Globalization as Myth

If globalization would be voted in terms of popularity among the most controversial and popular topics in all perspectives (i.e. economics, sociological, political, cultural, etc.), it may have been garnered the top spot. From providing an accurate description of the term alone, it gives off opportunity for debate and argumentation among social scientists and scholars. Globalization is currently the most popular tag or catchphrase that depicts the promises as well as threats that face the 21st century civilization (Giddens 1999; Gilpin 2000; Held and McGrew 2000; Nye and Donahue 2000). The constant exchange of arguments among advocates as well as critics of globalization makes it more interesting, thus providing an extensive body of knowledge that is used as reference to qualify its extent of effects. The term "globalization" has acquired considerable controversial force in reference to the existing exchange of disagreements between pro- and anti-globalization. For the supporters of globalization, it is a process that is globally beneficial as key to future world economic development and it is also unavoidable and permanent. On the contrary, critics regard it with resentment or even fear because of the potential drawbacks that it may bring such as increased cases of global divergence within and between nations, threats of labor force especially in employment and living standards, and incongruous prevention of social progress. Globalization can be evaluated along different dimensions yet its economic aspect has been the most popular area of exploration (Hackmann 2005, pp. 211). With the presented arguments from pro- and anti-globalization, another contentious issue on globalization emerges as it is argued as myth.

Hirst and Thompson’s (1996; 2000) view that globalization, as conceived by more extreme globalizers, is largely a myth. This essay discusses the underlying arguments that illustrate globalization as myth. By further looking on additional literatures, the mythological assumption of globalization is clearly illuminated. To begin with, various definitions of globalization is provided and followed by its beneficial as well as harmful repercussions. Then, the proving of globalization as myth follows by emphasizing into specific area or subject, which is economics as bounded its negative side. Further, personal reflections on globalization are included as product of analysis and understanding of the topic at hand.

Globalization: think global, act local

Basing on the most popular definitions provided in various area of specialization (i.e. social, economical, cultural, political, etc.), globalization is relatively and differently defined. However, there are few things that serve as common denominators to such varied descriptions. The qualifying terms such as cooperation, integration, interconnection, convergence, or anything that depicts homogeneous mechanisms validates globalization in terms of process, effects, areas and degree of influence, and others. It also includes the idea of technology, information, and communication. De Soysa (2003) described globalization “as economic, political, and social integration of states and societies, both horizontally and vertically, in tighter webs of interdependence” (pp. 7). Further, it is “a process and not a qualitatively different endstate, where politics and the state have become superfluous and the market has taken over”. Erling (2001) flatly used the term "McDonaldization" of the world as a synonym for globalization. More often than not, providing definition to globalization necessitates the area in which it is being referred to. On this case, it is purely economic globalization. De Soysa’s definition is directed toward economic cooperation involving specific areas of society and the market itself. Economists see globalization in terms of extremely integrated large-scale markets and increasing interdependence between previously independent domestic or regional economies (Kim and Weaver 2003). The myth of globalization on the definitions provided is supported by the views of Hirst (1997), Hirst and Thompson (1996; 2000), Rugman (2001), and Cellary (2007).

Globalization and its Fruits: reaping the profits of a lone global community

Sen (2002) observes that globalization plays a great contribution in the worldwide improvements “through travel, trade, migration, spread of cultural influences, and dissemination of knowledge and understanding (including that of science and technology)”. This observation supports the wide-ranging coverage of globalization and its effects. In terms of economics point of view, the merits of globalization in the economic dimension are evident particularly in terms of capital flow, influx of technology, job creation, trade and fiscal benefits, the significant role of the private sector, competition, poverty alleviation, and sustainable growth (Steger 2003). One of the benefits of globalization of economies is the continuing global trend headed for freer flow of trade and investment across international borders, thus resulting to integration of the international economy (Teeple 2000; Gilpin 2000; Held and McGrew 2000; Nye and Donahue 2000). Because it expands economic freedom and spurs competition, globalization raises the productivity and living standards of people in countries that open themselves to the global marketplace. This is the commonly perceived notion on globalization when connected with economics. In special cases like for less developed countries, the benefits of globalization is apparently observable to providing access to foreign capital, global export markets, and advanced technology while breaking the monopoly of inefficient and protected domestic producers. There is faster growth that promotes a culture of poverty reduction, democratization, and higher labor and environmental standards (De Soysa 2003).

Globalization has produced enormous benefits for very large numbers of people. Frequently, a mistake critic blames poverty and income inequality on globalization but it is argued that majority of cases are more attributed to the consequences of domestic conditions in individual countries. In my own opinion, globalization is a good thing in the sense that it offers international cooperation of all countries adhering to international policies. For instance, multinational corporations offer jobs to developing nations in order to prosper and speed up its growing economy and at the same time contributing to the increase of economy of the world. The presence of free trade leads to a more efficient allocation of resources, with all countries involved in the trade benefiting. In general, they claim that this leads to lower prices, more employment and higher output.

Globalization and its Threats: facing the impending danger

When seen on the perspective of building a uniform global society, globalization is a myth (Cellary 2007, pp. 291). This is supported by the fact that humanity is so much diverse to shape a uniform society. There are too many differences in important factors, such as history, tradition, culture, religion, etc. thus, resulting to a complicated idea of uniformity. Agreeing on this argument, I personally believe that forces of globalization ironically deviate to the idea of integration and homogenization. Indeed, Cellary present a potent discussion on how can culture homogenized considering the fact that it is relative and diverse in origin.

According to Hirst and Thompson (1996), it is widely asserted that people practically live in a period wherein the greater part of social life is determined by global processes, in which national cultures, national economies and national borders are dissolving. This is connected to the argument of Cellary as related to difficulty or even the impossibility of cultural integration based on global community perspective. Globalization is the main factor of losing the national identity of a nation and cultural identity of a mother culture. Culturally, the integration of a foreign culture to another native culture changes its original resulting to the formation of something new or revised version of both cultures. The tendency is that people lost the identity of their race and acculturate themselves to the new way of life in which globalization introduced to them. This is very unmistakable because of the role of communication and its supporting mechanisms (e.g. technology) and the effects of media to people. Thus, globalization is a myth as it cannot sustain the idea of national as well as cultural identity instead strongly influences national and cultural indifferences.

Hirst and Thompson (1996) argue that globalization is not unprecedented in world history and foreign investment and trade are concentrated in the so-called triad – Western Europe, North America, and Japan. These authors argue that the economy is becoming more international but not more global. Globalization is a myth because the process is long overdue as it exists before. Globalization implies two distinct phenomena (Held et al 1991). First, it suggests that political, economic and social activity is becoming worldwide in scope. Secondly, it suggests that there has been an intensification of levels of interaction and interconnectedness among the states and societies. Among these relations are those created by the progressive emergence of a global economy, the expansion of transnational links which generate new forms of collective decision-making, the development of intergovernmental and quasi-supranational institutions, etc. (Giddens 1999, pp. 71). Although eminent recognition on economic development in terms of globalization is powerful, Hirst (1997) strongly argues that the entire process “outlawed distinctive national strategies of macroeconomic management and social welfare” (pp. 409). The expression of globalization may obliterate the political will to search for practical means to uphold economic and societal output, employment and social equity in the advanced industrial countries, to the detriment of their long-run economic performance (Hirst 1997, pp. 410). The process of globalization has outgrown the governance structures of the international system of states and undermined the authority of the nation-state.

To supplement the myth of globalization on this aspect, Rugman (2001) argues that “the vast majority of manufacturing and service activity is organized regionally, not globally”. International business enterprises are the engines of global business operations as they think regionally and act locally. There is a little degree of integration among the identified triad of Hirst and Thompson (1996). Commenting on Rugman’s arguments, Ferkiss (2001) stated that Rugman's statistics clearly indicate that most manufacturing activity is within regions, and service activities likewise "are essentially local and regional”. Thus, Rugman essentially negated the claim of economic globalization as internationalization of economies.

Further, Guillen (2001) stated that perhaps the most controversial aspect of the convergence debate has to do with the impact of globalization on inequality across and within countries. With empirical support, it can be said that development levels across countries appear not to be converging as opposite to the perceived results of globalization. The myth of globalization is related to the inability of international community to be subjected by common economic policies and applicable mechanisms. Since globalization has become a key factor to measure the nation’s economic stability, many of its critics have pointed out some of the costs of globalization in many different aspects. One of the considered costs of globalization is that economic globalization creates many opportunities to improve the material well being of poor people, but may be politically unsustainable (Hirst 1997). It issues a challenge to the government capacity ever since (Du 2004). On my personal point of view, globalization on this aspect is not a spontaneous process. It is rather a suppressive strategy that deliberately pursued by world’s superpowers directed to a tiny group of people as subject for the struggle and selfish quest for world domination. For Hirst (1997), the strong version of the globalization thesis contends that national economies have simply been subsumed into world markets and that the power of such market forces either negates or renders unnecessary any possibility of effective public governance, whether by nation-states, international agreements or supranational institutions.

Conclusion: a self-analysis and expression

The myth of globalization lies on the prime categorization of the occurrence of the process. In support to Hirst and Thompson’s arguments, globalization existed across the decades. If this is the distinction of globalization particularly in terms of economics, it is stated that we have been global for a long time. Perhaps the overreaction of modern societies and their people to globalization or even to the development of international human commodities and way of live is a main consideration. To end, I am adapting Guillen’s (2001) questions or key debates on globalization. The questions are: Is it really happening? Does it produce convergence? Is it globally different from modernity? Does it undermine the authority of nation-state? Is it a global culture in the making? If either one or all of these questions are addressed in the near future, with reference to compelling solutions and claims about whether globalization promotes or demotes improvement, it still come short with empirical findings because of the vastness of issues to be tackled.

References

Cellary, W 2007, “Globalization from the Information and Communication Perspective,” in T. Janowski and H. Mohanty (Eds.) ICDCIT 2007, LNCS 4882, pp. 283-292.

De Soysa, I 2003, Foreign Direct Investment, Democracy, and Development: Assessing Contours, Correlates, and Concomitants of Globalization, Routledge, New York.

Du, C 2004, The Government Capacity of P.R.C in Globalization Process, Political Science Department, Shanxi University viewed 30 November 2007 from, http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/ASPA/UNPAN004213.html

Erling, E 2001, “the Current Status of the English Language Has Changed and These Changes Must Be Recognized in Both the School and the University,” Userpage.com Website viewed 30 November 2007 from, http://www.userpage.fuberlin.de/~berling/globalesEnglishInBerlinerSchulen.htm

Ferkiss, V 2001, “Is Globalization a Myth?” The Futurist, vol. 35, no. 6 (November), pp. 16.

Giddens, A 1999 Runaway World: How Globalization Is Reshaping our Lives, Profile Books, London.

Gilpin, R 2000, The Challenge of Global Capitalism: The World Economy in the 21st Century, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.

Guillen, MF 2001, “Is Globalization Civilizing, Destructive or Feeble? A Critique of Five Key Debates in the Social Science Literature,” Annual Review of Sociology, pp. 235.

Hackmann, R 2005, Globalization: Myth, Miracle, Mirage, University Press of America, Lanham MD.

Held, D and McGrew, A (eds) 2000, The Global Transformations Literature: An Introduction to the Globalization Debate, Polity Press, Cambridge.

Hirst, P 1997, “The Global Economy-Myths and Realities,” International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944- ), vol. 73, no. 3, Globalization and International Relations (Jul.), pp. 409-425.

Hirst, P and Thompson, G 1996/2000, Globalisation in Question: the international economy and the possibilities of governance, Polity Press, Oxford.

Kim, TS and Weaver, DH 2003, “Reporting On Globalization: A Comparative Analysis of Social Patterns in Five Countries’ Newspapers,” Gazette: The International Journal For Communication Studies, vol. 65, no. 2, pp. 121-144.

Nye, JS and Donahue, JD (eds) 2000, Governance in a Globalizing World, Visions of Governance for the 21st Century and Brookings Institute Press, Cambridge, MA, and Washington, DC.

Rugman, A 2001 The End of Globalization, Random House, London/New York.

Sen, A 2002, “How to Judge Globalism: Global Links Have Spread Knowledge and Raised Average Living Standards but the Present Version of Globalism Needlessly Harms the World’s Poorest,” The American Prospect, vol. 13, no. 1 (January 1), pp. 2+.

Steger, M 2003, Globalization: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Teeple, A 2000, “What is Globalization?” in S. McBride (Ed), Globalization and its Discontent, Macmillan. Basingstoke, England.