LESSON 1

INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF GLOBALIZATION

The first part of this lesson discusses the summary of the “Approaches to the Study of
Globalization” as presented by Manfred B. Steger (2014) which was adopted from the “SAGE
Handbook of Globalization” edited by Manfred B. Steger, Paul Battersby, and Joseph M.
Siracusa (2014). The succeeding discussion presents the work of Manfred B. Steger (2014)
entitled “Market Globalism” which was also adopted from the “SAGE Handbook of
Globalization”.

A. Approaches to the Study of Globalization

There are many different approaches to the study of globalization. The purpose of this
chapter is to provide a general overview of the various approaches to the concept as espoused by
several scholars since the 1990s.

Various scholars have advanced the concept of globalization by analyzing the changing
economic, political, and cultural processes that happened since the 1970s. Some of the accepted
definitions of globalization include the following: “increasing global inter-connectedness”; “the
expansion and intensification of social relations across world-time and world-space”; “the
compression of time and space”; “distant proximities”; “a complex range of processes, driven by
a mixture of political and economic influences”; and “the swift and relatively unimpeded flow of
capital, people, and ideas across national borders” (Giddens, 1990; Harvey, 1989; Held &
McGrew, 2007; Lechner & Boli, 2011; Robertson, 1992; Steger, 2013; Waters, 2001).

Globalization as “Globaloney”- Three groups of scholars argue that the existing accounts of
globalization are incorrect and imprecise. Their arguments fall into three differing categories.
The first group disagrees with the usefulness of globalization as a precise analytical concept. The
second group contends that the world is not really integrated as many proponents believe. The
last cluster disputes the novelty of the process while acknowledging the presence of moderate
globalizing tendencies.

Rejectionists- These scholars believe that the term “globalization” is an example of a vague
word employed in academic discourses. Just like the term “nationalism”, “globalization” is a
complex and ambiguous phenomenon, thus both are hard concepts to define (Calhoun, 1993).

Sceptics- This group stresses the limited nature of current globalizing processes. According to
Hirst and Thompson (2009), our international economy is not really a global phenomenon, since
it only centered on Europe, Eastern Asia, and North America. They also emphasized that most of
the economic activities are still national in terms of origin and scope.

Modifiers- They entail that “globalization” has often been applied in a historically inaccurate
manner. Gilpin (2000) argues that our international economy in the late 1990s was even less
incorporated before the outbreak of World War I. According to the neo-Marxist proponents of
World-System Theory (Wallerstein, 1979; Frank, 1998), the modern capitalist economy today
has been global five centuries ago. Thus globalization can be drawn back to the political and
cultural relations that developed the ancient empires of Persia (Iran), China, and Rome.

Globalization as an Economic Process- The evolution of global markets and international

The emergence and evolution of the post-World War I global economy was attributed to the
establishment of the 1944 Bretton Woods Conference (Schaeffer, 2005). Its operation for almost
thirty years contributed to the formation of the “golden age of controlled capitalism” (Luttwak,
1999).

The collapse of the Bretton Woods System in the early 1970s was followed by the intensification
of neo-liberalist ideas in the 1980s coupled with the collapse from 1989 to 1991 of the
command-type economies in Eastern Europe. Aside from the issue on free trade, the advent of a
transnational financial system made possible the deregulation of interest rates, the removal of
credit controls, and the privatization of government-owned banks and other financial institutions.

Globalization as a Political Process- Political globalization includes the discussion and analysis
of political processes and institutions. Thus two questions are asked: (1) what are the political
grounds for the immense flows of capital, money, and technology across territorial boundaries?;
(2) do these flows create a serious test to the power of the nation-state? These dilemmas imply
that economic globalization might lead to the reduced control of national governments over
restrictive policies and economic regulations.

According to Ohmae (1990, 1995, 2005), the rise of a “borderless world” was the consequence
of the irresistible forces of capitalism. Thus, the nation-state has already lost its function as a
significant entity in the global economy vis-à-vis the decline of territory as a meaningful
framework for understanding political and social change. Regional economies will be linked
together and operate based on free-market principles.

In terms of global governance, political globalization might enable the emergence of democratic
ideals promoting a “global civil society” that promote human rights in the international level
(Brysk, 2002).

Globalization as a Cultural Process- Two focal questions are raised by scholars of cultural
globalization. First, does globalization intensify cultural homogeneity, or does it lead to more
diversity and heterogeneity? Second, what could be the impact of the culture of consumerism on
our natural environment? According to Tomlinson (1999), cultural globalization signifies a
growing linkage of intricate cultural interconnections and interdependencies that define our
modern social life. These can be made possible through the emergence of powerful global media
corporations that develop new communication technologies which promote the Anglo-American
value system. This global dissemination of American values (Americanization), consumer goods,
and lifestyles promote the objectives of American “cultural imperialism” which is also termed by
Ritzer (1993) as “McDonaldization” which describes the ideals of the fast-food business that
dominate the American society and the rest of the globe.

According to Barber (1996), a type of cultural imperialism that was assembled in the 1950s and
1960s promoted an American culture of popular consumerism which he termed as “McWorld”.
This was driven by expansionist commercial interests which was evident in its choice of music,
video, theater, books, and theme parks which create exports that center around common logos,
advertising slogans, stars, songs, brand names, jingles, trademarks, and the like.

As argued by Robertson (1995) global cultural flows also take place in local contexts which
result to “glocalization”. This refers to an intricate collaboration of the global and local cultures
characterized by cultural borrowing. These interactions lead to a complex mixture of both
cultures often referred to as “hybridization” or “creolization” which signifies processes of
cultural mixing that are replicated in music, film, fashion, language, and other types of social
expression.

Appadurai (1996) classifies five dimensions or “landscapes” that are instituted by global cultural
flows: (a) ethnoscapes (shifting populations due to influx of tourists, immigrants, refugees, and
exiles); (b) technoscapes (improvement of technologies that assists the rise of MNCs); (c)
finanscapes (movement of all forms of global capital); (d) mediascapes (electronic know-hows
that produce and spread information), and (e) ideoscapes (principles advanced by states and
social movements).

Sad to say, there are ecological dilemmas that are connected with this consumerist culture that
promote an infinite accumulation of material possessions. These include and are not limited to
the following: (a) human-induced global climate change; and (b) worldwide destruction of
biodiversity. Data suggest that further increase in global temperature could lead to a partial melt-
down of the polar ice caps, causing global sea levels to rise up to three feet by 2100 which could
threaten many coastal regions of the world. By the end of this century, there would be a great
possibility that 50 per cent of all plant and animal species (most of them in the global south)
might disappear (Broswimmer, 2002).