WHAT IS GLOBALISATION?

• The product of the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the end of the cold war: the "new hegemony"and the "new enemy"or (intellectual) battle ground.
• "Little attention is paid, however, to how these diverse areas of study can be reconciled under a single intellectual framework. .. there is precious little discussion of what defines that field or its subcomponents. ..The substance of its definition appears just as vague, rarely reaching beyond a laundry-list of subjects. .. In fact there is not only disagreement on the definition of globalization; there is also no clear consensus on whether the term ‘globalization’ is employed as a historical epoch, a process, a theory, or as a new paradigm. Its meaning remains unspecified."  (Reich, p.3)

1. Historic:  An historical epoch (following the end of the cold war). - simply an historical period specifying the conditions and contexts within which somewhat specific human, social, political and economic relations are situated. -> a new and different set of norms and rules (and contests) about these relationships, though there are debates about the timing of the beginning of the (current) epoch, and thus about its critically defining characteristics.
2. Economic:  A Confluence of Economic Phenomena:  "process-driven and economically defined"  - the culmination of an extended process of international market integration and international capital (and labour) movement, associated with a realisation of the limits to state (government) intervention and central planning -> privatisation, deregualtion, limits to welfare states, and free markets, and (ever) greater international interdependence.  Does this lead to convergance or divergance?  What do the data tell us?
3. Sociological:  Hegemony of American Values:  homogenisation around the "common model" of free markets, common law and universal suffrage - especially as practiced by the US (and its associated moral values and power relations), with an added rider that economic growth tends to lead to democratisation (horrible word).
4. Technological:  A Technological (& thus) Sociological revolution:  the knowledge economy, and the information & IT revolution -> a smaller and more unified world, in foreshortened space (and time), spawning rapidly changing socio-economic relations.

1. Is it really happening? Yes:  counter-arguments: No, trade is not increasing that fast, and is largely between (within) the Triad of NorthAmerica, Western Europe and Asian Tigers; Trade volumes are small relative to GDP (20% or less); Domestic DI is larger than FDI; Multinationals locate most assets,top management, R&D etc. in their own home countries; much of the world is not (yet) significantly affected.  On the other hand,it is hard to argue that the world is not becomming more inter-connected (global warming; political and cultural inter-relationships along with economic integration; etc.  Conclusion?  It's getting stronger?
   
2. Does it produce Convergence? No.   in institutional forms (the 'common model') perhaps, but not obviously of outcomes ->more diversity and divergence than convergence. Globalisation a  process of 'linking localities'. Guillen says "Very few developing countries, however, have consistently grown faster than the most advanced ones since 1980."(p. 14).  Maybe so, but what about China, India and the Asian tigers?  "The most remarkable success stories are in developing Asia, where real per capita GDP more than doubled between 1980 and 2000. In particular, countries in the South and East Asian region, which until the financial crisis of 1997 showed rapid and uninterrupted economic growth, overtook other developing countries and narrowed the income gap with major industrial economies. Notably, China had annual average GDP growth rates of 10% beginning in the early 1980s. By contrast, in Africa and Latin America, the 1980s were characterized by negative per capita growth, followed by a weak recovery for Latin America in the 1990s."(UNCTAD: Development & Globalisation: Facts and Figures, 2004, section 1.3, p.18 (28 of the pdf file- CAUTION - this is a large file (3,000K) - Conclusion - it has the potential, or provides an opportunity to converge, but this is not inevitable or a necessary consequence?
3. Does it undermine the Authority of the Nation state?  No.  Apparently reduces the power of nations to act independently, or at least complicates the preservation of national sovereignty (IMF, WTO, World Bank, etc.), and reduces the scope and power of national action to 'buck the trend' (exchange rate, interest rates etc.). There is a clear contest between liberal markets and liberation of democratic citizenship. But it is  the nation states themselves which give the authority and legitimacy to the supranational organisations.  Conclusion?  Nation states remain powerful, but have a more complex task of adapting and adjusting to international imperatives (whether  legal/political or economic)?
4. Is it different from Modernity?  i.e is it simply the continuation of previous trends  towards modernity and 'development', or is it a new and distinct phenomenon? (on the whole, Yes it is different) If it is the latter, then it has to be a phenomenon of increased debate, contest and appreciation of difference, and the growth of networks and linkages across national (geographical) boundaries, and not simply the spread of a dominant hegemony of neoliberalism. Conclusion? What do you want to believe?
5. Is it the beginning of a Global Culture? No.  A popular perception, perhaps, but not one supported generally in the literature. Globalisation may well produce more interest and effort to preserve and  enhance different identities than to  their convergence -> cultural fragmentation?  Even English as the lingua franca (global language) has its  clear limits. Conclusion? Perhaps the globalisation phenomenon is heightening interest in and efforts to identify and cultivate culture?