Globalization Myth Essay

Globalization is an economic activity in which social change is a continuous process. Globalization happens through the increasing level of interdependence among nations to integrate their economic, political and social spheres. It is a force that has sped up the rate of communication, the increased the intensity of market competition, flared the rate of trades and strengthened interaction amongst states. The development of this concept is towards within the world political economy. As Douglas recounted, the concepts that signaled the rise of globalization are: â€Å"the rise of neoliberal transnational technocracy, the transfiguration of the military-industrial complex into the military-communications complex; the rationalization of the postwar ‘global governance institutions (IMF, IBRD, GATT, NATO, UN, EC/U), and the rise of others (NAFTA, WTO, APEC, ASEAN, PECC); transition within the ‘multi-core complex’ (in particular the incorporation of the developmental states of East Asia); decolonization, dependent development and the reconstruction of hierarchical commodity chains against calls for a ‘New International Economic Order’; the disintegration of the corporate-liberal synthesis followed by the deeper embeddedness of state-capital relations; a broad transition of command between the manufacturing and service spheres of Western economies; and the demobilization of labor unions† (1997) In general, there are two views on globalization. First, is that globalization is an offspring brought by the development of new communication technology. And second, its significance and purpose lies in the linkages that it forms within states, societies and individuals (McGrew 992). The concept was hastened primarily because of the growing capability of humans to innovate technology. Communication technology played a crucial part in the globalization boom. Information technology is an extension and a means towards pushing a long term development in the technology that will aide further penetrations in the state system (Chase 1994). This has brought closer states, it made exchange of information faster and more efficient. Nonetheless, creating allies was easier. And these allies were used for trades, for economic perpetuation, for defense strengthening, and for other purpose that interdependence may serve to strong nations. While others view globalization as merely an integration among nations in such a way that it shall enable individual or entrepreneurs around the world to trade faster and cheaper, there are still scholars and activists who view otherwise. Hirst and Thomson, in their book Globalization in Question suggested that globalization is a â€Å"deliberate process of economic liberalization† that forces individuals and states to participate in a more intense market forces (2000). It is a force that pushes states to participate in order to survive. Rights and equality are merely an issue. It is a question of a state’s capability to resist the calls of globalization and afterwards suffer the consequences that may be imposed on their markets, shall they try to counter the demands of the globalizing countries. It is an issue of control over the process, and who controls the market. Globalization has reached towards the depths of a nation’s character. Ecology, culture, communication, economic and political areas were the ones that were strategically affected by globalization. This in a way, can its ideologies be pushed within a state territory. Cultural components of the human evolution has been a central target for the start of the modern world-system (Meyer 1989). The thrust in the cultural sphere has been a great start to penetrate the state system. This marked a good start into luring the economic and political aspects of a country. As culture is the heart and soul of a country, it is the first door that must be opened in order to manipulate the thinking and mindset of the target population. No wonder that the process of globalization has started within the realms of media, towards the commercial products and creating a wide array of popular culture that will penetrate the population. On the other hand, communication as mentioned above has been, and will always be an integral part in the current world system. The rapid advancement in technology has decreased the cost of communication, and this has greatly affected the communication capability. State consciousness, as a delicate factor for the formation of â€Å"global civil society† has qualitatively changed by far. Globalization of communication has altered values, culture and consciousness by means of creating or destroying something whether the state calls for it or not (Giddens 1996) The trends revealed continuities and struggles for economy and democracy based on their own reflective judgments about the emerging ideology. As Moore suggested, progressive movements must make use of the ideas emerging from economic nationalism to retract the world market forces (1995). But nowadays, the public has accepted the mainstream social, political and cultural trends that developed within and among nations as an end-result in the interactions in the expanding world system (Chase 1999). This phenomenon has yielded different opinions on the basis of its feasibility and its significance among states. When they say â€Å"economic and social progress escaping from territorial limitations and become global† – it means that society and politics has escaped the state. Everything has become global in the sense that everything has gone into the cyberspace, without borders (Hirst 2001). The effects in politics are more pronounced in such a way that state functions are no longer within borders; as such the market and internet have absorbed its functions. Another effect of globalization on politics is that, its processes have become a mere satellite heavily relying by international entities such as UN. It has become dependent with the global political forces rather than the usual local regulation (Hirst 2001). Indeed, politics have also become market-driven. The economic regulation was attributed to government and agencies that can respond more flexibly in the ever changing economic system. Murphy’s â€Å"global governance† explains the growth of international organizations. This trend of political globalization concentrated on grasping international sovereignty (1994). Alongside, this ideology has tried to undercut and argued for elimination of Second Wave institutions such as unions, socialist parties and welfare programs (Dunn 1999). Economically, globalization delocalized activities, the way it had driven away the functions of politics away from the state. These activities have been ripped from its origins and its own unique culture (Gray 1999). Globalization meant the â€Å"global-spanning economic relationships† (Chase 199). This were manifested in the growing interrelationships of markets, networks of goods and services that were institutionalized by transnational corporations. During these era, the rate of trade and investment has dramatically increased. Globalization has brought states closer by means of using higher organizations to control the wave spectrum. States look upon those entities to enforce legislations that will cover a larger market. Division of labor emerged and under this globalization picture, this shall bring order to the international community. This international order serves as ties to connect these states towards one another. Thinkers of globalization would suggest that failure to participate in this order would render them weak, for their attempt to preserve local political control will result to the demise of governance (Hirst 2001). This world system created from political globalization has lead to the emergence of hegemons, those which were in control of the trade and had the richest access to the wealthiest nations that have thick resources of raw materials that are essential to the growth of the economies of these hegemons. Gaining control of these resources, coupled with their political supremacy over the others, prompted a heavy disparity over the rights of those who are inclined to follow the ascendancy of global leaders. This is the process in which globalization has indeed grown big but left numerous states at demise. These are peripheral states that are under the rule of their core countries. And although as much as globalization had promised to provide an equal playing field for market trades, it is impossible to attain such, given that political control is always concentrated on the side of a few. This is also a reason wherein globalization hasn’t reached its outmost capability to boom. There are states that resisted this call and decided to stand outside the field of hegemonic rulers. The question on globalization’s â€Å"global† character was raised based on its function. As Hirst and Thompson argued, the system is indeed international but it is not operating truly global. It is not global because it only operates amongst national economies centered only on major states. And even as large economies participate in the global trade, most of them still keep the majority of their products towards their national economies. Migrations have also been watched after to secure the growth of their economies (Hirst 2000). Though there exists a strong connection and interdependence among countries, not the entirety of the system is globalized but fitted in an order that will allow it to compete internationally. As Castell gave employment as an example; employment has never escaped its local origin, but it has rather been a â€Å"strategically crucial economic factor that was networked for exchange of the inputs and outputs† (2001). Here, globalization has been used as a guise to import labor, for an excessive output. This is in a way increased the significance of interdependence among nations. The international division of labor has been manipulated to favor stronger nations and extract the weaker nations of its resources and capacity. Academic contention on globalization as merely a myth has risen from its characteristics that its processes have made. Globalization is challenged as just a form of â€Å"internationalization†. There are academic scholars to argue that internationalization has never progressed to globalization. Because, internalization entailed the significance of nations and role of state, while on the other hand, globalization in its full bloom state must eliminate the existence of nation states (Hirst 2000). And for one thing, the countries that have succumbed to the calls of globalization in the guise of international relations are those who were previous colonies of the fallen empires, the post-war victims, and the weak nations who had no other choice but to follow the dictates of the then superpower of America. There wasn’t a choice left but to participate in that international trade rather than being apprehended by international authorities, or be sanctioned.