be assumed to be equally amenable to and desirous of increased globality in
their lives. Similarly, they overlook the phenomenon of power. There are structural power inequalities in
promoting globalization and shaping its course. Often they do not care for the entrenched power
hierarchies between states, classes, cultures, sexes, races and resources.
2. Theory of Political Realism
Advocates of this theory are interested in questions of state power, the pursuit of national
interest, and conflict between states. According to them states are inherently acquisitive and self-
serving, and heading for inevitable competition of power. Some of the scholars stand for a balance of
power, where any attempt by one state to achieve world dominance is countered by collective resistance
from other states.
Another group suggests that a dominant state can bring stability to world order. The ‘hegemon’
state (presently the US or G7/8) maintains and defines international rules and institutions that both
advance its own interests and at the same time contain conflicts between other states. Globalization has
also been explained as a strategy in the contest for power between several major states in contemporary
world politics.
They concentrate on the activities of Great Britain, China, France, Japan, the USA and some
other large states. Thus, the political realists highlight the issues of power and power struggles and the
role of states in generating global relations.
At some levels, globalization is considered as antithetical to territorial states. States, they say,
are not equal in globalization, some being dominant and others subordinate in the process. But they fail
to understand that everything in globalization does not come down to the acquisition, distribution and
exercise of power.
Globalization has also cultural, ecological, economic and psychological dimensions that are not
reducible to power politics. It is also about the production and consumption of resources, about the
discovery and affirmation of identity, about the construction and communication of meaning, and about
humanity shaping and being shaped by nature. Most of these are apolitical.
Power theorists also neglect the importance and role of other actors in generating globalization.
These are sub-state authorities, macro-regional institutions, global agencies, and private-sector bodies.
Additional types of power-relations on lines of class, culture and gender also affect the course of
globalization. Some other structural inequalities cannot be adequately explained as an outcome of
interstate competition. After all, class inequality, cultural hierarchy, and patriarchy predate the modern
states.
3. Theory of Marxism
Marxism is principally concerned with modes of production, social exploitation through unjust
distribution, and social emancipation through the transcendence of capitalism. Marx himself anticipated
the growth of globality that ‘capital by its nature drives beyond every spatial barrier to conquer the whole
earth for its market’. Accordingly, to Marxists, globalization happens because trans-world connectivity
enhances opportunities of profit-making and surplus accumulation.
Marxists reject both liberalist and political realist explanations of globalization. It is the outcome of
historically specific impulses of capitalist development. Its legal and institutional infrastructures serve the
logic of surplus accumulation of a global scale. Liberal talk of freedom and democracy make up a
legitimating ideology for exploitative global capitalist class relations.
The neo-Marxists in dependency and world-system theories examine capitalist accumulation on

a global scale on lines of core and peripheral countries. Neo-Gramscians highlight the significance of
underclass struggles to resist globalizing capitalism not only by traditional labor unions, but also by new
social movements of consumer advocates, environmentalists, peace activists, peasants, and women.
However, Marxists give an overly restricted account of power.
There are other relations of dominance and subordination which relate to state, culture, gender,
race, sex, and more. Presence of US hegemony, the West-centric cultural domination, masculinism,
racism etc. are not reducible to class dynamics within capitalism. Class is a key axis of power in
globalization, but it is not the only one. It is too simplistic to see globalization solely as a result of drives
for surplus accumulation.
It also seeks to explore identities and investigate meanings. People develop global weapons and
pursue global military campaigns not only for capitalist ends, but also due to interstate competition and
militarist culture that predate emergence of capitalism. Ideational aspects of social relations also are not
outcome of the modes of production. They have, like nationalism, their autonomy.
4. Theory of Constructivism
Globalization has also arisen because of the way that people have mentally constructed the
social world with particular symbols, language, images and interpretation. It is the result of particular
forms and dynamics of consciousness. Patterns of production and governance are second-order
structures that derive from deeper cultural and socio-psychological forces. Such accounts of
globalization have come from the fields of Anthropology, Humanities, Media of Studies and Sociology.
Constructivists concentrate on the ways that social actors ‘construct’ their world: both within their
own minds and through inter-subjective communication with others. Conversation and symbolic
exchanges lead people to construct ideas of the world, the rules for social interaction, and ways of being
and belonging in that world. Social geography is a mental experience as well as a physical fact. They
form ‘in’ or ‘out’ as well as ‘us’ and they’ groups.
They conceive of themselves as inhabitants of a particular global world. National, class, religious
and other identities respond in part to material conditions but they also depend on inter-subjective
construction and communication of shared self-understanding. However, when they go too far, they
present a case of social-psychological reductionism ignoring the significance of economic and ecological
forces in shaping mental experience. This theory neglects issues of structural inequalities and power
hierarchies in social relations. It has a built-in apolitical tendency.
5. Theory of Postmodernism
Some other ideational perspectives of globalization highlight the significance of structural power
in the construction of identities, norms and knowledge. They all are grouped under the label of
‘postmodernism’. They too, as Michel Foucault does strive to understand society in terms of knowledge
power: power structures shape knowledge. Certain knowledge structures support certain power
hierarchies.
The reigning structures of understanding determine what can and cannot be known in a given
socio-historical context. This dominant structure of knowledge in modern society is ‘rationalism’. It puts
emphasis on the empirical world, the subordination of nature to human control, objectivist science, and
instrumentalist efficiency. Modern rationalism produces a society overwhelmed with economic growth,
technological control, bureaucratic organization, and disciplining desires.
This mode of knowledge has authoritarian and expansionary logic that leads to a kind of cultural
imperialism subordinating all other epistemologies. It does not focus on the problem of globalization per
se. In this way, western rationalism overawes indigenous cultures and other non-modem life-worlds.
Postmodernism, like Marxism, helps to go beyond the relatively superficial accounts of liberalist
and political realist theories and expose social conditions that have favored globalization. Obviously,
postmodernism suffers from its own methodological idealism. All material forces, though come under
impact of ideas, cannot be reduced to modes of consciousness. For a valid explanation, interconnection
between ideational and material forces is not enough.
6. Theory of Feminism
It puts emphasis on social construction of masculinity and femininity. All other theories have
identified the dynamics behind the rise of trans-planetary and supra-territorial connectivity in technology,
state, capital, identity and the like.
Biological sex is held to mould the overall social order and shape significantly the course of
history, presently globality. Their main concern lies behind the status of women, particularly their
structural subordination to men. Women have tended to be marginalized, silenced and violated in global
communication.
7. Theory of Trans-formationalism
This theory has been expounded by David Held and his colleagues. Accordingly, the term
‘globalization’ reflects increased interconnectedness in political, economic and cultural matters across
the world creating a “shared social space”. Given this interconnectedness, globalization may be defined
as “a process (or set of processes) which embodies a transformation in the spatial organization of social
relations and transactions, expressed in transcontinental or interregional flows and networks of activity,
interaction and power.”
While there are many definitions of globalization, such a definition seeks to bring together the
many and seemingly contradictory theories of globalization into a “rigorous analytical framework” and
“proffer a coherent historical narrative”. Held and McGrew’s analytical framework is constructed by
developing a threepart typology of theories of globalization consisting of “hyper-globalist,” “sceptic,” and
“transformationalist” categories.
The Hyperglobalists purportedly argue that “contemporary globalization defines a new era in
which people everywhere are increasingly subject to the disciplines of the global marketplace”. Given the
importance of the global marketplace, multi-national enterprises (MNEs) and intergovernmental
organizations (IGOs) which regulate their activity are key political actors. Sceptics, such as Hirst and
Thompson (1996) ostensibly argue that “globalization is a myth which conceals the reality of an interna-
tional economy increasingly segmented into three major regional blocs in which national governments
remain very powerful.” Finally, transformationalists such as Rosenau (1997) or Giddens (1990) argue
that globalization occurs as “states and societies across the globe are experiencing a process of
profound change as they try to adapt to a more interconnected but highly uncertain world”.
Developing the transformationalist category of globalization theories. Held and McGrew present a
rather complicated typology of globalization based on globalization’s spread, depth, speed, and impact,
as well as its impacts on infrastructure, institutions, hierarchical structures and the unevenness of
development.
They imply that the “politics of globalization” have been “transformed” (using their word from the
definition of globalization) along all of these dimensions because of the emergence of a new system of
“political globalization.” They define “political globalization” as the “shifting reach of political power,
authority and forms of rule” based on new organizational interests which are “transnational” and “multi-
layered.”
These organizational interests combine actors identified under the hyper-globalist category
(namely IGOs and MNEs) with those of the sceptics (trading blocs and powerful states) into a new
system where each of these actors exercises their political power, authority and forms of rule.
Thus, the “politics of globalization” is equivalent to “political globalization” for Held and McGrew.
However, Biyane Michael criticises them. He deconstructs their argument, if A is defined as
“globalization” (as defined above), B as the organizational interests such as MNEs, IGOs, trading blocs,
and powerful states, and C as “political globalization” (also as defined above), then their argument
reduces to A. B. C. In this way, their discussion of globalization is trivial.
Held and others present a definition of globalization, and then simply restates various elements
of the definition. Their definition, “globalization can be conceived as a process (or set of processes)
which embodies a transformation in the spatial organization of social relations” allows every change to
be an impact of globalization. Thus, by their own definition, all the theorists they critique would be
considered as “transformationalists.” Held and McGrew also fail to show how globalization affects
organizational interests.
8. Theory of Eclecticism
Each one of the above six ideal-type of social theories of globalization highlights certain forces
that contribute to its growth. They put emphasis on technology and institution building, national interest
and inter-state competition, capital accumulation and class struggle, identity and knowledge
construction, rationalism and cultural imperialism, and masculinize and subordination of women. Jan Art
Scholte synthesizes them as forces of production, governance, identity, and knowledge.
Accordingly, capitalists attempt to amass ever-greater resources in excess of their survival

needs: accumulation of surplus. The capitalist economy is thoroughly monetized. Money facilitates
accumulation. It offers abundant opportunities to transfer surplus, especially from the weak to the
powerful. This mode of production involves perpetual and pervasive contests over the distribution of
surplus. Such competition occurs both between individual, firms, etc. and along structural lines of class,
gender, race etc.
Their contests can be overt or latent. Surplus accumulation has had transpired in one way or
another for many centuries, but capitalism is a comparatively recent phenomenon. It has turned into a
structural power, and is accepted as a ‘natural’ circumstance, with no alternative mode of production. It
has spurred globalization in four ways: market expansion, accounting practices, asset mobility and
enlarged arenas of commodification. Its technological innovation appears in communication, transport
and data processing as well as in global organization and management. It concentrates profits at points
of low taxation. Information, communication, finance and consumer sectors offer vast potentials to
capital making it ‘hyper-capitalism’.
Any mode of production cannot operate in the absence of an enabling regulatory apparatus.
There are some kind of governance mechanisms. Governance relates processes whereby people
formulate, implement, enforce and review rules to guide their common affairs.” It entails more than
government. It can extend beyond state and sub-state institutions including supra-state regimes as well.
It covers the full scope of societal regulation.
In the growth of contemporary globalization, besides political and economic forces, there are
material and ideational elements. In expanding social relations, people explore their class, their gender,
their nationality, their race, their religious faith and other aspects of their being. Constructions of identity
provide collective solidarity against oppression. Identity provides frameworks for community, democracy,
citizenship and resistance. It also leads from nationalism to greater pluralism and hybridity.
Earlier nationalism promoted territorialism, capitalism, and statism, now these plural identities are
feeding more and more globality, hyper-capitalism and polycentrism. These identities have many
international qualities visualized in global diasporas and other group affiliations based on age, class,
gender, race, religious faith and sexual orientations. Many forms of supra-territorial solidarities are
appearing through globalization.
In the area of knowledge, the way that the people know their world has significant implications for
the concrete circumstances of that world. Powerful patterns of social consciousness cause globalization.
Knowledge frameworks cannot be reduced to forces of production, governance or identity.
Mindsets encourage or discourage the rise of globality. Modern rationalism is a general

configuration of knowledge. It is secular as it defines reality in terms of the tangible world of experience.
It understands reality primarily in terms of human interests, activities and conditions. It holds that
phenomena can be understood in terms of single incontrovertible truths that are discoverable by rigorous
application of objective research methods.
Rationalism is instrumentalist. It assigns greatest value to insights that enable people efficiently
to solve immediate problems. It subordinates all other ways of understanding and acting upon the world.
Its knowledge could then be applied to harness natural and social forces for human purposes. It enables
people to conquer disease, hunger, poverty, war, etc., and maximize the potentials of human life. It looks
like a secular faith, a knowledge framework for capitalist production and a cult of economic efficiency.
Scientism and instrumentalism of rationalism is conducive to globalization. Scientific knowledge is non-
territorial.
The truths revealed by ‘objective’ method are valid for anyone, anywhere, and anytime on earth.
Certain production processes, regulations, technologies and art forms are applicable across the planet.
Martin Albrow rightly says that reason knows no territorial limits. The growth of globalization is unlikely to
reverse in the foreseeable future.
However, Scholte is aware of insecurity, inequality and marginalization caused by the present
process of globalization. Others reject secularist character of the theory, its manifestation of the
imperialism of westernist-modernist-rationalist knowledge. Anarchists challenge the oppressive nature of
states and other bureaucratic governance frameworks. Globalization neglects environmental
degradation and equitable gender relations. (politicalsciencenotes.com 2017)
VI. REFERENCES
Al-Rodhan, N. (2006). Definition of Globalization: A Comprehensive Overview and a Proposed
Definition. Geneva Centre for Security Policy: Geneva.
Steger, M. (2014). Approaches to the Study of Globalization. In M. Stegger, P. Battersby, & J.M.
Siracusa (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Globalization. 2 Volumes. (pp.7-21 ). Thousand
Oaks: Sage Publication.
Steger, M. (2005). Ideologies of Globalization. Journal of Political Science, 10 (1), 11-30.

MODULE Week-1-2 GE WORLD

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

MODULE Week-1-2 GE WORLD

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of the Philippines

NUEVA VIZCAYA STATE UNIVERSITY

College of Arts and Sciences

DEGREE PROGRAM General COURSE NO. GE WORLD

I. CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION TO GLOBALIZATION

II. LESSON TITLE:

⮚ The Conceptions of Globalization

⮚ Approaches to the Study of Globalization

⮚ Working Definition of Globalization

III. CHAPTER OVERVIEW

IV. DESIRED LEARNING OUTCOMES

Approaches to the Study of Globalization

I. Globalization as Economic Process

II. Globalization as Political Process

Economic perspectives on globalization can hardly be discussed apart from an analysis of

An influential group of scholars considers political globalization as a process intrinsically

III. Globalization as Cultural Process

In addition to addressing the question of whether globalization leads to cultural homogeneity or

An interesting crossover among economic, political and ecological dimensions of globalization is

Converging Currents of Globalization

Factors That Have Contributed to Globalization

Advocates and Critics of Globalization

Advantages of Globalization Disadvantages of Globalization

Liberalism sees the process of globalization as market-led extension of modernization. At the

(a) Technological advances, particularly in the areas of transport, communications and

2. Theory of Political Realism

The neo-Marxists in dependency and world-system theories examine capitalist accumulation on

Accordingly, capitalists attempt to amass ever-greater resources in excess of their survival

Mindsets encourage or discourage the rise of globality. Modern rationalism is a general

Steger, M. (2005). Ideologies of Globalization. Journal of Political Science, 10 (1), 11-30.

You might also like