Globalization is Not New, and if We Work at it, Maybe We Can Make a Better World

‘Globalization’ emerged as an increasingly discussed term in the 1990s. Despite this there continues to be a lack of clarity over the term. Any look through contemporary media and one will find numerous references, debates and diatribes for or against “globalization” yet despite this upon analysis it is a difficult term, and subject to nail down. Even a mildly diligent search finds a plethora of definitions, often sharing common elements, but often not. Maureen O’Neill, president of the Canadian federal government’s International Development Research Centre captures it succinctly when she says that "globalization is a phenomenon of paradoxes”, “it is a force of integration – whether in the WTO, or in the protocols of the internet, or in the worldwide audience for Hollywood movies”, “at the same time, it divides us: generation from generation, fundamentalists from modernists, secessionists from centralizers, rich from poor" (CBC, 2006, 11^th paragraph). What is necessary in order to be able to discuss the topic at all is too explore the various concepts and ideas. Is globalization an open ended trend or is it only a set of narrow economic and political activities? Is there a systemic character to it is it just a collection of diverse but separate items? These are the questions that will be explored in this blog.
A definition one finds from the Canadian government and used by Canadian media states that globalization "describes the increased mobility of goods, services, labour, technology and capital throughout the world"(CBC, 2006, 2^nd paragraph). Institutions of global governance such as the United Nations and the World Trade Organization define it as follows, “globalization is generally used to describe an increasing internationalization of markets for goods and services, the means of production, financial systems, competition, corporations, technology and industries. Amongst other things this gives rise to increased mobility of capital, faster propagation of technological innovations and an increasing interdependency and uniformity of national markets” (Eurostat, IMF, OECD, UN, UNCTAD, WTO, 2002, Annex II, Glossary). While these are workable definitions they only capture globalization through an economic lens, while there are many other sides that can be looked at, often depending on your academic discipline, philosophical worldview or political ideology.

In order for us to move forward on our exploration of globalization it is necessary to define what it is that we will be exploring. I contend that the economic focused definitions above are too narrow to capture the depth and breadth of the topic at hand and instead propose to work with Pieterse’s definition, “globalization is an objective, empirical process of increasing economic and political connectivity, a subjective process unfolding in consciousness as the collective awareness of growing global interconnectedness, and a host of specific globalizing projects that seek to shape global conditions” (Pieterse, 2009, p.16).

A key argument from globalization sceptics is that there is nothing unprecedented going on today compared to the past, whether it be Victorian era capital flows, or global trade routes. In the Middle Ages the famous Silk Road joined Europe to China, and all points between as can be scene on the Silk Road trade route map on the cover page. Later the European colonial empires created international good, capital and cultural flows so what is it that is different today? Two main elements are behind the difference that is seen today, one is the near global institution of similar free-market policies, and the other is the impact of technology on shrinking geography and time. Thomas Friedman contrasts this new globalization from what has occurred in the past by saying that today’s changes go "farther, faster, cheaper and deeper" (CBC, 2006, 14^th paragraph).

    (Silk Road Project, 2012).

  

For many economists, political scientists, and sociologists it is a process that has been occurring for about the last thirty years, while other disciplines, such as historians and anthropologists see a much longer trajectory (Pieterse, 2009, pp.15-16). The historians and anthropologists are correct that many of the elements of globalization such as international trade, migration, and cultural spread have a long pedigree. Homo erectus after arising in Africa spread throughout Eurasia as long ago as 1.8 million years ago, this was followed in more recent pre-historical and historical times by modern Homo sapiens population movements across and between continents. Global trade is also not new, having occurred for over a millennia all while religion, empires, and technologies have spread from one continent to another (Pieterse, 2009, p.26). This proves that the process of human (and pre-human) integration is an ancient one whether one calls this globalization or not. Robert Clark calls this a global imperative; at least since the days of Homo erectus and that “the essence of the human condition is a fundamental connectedness with parts of the universe across time and space” (Pieterse, 2009, p.27).

This view is much deeper than the Euro-centric view that sees human unification as product of modernity and globalization as an post World War II economic project. In many ways these ideas aren’t new to us, prophets, leaders and writers have conceived of utopias of human unity from the Book of Daniel in the Jewish Tanakh, Fiore’s third age, to Alexander the Great’s encompassing empire (Pieterse, 2009, pp.27-28).

This deep historical perspective is important as it places the changes occurring in a context that is part of, is an extension of human culture. Globalization is not something new, but it is part of a continuum that reaches back into the distant past. Yet being on a continuum does not mean that the slope of the line is constant. What we do see is that there is a difference with regard to the speed of the current change and the depth of the integration.

Having accepted that globalization exists, and is different than earlier phases does not mean though, that all who look at the problem sees it with one lens. While it is not possible to define and understand the current phase of the world in “non-global ways there are different ways to conceive of the changes. How one sees globalization depends on ones methodological approach. Globalization has become the “prism” where disputes are refracted. Questions of development, hegemony, capitalism, politics, inequality, and many others are bent towards the approach one brings to the debate (Pieterse, 2009, p.7). This same refraction holds true depending on the political view one brings to the puzzle.

Those firmly entrenched in the capitalist camp, neo-liberals, and those associated with the third way and the post-Washington consensus see globalization as a win-win.  The basic premise is that if only governments would adopt the correct policies then each country would exercise their comparative advantage, maximize their potential and every nation state would win all while global output is increased (Kiely, 2007, p.13). Others hold an opposite view of the potential for globalization, seeing it not as a win-win but rather as a zero-sum game (CBC, 2006, 6^th-7^th paragraph).

Unlike those for globalization who tend to be a variety of capitalist, there are a variety of positions opposed to globalization from schools of thought including neo-Marxism, anarchism, feminism etc. all with broad variations in their analysis. What is common is the view that globalization is a largely malign force presaging a return to imperialism. Based on neo-Marxist theories including underdevelopment, dependency and the world system they argue that at its heart globalization is a system set up by the powerful, to reward the powerful, where the growth in one area can only occur through the impoverishment of another (Kiely, 2007, pp.16-17).
There is a deeper and better-theorized space that can be found between these two strongly divergent positions though. That is the idea of globalization as a force of development, but as practiced an uneven development. This position argues that neither of wildly divergent positions above are well theorized, and it recognizes that there is some truth in both schools of thought. Importantly this view retains the questioning of hegemony, power and imperialism. The uneven development position accepts that there is a dynamism to capitalism but that this is an uneven dynamism that can have pockets of winners and pockets of losers but it rejects out of hand that what is occurring is a zero-sum game. What it is also key though is that it rejects that any such unevenness is a result solely of market imperfections (read government) but that these imperfections are a very factor of the capitalist system itself (Kiely, 2007, p.18).

So, despite the range of views, theories, political and academic lenses that can be brought to bear on the question of what is globalization? there are some conclusions that can now be safely made. First and foremost is that globalization is not solely a win-win or a zero-sum game but rather is a more complex system/process that leads to dynamic, yet uneven growth. This uneven growth is not due to market failures but to rules inherent in the neo-liberal system itself. Also important to remember is that while important globalization is about more than economics, but rather it is the latest, albeit accelerated phase of a process that reaches back 2 million years. Key is that what this is really about is the spread, mixing and ultimately the hybridization of culture, whether it is technology, economics, politics, pop culture or philosophy/religion.

It remains to be seen whether there are ways to smooth out the unevenness of current globalization in order to create a more equitable, less hegemonic world. If that is what we want, then there is a good chance that together we can make that happen.

References

CBC News. 2006. What is globalization? March 30, 2006. CBC News Online. Accessed November 12, 2012. http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/summitofamericas/globalization.html

Eurostat, IMF, OECD, UN, UNCTAD, and WTO. 2002. Manual on Statistics of International Trade in Services. United Nations.

Kiely, Ray. 2007. The New Political Economy of Development: Globalization, Imperialism, Hegemony. Palgrave MacMillan. Great Britain.

Levin Institute. 2012. What is Globalization? State University of New York. Accessed November 24, 2012. http://www.globalization101.org/what-is-globalization/

Pieterse, Jan Nederveen. 2009. Globalization and Culture: Global Melange. Rowman and Littlefield Publishers Inc. United States of America.

Silk Road Project. 2012. Silk Road Wall Map. Accessed on November 24, 2012. The Silk Road Project Inc. http://www.silkroadproject.org/Portals/0/images/lg_SilkRoadWallMap_color.jpg