.
by Dr. Aime MUYOMBANO
V.1
defining the concepts of globalization
Globalization refers to the
increasing unification of the world’s economic order through reduction of such
barriers to international trade as tariffs exports fess, and import quotas. The
goal is to increase material wealth, goods, and services through an
international division of labor by efficiencies catalyzed by international
relations, specialization and competition. It describes the process by which
regional economies, societies, and cultures have become integrated through
communication, transportation, and trade.
The term is most closely associated
with the term economic globalization: the integration of national economies
into the international economy through trade, foreign direct investment,
capital flows, migration the spread of technology, and military presence.
However, globalization is usually recognized as being driven by a combination
of economic, technological, socio-cultural, political, and biological factors.
The term can also refer to the transnational circulation of ideas, languages,
or popular culture through acculturation. An aspect of world which has gone
through the process can be said to be globalized. Underpinning this view, an alternative approach stresses how
globalization has actually decreased inter-cultural contacts while increasing
the possibility of international and intra-national conflict
V.2 Dynamics of
Globalization
Dynamics
is not a single process but a complex of processes sometimes overlapping and
interlocking but also contradictory and oppositional. It implies a “borderless
world”. Borderless in several senses;
·
Less significance of traditional borders and frontiers
·
Division between people previously separated by time and space have
become less significant and at time entirely irrelevant
That supra-territorial relations between people have emerged because of
an increasing range of connections such as electronic money flow, cable and
satellite technology, internet etc creating a trans-world or trans-border
character. Whereas this interconnectedness would otherwise mean a top-down
process, ie, establishment of a single global system that imprints itself on
all parts of the world, globalization is also multi-dimensional. In its popular
sense, it would mean a homogeneous world in which cultural, social, economic,
and political diversity are destroyed. Thus it would mean watching the same TV
programs, buy the same commodities, eat the same food, support the same sports and
film stars, follow antics of the same celebrities, etc. However, globalization
often goes hand in hand with localization, regionalism, and multi-culturalism
as some forms of resistance emerge
.As the allegiances based on
the nation and political nationalism fade, they are often replaced by those
linked to local community, region, religion, and ethnic identity. Religious
fundamentalism and ethnicism ( ethnic based ideologies) are a response to
globalization. It is a form of resistance.
.Absorption of foreign
cultures into local ones rather than mono-culturalism. Eg, in developing countries,
western consumer goods and images. In developed countries, non-western
religions, medicines, and therapeutic practices, art, music, and literature are
also absorbed. This is a process known as Indigenization;
the process through which alien goods and practices are absorbed by being
adapted to local needs and circumstances.
There are three main forms of globalization; economic, cultural and
political.
Economic Globalization: No national economy is
now an island. All economies have been absorbed into the global economy.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD, 1995) defined
globalization as “a shift from a world of distinct national economies to a
global economy in which production is internationalized and financial capital
flows freely and instantly between countries.” The collapse of communism gave a
push to economic globalization in that the former USSR was absorbed in the
world capitalist system. Economic globalization also helped destroy the USSR
and communism through lower trade barriers, end of exchange controls, freer
movement of investment capital since the 1980s, hence widening the gap between
capitalist west, and economically stagnant communist east.
Cultural Globalization; This is the process
whereby information, commodities, and images that have been produced in one
part of the world enter into a global flow that tends to “flatten out” cultural
differences between nations, regions, and individuals making the world “Flat”
according to Thomas Friedman (Friedman T, 2004). It is also referred to as
McDonaldization, the process whereby global commodities and commercial market
practices associated with fast food industry have come to dominate more and
more economic sectors. Cultural globalization is fuelled by improved communication
technology, ICT. However, there are some cultural areas that still resist
cultural pollution, particularly the Muslim world such as Iran.
Political Globalization; This is evidenced in the
growing importance of International Organizations (intergovernmental). These
are organizations that are transnational in that they exercise jurisdiction not
in one state but within an international area comprising several states. Most
have emerged after WW II, 1945. they include the UN, NATO, EU, The World Bank,
IMF, WTO, OECD, AU, EAC, SADC, to name
but a few. Some are regional while others are international. When these
organizations conform to the principles of intergovernmentalism, they provide a
mechanism that enables states at least in theory, to take concerted actions
without sacrificing sovereignty.
However, political globalization still lags
behind cultural and economic globalization in terms of the idealistic world
government. Despite this, global civil society based on activities of
transnational corporations, NGOs, and international pressure groups have become
a reality
.
V.3 Globalization; Theories
and Debates
Globalization has become a deeply controversial issue. There are debates
for it and those against it, but basically linked to the old debates of capitalism
as compared to other systems.
.Those who supports it, also
called globalists argue that capitalism brings prosperity and widening
opportunities, thus global capitalism will allow these benefits to be enjoyed
by more people globally.
.Others associate
globalization with inequality and exploitation. That global capitalism will
bring about new forms of misery and injustice. However, globalization is a new
post-socialist debate whose advantages are yet to be seen. There could be other
forms of managing inequality and exploitation such as neo-liberal globalization
or regulated globalization.
.There are others who argue
that there is no globalization taking place. While those who believe it is
taking place base themselves on ICT and global network through computer
technology, world trade, financial and currency transactions, sceptics (those
against) argue that nothing has changed from the old.
That it is simply a
modern form of imperialism; that overwhelming bulk of economic activity still
takes place within and not across, national boundaries of rich nations (see
Kalundi Serumaga, “Rhodes’s Spectre Haunts Europe; Africa Beware of a New
Imperialism!” in The East African,
May 21-27, 2012, p. 17). National economies therefore, are not as irrelevant as
globalists suggest. That it is an ideological device used by politicians and
theorists who support neoliberal economics and wish to advance corporate
interests (Hirst and Thompson, 1999).
.A more intense debate focus
on equality and poverty. Critics argue that it is a game of winners and losers,
where winners are multinational corporations (MNCs) and industrially advanced
countries such as the USA and losers are the less developed countries (LDCs).
That the LDCs are disadvantaged in that the wages are low and hence small
markets, weak or nonexistent regulation and production is increasingly oriented
around global markets rather than domestic needs. Global tension now seems more
in terms of the North-South divide, than East versus West. In sub-Saharan
Africa, 40% of the population live below the poverty line. That uneven
political and economic development led to growing inequality between “core” and
“peripheral” parts of the world system (Wallerstein, 1984).
.Globalists, however, point
out that the rich have gotten richer, but the poor are also, in most cases less
poor than they were because of free trade due to comparative advantage. That
is, the specialization in the production of those goods and services that a
country is best suited to produce. This leads to international specialization
and mutual benefits. For example, the transfer of production and capital from
developed to the developing countries benefits both. The developed from the low
wages of the South and hence lower production costs and reduced prices. The developing
benefit from relatively higher wages and employment. It also stimulates
domestic economy and investment. From this argument therefore, globalization
benefits all except those who are outside it, outside the world system. Eg,
North Korea or Cuba.
.Critics however argue that
globalization is risky and uncertain. However, globalists argue that in the
long run, it stabilizes. To critics though, it remains unstable as it depends
on the whims of financial markets. Another criticism is that concern for profit
is deaf to other global interests such as environmental protection and
conservation.
.Globalists such as Francis
Fukuyama argues in his thesis, “End of History”, that globalization will lead
to democratization worldwide. That the extension of market capitalism will lead
to a universal acceptance of liberal democratic principles and structures.
However, critics argue that globalization undermines democracy by putting
economic power in the hands of a few, particularly MNCs. These few hands end up
usurping both economic and political power.
Many MNCs are richer than a number
of countries and hence capable of influencing both their domestic and foreign
policies. (See Joseph Nye, Jr, 2005, p. 10-11). Notable of these are; General
Motors, Ford, ESSO, Shell and B.P., Coca Cola, MacDonald, AT&T, The News
Corporation, etc. General Motors has an revenue equal to a combined GDP of
Ireland, New Zealand, Uruguay, Sri Lank, Kenya, Namibia, Nicaragua and Chad!
Most vulnerable are the LDCs which provide cheap labour and raw materials, yet
cannot influence policies of these MNCs, ie shift decision making power from
“Home” to “Host” country. Most importantly, capital and production go where
they want, where they maximize profit, and where they are safe, not where they are needed.
Safe in terms of physical
security and established regulatory mechanisms and systems. Yet, most LDCs are
conflict prone, unstable and lack those regulatory systems.
.Economic globalization
outstrips political globalization. Democracy is thus threatened. Whereas
economic activity increasingly pays little attention to borders, politics
continue to operate within them. The international organizations that do exist
are too weak to call global capitalism to account. They suffer a democratic deficit. Democratic deficit
means a lack of accountability of executive bodies to popular assemblies, or
inadequate opportunities for popular participation. The international
organizations that do exist IMF, IBRD (WB) OECD and the G7, also need to
develop some independence from the interests of MNCs and give greater attention
to issues such as human rights, economic justice and environmental protection.
The “North-South Divide” was popularized through
the work of the so called Brandt Reports; North–South:
A Programme for Survival (1980) and Common
Crisis: North-South Cooperation for World Recovery (1983). Although the
division of the world into North and South is based on the tendency for
industrial development to be concentrated in the Northern hemisphere, and for poverty
and disadvantages to be concentrated in the Southern hemisphere ( apart from
Australia), the terms are essentially conceptual rather than geographical. The
concept of the North-South divide drew attention to the way in which aid, third
world debt, and the practices of MNCs help to perpetuate structural
inequalities between the high wage, high investment industrialized North and
low wage, low investment, predominantly rural South. The Brandt reports also
highlighted the interdependence of the North and South emphasizing that the
long term prosperity of the North depended on the development of the South.
In recent years, debates
about globalization have tended to descend into polemics and confusion as
opinions have become increasingly politicized. There is little common group
between proponents and opponents of globalization.
Politicization in the
United States (and other industrialized countries)
According
to (Peer Foiimkomjlss and Paul Hirsch), suggest that the politicization of this
discourse has emerged largely I response to greater US involvement with the
international economy. For example, their survey shows that in 1993 more than
40% of respondents were unfamiliar with the concepts of globalization. When the
survey was repeated in 1998, 89% of the respondents had a polarized view of
globalization as being either good or bad. At the same time, discourse on
globalization, which was at first confined largely to the financial community,
started to focus instead on an increasingly heated debate between proponents of
globalization and a dipartite group disenchanted students and workers.
Polarization
increased dramatically after the establishment of the WTO in 1995; this event
and sub sequent protests led to a large-scale anti-globalization movement.
Their
study shows that, the neutral frame was the dominant frame in newspapers
articles and corporate press release prior to 1989. Both media depicted
globalization as a natural development that related to technical advancement.
In1986, for example, nearly
90% of newspaper article exhibited neutral framing. The situation started to
change after the collapse of the stock marketing Oct.19, 1987 and the
subsequent recession. Newspapers began to voice concerns about the trend toward
“globalization” and the interconnectedness of international financial markets.
By 1989, the number of positively and negatively framed articles had eclipsed
the number of neutrally framed articles. By 1998, neutrally framed articles had
been reduced to 25% of the total.
V.4
Interconnectedness phenomena
V.4.1 Global Change
Boundaries, whether
underpinning by law, culture or physical force have not withstood the tidal
flow of change: national and other boundaries may persist, but they, but they
are increasingly. The Globalization of Social Change Globalization has become a
cliché, but there is real substance to it a process of change. We see:
(I) the
globalization of certain rhetorical principles (as opposed to practices), such
as multilateralism, free trade, liberalism and human rights;
(ii) the
globalization of actors-transnational policy networks- in economic domains
especially, but also in cultural and even security domains (we need not get
hung up on the evolution of epistemic community literature to recognize the
internationalization of important policy networks): and
(iii) how much better
recognized, if not better understood, is the globalization of the structure of
power and process in the international economic, we exist in a much more
integrated system of global economic interaction, one in which neither money
nor information knows boundaries.
The
late-twentieth-century, international relations have been a new architecture of
power, encapsulated in the evolution of the structural power of finance,
production, exchange and technical expertise for the world market and its
implications for what Strange and Stop ford
call the “new diplomacy”, 3. These developments are what others may call
postmodern society 4 this is not just a phenomenon affecting the wealthy,
Western dominated Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD),
but is applicable to our understanding of the industrializing world too. It is
also not too. It is also not simply as interest for the scholar of IR. Nowadays
it is important to recognize that social change transpires in the context of
systematic inter-relations between the various elements.
Of social life on world
scale, Social, managerial and bureaucratic process now has to be understood on
a global scale.
In
short, social change is now a global phenomenon. But most important for the
scholar of International relations. We are seeing a change in the nature of our
understanding of the concept of sovereignty.
V.5 explaining the difference between
globalization & ‘international relations’
At the onset international
relations offers a fascinating theme-given its endeavors to delve in trends,
political process and behavior of the world. IR has variously defined as a
discipline which deals with the relations among the governments of the world.
More so such relations ought to be approached form the premise that; they can
be bilateral or multilateral. And they are sometimes of intimate nature or
simply arms-length ones. They are linked in a cobweb like system of
international organizations, multinational corporations and individuals, all
revolving around social, economic and cultural sphere of domestic and regional
entities.
They are predominately underpinned by historical, political and
geographical realities. Against such complex processes the colorful thread running
cross them is the much integrated global financial market. While globalization
as IR phenomena manifests in various principles: The principles of dominance
does solve the collective goads malaise by establishing a power echelon in
which those at the top subjugate those below – a sort of loose government
fashion.
Globalization
of IR has tended to feature in two major types of actors: the
State actors and none state
actors.
V.6
Free trade in the global economy.
Free
trade is a system of trade policy that allows trades across national boundaries
without interface from the respective governments. According to the law of
comparative advantage the policy permits trading partners mutual gains from
trade of goods and services. Under a free trade policy, prices are a reflection
of true supply and demand, and are the sole determinant of resource allocation.
Free
trade differs from other forms of trade policy where the allocation of goods
and services among trading countries are determined by artificial prices that
may or may not reflect the true nature of supply and demand
These
artificial prices are the result of protectionist trade policies whereby
governments intervene in the market through price adjustments and supply
restrictions. Such government interventions can increase as well as decrease
the cost of goods and services to both consumers and producers.
Interventions
include subsidies, taxes and tariffs, non-tariff barriers, such as regulatory
legislation and quotas, and even inter-government managed trade agreements,
such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and Central America
Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) (contrary to their formal titles) and any
governmental market intervention resulting in artificial prices Free trade implies the following features:
*Trade of goods without
taxes (including tariffs) or other trade barriers (e.g., quotas on imports or
subsidies for producers)
*Trade in services without
taxes or other trade barriers
*The
absence of “trade-distorting” policies (such as taxes, subsidies, regulations,
or laws) that give some firms, households, or factors of production an
advantage over others. Free access to markets
Aimé MUYOMBANO (PhD Scholar), Syllabus of Key issues of International Relations, ULK.
Aimé MUYOMBANO (PhD Scholar), Syllabus
of Advanced International Relations ULK.
Aimé MUYOMBANO (PhD Scholar), Syllabus of Society, Environment and Development, INILAK.
Aimé
MUYOMBANO (PhD Scholar), Syllabus of Industrial Economics, INILAK.
Aimé
MUYOMBANO (PhD Scholar), Syllabus of Organization and Society Development, INILAK.
Aimé
MUYOMBANO (PhD Scholar), Syllabus of Development Economics, INILAK.
Aimé
MUYOMBANO (PhD Scholar), Syllabus of Strategies and policies of Development, UR
Aimé MUYOMBANO (PhD Scholar), Syllabus Labor Economics INES Ruhengeri
Aimé MUYOMBANO (PhD Scholar), Syllabus
Rwanda Economy INES Ruhengeri
Aimé MUYOMBANO (PhD Scholar), Syllabus
International Economics Jomo Kenyatta
University of Agriculture and Technology
Aimé MUYOMBANO (PhD Scholar) (PhD
Scholar), Syllabus Economics Analysis Jomo
Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology
Author Prof. Dr. Rugema D. Muyombano
0Awesome Comments!