Globalization

When discussing international relations, it is very difficult to do so without a thorough and

thoughtful discussion about globalization, the definition of globalization, the history of
globalization, the ways globalization exists in the world, as well as the pros and cons of
globalization. Today, it seems that the world is becoming more and more “globalized”. But what
does that mean to be globalized, or to see an increase in globalization? And how can
understanding ‘what is globalization’ help us to better know about various aspects of
international relations? As we shall see, quickly increasing globalization is forcing us to re-
examine our prior understandings about the role of the state, the non-state actors such as non-
governmental organizations (which also includes but is not limited to multinational
corporations), as well as individuals), along with themes such as international political economy,
economic global trade, development, human rights, and so on.
What is Globalization?
Scholars set out to understand globalization have offered a plethora of definitions about ‘what is
globalization’? The globalization definition is far from crystallized and agreed upon. Having said
that, there are many ways to explain what exactly is globalization.
Richard J. Payne, in his book Global Issues, says that “Globalization refers to shrinking
distances among its continents, a wider geographical sense of vulnerability, and a worldwide
interconnectedness of important aspects of human life, including religion, migration, war,
finance, trade, diseases, drugs, and music. Globalization implies a significant and obvious
blurring of distinctions between the internal and external affairs of countries and the weakening
of differences among countries” (9-10).
Giddens (1990: 21, in McGrew, 2008: 17) says that globalization is the “intensification of
worldwide social relations which link distant localities in such a way that local happenings are
shaped by events occurring many miles away and vice versa.”
Smallman & Brown (2011: 23), cite Manfred Stegar, who in his book Globalization: A Very
Short Introduction, says about globalization, that it is a “multidimensional set of social processes
that create, multiply, stretch, and intensify worldwide social interdependencies and exchanges
while at the same time fostering in people a growing awareness of deepening connections
between the local and the distant.”
History of Globalization
Globalization, while showing itself in new ways, has been a part of the human history. With
regards to the history of globalization, globalization first took form during the time of initial
migration by humans out of the African continent and into other lands. As human history
continued, due to local conditions, humans lacking access to hunting and finding food had to
move for new resources. Then, as they continued to spread throughout the earth and establish
additional communities, they then started to produce more advanced tools, and then, in time,
began trading with other communities. Thus, as we see, although this might not be
“globalization” as we understand it today, societies throughout human history have continued to
increase in terms of globalization (Serneau, 2012: 2). Payne (2013: 11) cites a table by Michael
Pettis (2001) in his Foreign Policy article Will Globalization Go Bankrupt, which documents the
various recent periods of globalization. I have cited the information from the table, which is
below:
Effects of Globalization

Scholars, policymakers, and activists have debated the effects of globalization, and continue to
do so. And similar to many questions in international relations, the effects of globalization
depend on who you are asking; individuals, depending on their theoretical viewpoints, as well as
beliefs about international relations, may have varying position about the true effects of
globalization. Scholars have categorized the positions regarding the “effects of globalization”
into three groups: “The hyperglobalizers and transformalists”, “the skeptics”, and the “weak
globalizers” (Payne, 2013: 18; McGrew, 2008, in Baylis, Smith, and Owens: 2008) (a more
recent version of the book The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International
Relations can be found here).
 Hyperglobalizers and Transformalists: Hyperglobalizers and Transformalists argue that
globalization is essentially changing everything around us, which includes the amount of
political power that states have had. To Hyperglobalizers, the state’s power is being
altered by non-state actors (McGrew, 2008). Supporters of this view might point to the
increase in technology, and related to this, personal cell phones and recording devices, as
well as social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter as evidence of the decline
of the state. By having access to cameras that can text, store pictures, and record
information have left states with less power over the individual. In addition, there are
many examples of how social media has challenged state power. One of the more recent
examples is the 2010-2011 Arab Uprisings or the “Arab Spring.” Here, citizens in the
Middle East and North Africa took to the streets to protest the authoritarian regimes in
power of their respective states. And while many of the leaders such as Zine el-Abedine
of Tunisia and Hosni Mubarak of Egypt attempted to crackdown on citizens, as well as
disrupted political protests, internet and technologically savvy protesters were often able
to stay a step ahead of the governments by organizing the revolution with technology,
and more specifically publicizing rights abuses through social media sites. It is no
wonder that those within the hyperglobalizer and tranformalist camp would point to such
events to show the weakening of the state in the context of globalization.
 Skeptics, on the other hand, skeptics argue that despite the idea that globalization is
increasing, the power of the state in its domestic and foreign affairs has not diminished.
As Payne (2013) explains, there are those in this camp say “that globalization is largely a
myth that disguises the reality of the existence of powerful sovereign states and major
economic divisions in the world. National governments remain in control of their
domestic economies as well as the regulation of international economic activities.” This
position says that regardless of how it seems that the state is weakening, they continue to
have great holds on domestic power, as well as in terms of their interactions with other
powerful states. However, they argue that much of the financial power is with the
economically developed states, whereas economically developing states are not as
interconnected as some might think (Hirst and Thompson, 1999, 2003; Hay 2000;
Hoogvelt, 2001; Gilpin, 2002, in McGrew, 2008). Furthermore, while some
hyperglobalizers suggest that cultures are becoming more interconnected, skeptics argue
that cultures continue to actually be distant and people are more “suspicious of each
other” (Spiro, 2000, in Payne, 2013:20).
 The weak globalizers, or the transformalists , take a middle position in the globalization
debate. They recognize that while the state is not going anywhere anytime soon, politics
 are indeed becoming more “global” (McGrew, 2008). Thus, there clearly is change and
globalization is happening, but historical political power structures such as the state
continue to be dominant actors in the international system. In addition, while we are
becoming more interconnected, there is still the desire for continued individual identity,
and this can show itself in a variety of forms.
Types of Globalization
There are many types of globalization. The four that we shall primarily focus on are: Economic
Globalization, Military Globalization, Cultural Globalization, and Political Globalization.
Economic Globalization
Economic Globalization has been defined by Gao Shangquan as “the increasing interdependence
of world economies as a result of the growing scale of cross-border trade of commodities and
services, flow of international capital and wide and rapid spread of technologies. It reflects the
continuing expansion and mutual integration of market frontiers…”. Historically, economic
globalization was barely different from other forms of globalization; often economic, political,
and cultural globalization were interconnected. As we see, economic globalization is happening
all around us. Technologies are advancing at a rapid rate, which shapes how we do business.
Transactions can be made with the click of a button, and markets can be monitored around the
clock. In addition, companies can set up shop in any part of the world, as well as having a very
established internet presence with extensive online activity.
And with economic globalization is also the issue of how states and non-state actors can help
address challenges such as economic development. Here, we see international organizations, as
well as non-governmental organizations actively trying to help states in terms of building
infrastructure, increasing jobs, as well as introducing capital (Smallman & Brown, 2011). But as
we shall see, it is debated as to whether some of these developments are always positive; some
worry that with globalization, powerful states and multinational corporations have used the
system to further their own power and influence at the expense of other weaker actors.
Military Globalization
Some have also created a separate category for what the see as military globalization, which can
differ from technological globalization. While weapons of course are part technological
advancements, they can be seen as a separate aspect of globalization. Payne (2013) says that
“[m]ilitary globalization is characterized by extensive as well as intensive networks of military
force. This includes both the actual use of force and threats to use violence. The most obvious
example of military globalization is the nuclear age and the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction” (15). However, this of course is not a new; military globalization, like other forms
of globalization, have continued to exist for centuries, whether it was the origin of weapons, rise
of advancements in rifles, the introduction of handguns, or even the introduction of security
regimes such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization amongst other organizations (Payne,
2013: 15).
Political Globalization
Political advancements are another important aspect of globalization. If we
look at the political makeup of the international system, there have been a
number of new institutions and organizations. We don’t have to go that that
far back to see new developments such as international alliance institutions
(e.g. the League of Nations, or more recently, the United Nations, which has
been a cornerstone of international human rights law, as well as
environmental law). In addition, the rise of non-state actors have brought a
new dimension to international politics, one that is quite new from a
centuries long system of state power (Smallman & Brown, 2011). NGOs
continue to work on political and social causes as they relate to international
relations.
Cultural Globalization
Along with economic, military, and political globalization has been the
importance of cultural globalization. With the rise of technology, information
is increasing. As alluded to, this can be related to political information,
sharing of knowledge on science, or, in this case, the interexchange of ideas.
As we see, we can hear music from anywhere in the world, follow the latest
fashions, and watch television programs in multiple languages. The ability to
share our respective cultures is quite feasible with the internet. But even
without the computer, we are now able to move from city to city, state to
state, or country to country easier than ever before. And with travel and
migration (Smallman & Brown, 2011) comes addition points of consideration:
namely, what happens when people move? How can we understand cultural
exchange in this context? And how does cultural globalization relate to
political or other subcategories of globalization?

Globalization Pros and Cons

Advantages of Globalization
To many, there are numerous advantages of globalization. As alluded to
earlier, through globalization, individuals are able to communicate with
others throughout the world at much easier speeds. This has allowed the
sharing of information with people that in years past would have taken much
longer, or cost much more. In addition, with mobile video services,
communication quality has also increased. Furthermore, with a globalizing
world market, the ability to network in regards to new ideas and business
opportunities has never been easier. The positive effects of this can be seen
in many cases: information has led to better decisions in fields such as
health and education. More effective medicines are being produced, which in
turn can be shared more quickly around the globe. Moreover, if there is a
concern regarding a global health issue, a political issue, or a natural
disaster, we can now relay information to others immediately so that they
can better protect themselves.
As discussed above, the sharing of information has also allowed people to
challenge human rights abuses that exist in society. Now, it is easier to
record a military crackdown, or government rights violation. In addition, it
has now become easier to organize protest movements against regimes,
which has led some to suggest a decline of the state. This was not possible
even decades ago.
Concerns and Criticisms of Globalization
While there are many excellent benefits to globalization, not everyone has
been excited about the effects of globalization. Some of them see the
“advantages of globalization” as actually being “disadvantages of
globalization,” whereas others find that while there globalization has brought
about a number of life improvements, for some, there are also negative
consequences of increased technological advancements when discussing
globalization.
For example, looking at the case of France, many French citizens have not
embraced political and cultural globalization. As Payne (2013) argues, some
of this is because of a want to maintain domestic sovereignty, and within
this, ideas of maintaining “French” culture. With the increase in immigration
to France, particularly from Muslim states in the Middle East and from North
African states such as Algeria, Tunisia, and Morocco (Payne, 2013), many in
France have been hesitant to endorse globalization. Ideas of what it means
to be “French” are ever-shifting, and this does not sit well with some in the
country.
However, they are not the only ones expressing this opinion; evidence of the
rise of right wing parties in Europe (many of which speak out against
immigration) suggests that they do not like the idea that globalization means
increased influence of different cultures and political beliefs.
In the United States, there is also a push-back to globalization. While there
are some similarities to what was discussed in the context of France, United
States citizens have expressed other concerns resulting from economic
globalization. For example, arguably the height of concern by some in the
United States regarding globalization is how increased communications
between states, and technological advances throughout the world are
affecting the political and economic situations domestically, and particularly
in the context of US jobs. This concern is often within this context of the idea
of outsourcing. According to Diana Mutz & Edward D. Mansfield (2013),
Americans have heard a great deal about outsourcing over
the past fifteen years, both in media reports and in each of
the past four presidential elections. Moreover, it is clear that
people are not happy about this phenomenon. Based on a
number of surveys that we have conducted, only 2 percent of
American workers view offshore outsourcing favorably,
whereas over 78 percent of workers are hostile to this
phenomenon and another 20 percent have mixed views.
Americans have a more favorable view of international trade
than offshore outsourcing, but they are nonetheless
ambivalent, with more workers opposed to trade
liberalization than favoring it, about a quarter having mixed
views.”
Interestingly, those who are often the ones most vocal about the concerns of
outsourcing are those that have the least to worry about regarding job
security (Mutz & Mansfield, 2013: 3). And if this is the case, then why the
intense backlash against globalization and outsourcing in the United States?
It has been argued that for some, the disagreement with globalization is
related to ideas of superiority of US goods to foreign products. And some
politicians, worried about their constituencies, and local voting blocks, may
be more willing to make such arguments in order to protect their electoral
support, even if the reality is far from what the citizens believe regarding the
economy and globalization (Mutz & Mansfield, 2013). In addition to this idea
of “superior” US product quality, a relationship between isolationism and
globalization may also exist as a reason for disapproval of globalization (Mutz
& Mansfield, 2013). As Payne (2103) explains, “Americans are increasingly
embracing a view of sovereignty that rejects participation in a number of
international regimes” (18), and thus, there could be a relationship between
these political views and their position on globalization. And one final point is
that there may also be elements of ethnocentrism existing by Americans
towards those from other countries (Mutz & Mansfield, 2013: 4); some of this
seems to parallel some of the attitudes in Europe. This may also be a reason
for the anti-globalization attitudes that we are seeing.
Globalization and Economic Exploitation
Along with the concerns discussed in Western states such as the United
States and France, there is also an anti-globalization movement throughout
the world that bases much of their protest on the relationship between
globalization and capitalism. Critics, and particularly those espousing the
international relations theory of Marxism or economic dependence have
argued that globalization is another way that capital rich countries exploit
economically developing countries. They argue that under the guise of
globalization, economically rich states and multinational corporations (MNCs)
can and often do use developing countries through conditional loan and aid
packages, as well as economic and free trade agreements that benefit the
rich states much more so than the economically poor states, or at least the
citizens of the economically developing states.
Human rights activists argue that globalization affects the rights of citizens,
as they are often abuses and or neglected while working. There are many
cases of MNCs taking advantage of workers by providing horrendous working
conditions. In addition, with globalization has been a rise in human
trafficking, as criminal organizations, through communications with other
crime syndicates, are coordinating criminal opportunities. This can be seen in
the multi-billion dollar yearly drug trade, or with modern day slavery. In
addition, activists argue that increased globalization has led to a disregard
of environmental issues (Payne, 2013) such as deforestation, oil spills,
climate change, and lack of concern for the protection of clean water, etc…
Globalization and Cultural Exploitation
Somewhat related to this what some argue as the is the cultural exploitation
of globalization. While some suggest that globalization allows for the free
exchange of ideas, Payne (2013: 20) points out that others suggest that with
the increase in “cultural homogenization,” globalization actually “imposes
Western values on others and destroys their traditions, religious beliefs,
identities, and sense of community and belonging.”