Approaches To Globalization

1
Approaches to the Study of

Globalization
All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright law.
Manfred B. Steger
INTRODUCTION to make more sense to survey various approaches

to globalization by linking them to the debates
Even after more than two decades of intense on the subject that have been taking place over
scholarly scrutiny, ‘globalization’ has remained the last two decades in two separate but related
a contested and slippery concept. In spite of arenas. One battle has been mostly fought
the remarkable proliferation of research pro- within the narrow walls of academia, while the
grammes for the study of globalization, there other has been unfolding in the popular arena of
are many different approaches to the study of public discourse. Although there are some com-
globalization. Since the beginning of self- mon themes and overlapping observations, the
conscious academic inquiries into multiple pro- academic debate differs from the more general
cess of globalization in the early 1990s, aca- discussion in that its participants tend to focus
demics have remained divided on the utility of on the analytical rather than the normative or
various methodological approaches, the value ideological dimension of globalization.
of available empirical evidence for gauging the Certainly, there has been an explosion in the
extent, impact, and direction of globalization, number of books and articles on the subject
and, of course, its normative implications. The published by both academic and trade outlets.
failure to arrive at a broad scholarly consensus Consulting the electronic database Factiva,
on the subject attests not only to the contentious which holds some 8,000 newspapers, maga-
nature of academic inquiry in general, but also zines, and reports worldwide, the global studies
Copyright 2014. SAGE Publications Ltd.
reflects the retreat from generalizing initiated in scholar Nayan Chanda (2007) showed that the
the 1980s by the influential ‘poststructuralist number of items mentioning globalization grew
turn’ away from ‘grand narratives’. from a mere two in 1981 to a high of 57,235 in
As Fredric Jameson (1998) astutely points 2001. Since then, it has stabilized at an annual
out, there seems to be little utility in forcing average of about 45,000.
such a complex set of social forces as globaliza- Many of the principal participants in the
tion into a single analytic framework. It seems academic debate reside and teach in the
EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 9/2/2020 4:39 AM via DE LA SALLE UNIV-DASMARINAS
AN: 839692 ; Steger, Manfred B., Battersby, Paul, Siracusa, Joseph M..; The SAGE Handbook of Globalization
Account: s6273593.main.eds
01_Steger et al_Ch-01-Part-I.indd 7 29-Apr-14 3:29:44 PM

8 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF GLOBALIZATION
wealthy countries of the northern hemi- swift and relatively unimpeded flow of capi-
sphere, particularly the United States and the tal, people, and ideas across national borders’
United Kingdom. Their disproportionate (Giddens, 1990; Harvey, 1989; Held and
intellectual influence reflects not only exist- McGrew, 2007; Lechner and Boli, 2011;
ing power relations in the world, but also the Robertson, 1992; Steger, 2013; Waters,
global dominance of Anglo-American ideas. 2001). A number of researchers object to
Although they share a common intellectual those characterizations, some going so far as
framework, these scholars hold radically dif- to deny the existence of globalization alto-
ferent views regarding the definition of glo- gether. And yet, the last few years have also
balization, its scale, chronology, impact, and seen some emerging areas of consensus as
policy outcomes. Part of the reason why well as the rise of the new transdisciplinary
there is so much disagreement has to do with field of ‘global studies’.
the fact that globalization itself is a frag- It is the purpose of this chapter to provide
mented, incomplete, uneven, and contradic- a general overview of the principal academic
tory set of social processes. Rosenau (2003), approaches to the subject proposed by lead-
for example, has defined globalization in terms ing global studies scholars since the 1990s.
of what he calls ‘fragmegrative dynamics’ to These range from the suggestion that globali-
‘underscore the contradictions, ambiguities, zation is little more than ‘globaloney’, to
complexities, and uncertainties that have conflicting interpretations of globalization as
replaced the regularities of prior epochs’. economic, political, or cultural processes.
Academics often respond to the analytical Although such different approaches are
challenge by trying to take conceptual necessary for gaining a better understanding
possession of globalization – as though it of globalization, I will ultimately argue that
were something ‘out there’ to be captured by these social-scientific approaches to the
the ‘correct’ analytical framework. Indeed, as subject ought to be complemented by inter-
Rosow (2000) has pointed out, many pretive explorations of the ideational and
researchers approach globalization as if they normative dimensions of globalization.
were dealing with a process or an object
without a meaning of its own prior to its con-
stitution as a conceptual ‘territory’. Moreover, GLOBALIZATION AS ‘GLOBALONEY’
since it falls outside the boundaries of estab-
lished academic disciplines, the study of A small and rapidly decreasing number of
globalization has invited armies of social scholars contend that existing accounts of
scientists, scholars in the humanities, and globalization are incorrect, imprecise, or
even natural scientists to leave their mark on exaggerated. They note that just about every-
an intellectual terra incognita. thing that can be linked to some transnational
As a result, various scholars have appro process is cited as evidence for globalization
ached the concept of globalization by analys- and its growing influence. Hence, they sus-
ing and describing a variety of changing pect that such general observations often
economic, political, and cultural processes amount to little more than ‘globaloney’ (Held
that are alleged to have accelerated since the and McGrew, 2007; Rosenberg, 2000;
1970s. No generally accepted definition of Veseth, 2010). The arguments of these glo-
globalization has emerged, except for such balization critics fall into three broad catego-
broad descriptions as ‘increasing global inter- ries. Representatives of the first group
connectedness’, ‘the expansions and intensi- dispute the usefulness of globalization as a
fication of social relations across world-time sufficiently precise analytical concept.
and world-space’, ‘the compression of time Members of the second group point to the
and space’, ‘distant proximities’, ‘a complex limited nature of globalizing processes,
range of processes, driven by a mixture of emphasizing that the world is not nearly as
political and economic influences’, and ‘the integrated as many globalization proponents
EBSCOhost - printed on 9/2/2020 4:39 AM via DE LA SALLE UNIV-DASMARINAS. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

APPROACHES TO THE STUDY OF GLOBALIZATION 9
believe. In their view, the term ‘globaliza- middle-range approaches that seek to provide
tion’ does not constitute an accurate label for specific explanations of particulars.
the actual state of affairs. The third group of The second avenue for improvement
critics disputes the novelty of the process involves my own suggestion to complement
while acknowledging the existence of mod- the social-scientific enterprise of exploring
erate globalizing tendencies. They argue that globalization as an objective process with more
those who refer to globalization as a recent interpretive studies of the ideological project of
process miss the bigger picture and fall prey globalism. Following this argument, the central
to their narrow historical framework. Let us task for scholars working in the emerging field
examine the respective arguments of these of globalization studies would be to identify
three groups in more detail. and evaluate the ideological manoeuvres of
prominent proponents and opponents who have
Rejectionists filled the term with values and meanings that
bolster their respective political agendas.
Scholars who dismiss the utility of globalization
as an analytical concept typically advance their Sceptics
arguments from within a larger criticism of
similarly vague words employed in academic The second group emphasizes the limited
discourse. Besides globalization, another often- nature of current globalizing processes. This
cited example for such analytically impover- perspective is perhaps best reflected in the
ished concepts is the complex and ambiguous writings of Wade (1996); and Hirst, Thompson
phenomenon of nationalism. Craig Calhoun and Bromley (2009). See also Rugman
(1993), for example, argues that nationalism (2001). In their detailed historical analysis of
and its corollary terms ‘have proved notoriously economic globalization, Hirst and Thompson
hard concepts to define’ because ‘nationalisms (2009) claim that the world economy is not a
are extremely varied phenomena’, and ‘any truly global phenomenon, but one centred on
definition will legitimate some claims and del- Europe, eastern Asia, and North America. The
egitimate others’. Writing in the same critical authors emphasize that the majority of eco-
vein, Susan Strange (1996) considers globaliza- nomic activity around the world still remains
tion a prime example of such a vacuous term, primarily national in origin and scope.
suggesting that it has been used in academic Presenting recent data on trade, foreign direct
discourse to refer to ‘anything from the Internet investment, and financial flows, the authors
to a hamburger’. See also Clark (1999: 34–40). warn against drawing global conclusions
Similarly, Linda Weiss (1998) objects to the from increased levels of economic interaction
term as ‘a big idea resting on slim foundations’. in advanced industrial countries. Hirst and
Scholarly suggestions for improvement Thompson advance an argument against the
point in two different directions. The first is to existence of economic globalization based on
challenge the academic community to provide empirical data in order to attack the general
additional examples of how the term ‘globali- misuse of the concept. Without a truly global
zation’ obscures more than it enlightens. Such economic system, they insist, there can be no
empirically based accounts would serve as a such thing as globalization: ‘[A]s we pro-
warning to extreme globalization proponents. ceeded [with our economic research] our
Ultimately, the task of more careful research- skepticism deepened until we became con-
ers should be to break the concept of globali- vinced that globalization, as conceived by the
zation into smaller, more manageable parts more extreme globalizers, is largely a myth.’
that contain a higher analytical value because Doremus et al. (1998) and Zysman (1996)
they can be more easily associated with reached a similar conclusion.
empirical processes. This rationale underlies Buried under an avalanche of relevant
Robert Holton’s (1998) suggestion to abandon data, one can nonetheless detect a critical-
all general theoretical analyses in favour of normative message in the Hirst–Thompson

thesis: it is to show that exaggerated accounts often been applied in a historically imprecise
of an ‘iron logic of economic globalization’ manner. Robert Gilpin (2000), for example,
tend to produce disempowering political confirms the existence of globalizing tenden-
effects. For example, the authors convincingly cies, but he also insists that many important
demonstrate that certain political forces have aspects of globalization are not novel devel-
used the thesis of economic globalization to opments. Citing relevant data collected by
propose national economic deregulation and the the prominent American economist Paul
reduction of welfare programmes. The imple- Krugman, Gilpin notes that the world econ-
mentation of such policies stands to benefit omy in the late 1990s appeared to be even
neo-liberal interests. less integrated in a number of important
But there also remain a number of problems respects than it was prior to the outbreak of
with the Hirst–Thompson thesis. For example, World War I. Even if one were to accept the
as several critics have pointed out, the authors most optimistic assessment of the actual
set overly high standards for the economy in volume of transnational economic activity,
order to be counted as ‘fully globalized’. See, the most one could say is that the post-war
for example, Held et al. (1999) and McGrew international economy has simply restored
and Held (2007). Moreover, their efforts to globalization to approximately the same
construct an abstract model of a perfectly level that existed in 1913. Gilpin also points
globalized economy unnecessarily polarize the to two additional factors that seem to sup-
topic by pressuring the reader to either com- port his position: the globalization of labour
pletely embrace or entirely reject the concept of was actually much greater prior to World
globalization. Perhaps the most serious short- War I, and international migration declined
coming of the Hirst–Thompson thesis lies in its considerably after 1918. Hence, Gilpin
attempt to counteract neo-liberal economic warns his readers against accepting the argu-
determinism with a good dose of Marxist eco- ments of ‘hyper-globalizers’. For a similar
nomic determinism. Their argument implicitly assessment, see Burtless et al. (1998) and
assumes that globalization is primarily an eco- Rodrik (1997).
nomic phenomenon. As a result, they portray Similar criticisms come from the propo-
all other dimensions of globalization – culture, nents of world-system theory. Pioneered by
politics, and ideology – as reflections of deeper neo-Marxist scholars such as Immanuel
economic processes. While paying lip service Wallerstein (1979) and Andre Gunder Frank
to the multidimensional character of globaliza- (1998), world-system theorists argue that the
tion, their own analysis ignores the logical modern capitalist economy in which we live
implications of this assertion. After all, if glo- today has been global since its inception five
centuries ago. See also Chase-Dunn (1998).
balization is truly a complex, multilevel phe-
For a Gramscian neo-Marxist perspective,
nomenon, then economic relations constitute
see Rupert and Smith (2002). World-system
only one among many globalizing tendencies.
theorists reject, therefore, the use of the term
It would therefore be entirely possible to argue
‘globalization’ as referring exclusively to
for the significance of globalization even if it
relatively recent phenomena. Instead, they
can be shown that increased transnational eco- emphasize that globalizing tendencies have
nomic activity appears to be limited to advanced been proceeding along the continuum of
industrial countries. modernization for a long time.
The greatest virtue of the world-system
critique of globalization lies in its historical
Modifiers
sensitivity. Any general discussion of globali-
The third and final group of globalization zation should include the caution that cross-
critics disputes the novelty of the process, regional transfers of resources, technology,
implying that the label ‘globalization’ has and culture did not start only in the last few

decades. Indeed, the origins of globalizing to academic approaches on the subject. Their
tendencies can be traced back to the political insistence on a more careful and precise
and cultural interactions that sustained the usage of the term forces the participants in
ancient empires of Persia, China, and Rome. the debate to hone their analytical skills.
On the downside, however, a world-system Moreover, their intervention serves as an
approach to globalization suffers from the important reminder that some aspects of glo-
same weaknesses as the Marxist economic- balization may neither constitute new devel-
determinist view pointed out above in my opments nor reach to all corners of the earth.
discussion of the Hirst–Thompson thesis. However, by focusing too narrowly on
Wallerstein (1990) leaves little doubt that he abstract issues of terminology, the globaliza-
considers global integration to be a process tion critics tend to dismiss too easily the
driven largely by economic forces whose significance and extent of today’s globaliz-
essence can be captured by economistic ana- ing tendencies. Finally, the representatives of
lytical models. Accordingly, he assigns to these three groups show a clear inclination to
culture and ideology merely a subordinate conceptualize globalization mostly along
role as ‘idea systems’ dependent on the ‘real’ economic lines, thereby often losing sight of
movements of the capitalist world economy. its multidimensional character.
However, more recent studies produced by
world-system scholars (Amin, 1996; Carroll
et al., 1996; Robinson, 2004) acknowledge GLOBALIZATION AS ECONOMIC
that the pace of globalization has significantly PROCESS
quickened in the last few decades of the twen-
tieth century. Ash Amin (1997), for example, The widespread scholarly emphasis on the
has suggested that much of the criticism of economic dimension of globalization derives
globalization as a new phenomenon has been partly from its historical development as a
based on quantitative analyses of trade and subject of academic study. For various
output that neglect the qualitative shift in accounts of economic globalization, see, for
social and political relations. This qualitative example, Cohen (2006), Dicken (2001),
difference in the globalizing process, he argues, Rodrik (2007), Sassen (1998) and Stiglit
has resulted in the world-capitalist system’s (2006). Some of the earliest writings on the
new configuration as a complex network of topic explore in much detail how the evolu-
international corporations, banks, and financial tion of international markets and corpora-
flows. Hence, these global developments may tions led to an intensified form of global
indeed warrant a new label. In their efforts to interdependence. These studies point to the
gauge the nature of this qualitative difference, growth of international institutions such as
world-system theorists like Barry K. Gills the European Union, the North American
(2002) have begun to focus more closely on Free Trade Association, and other regional
the interaction between dominant-class inter- trading blocs. The most comprehensive treat-
ests and cultural transnational practices. In so ment of this nature is Keohane (1984). For a
doing, they have begun to raise important more recent update of his position on globali-
normative questions, suggesting that the ele- zation, see Keohane (2001, 2002) and
ments of the ‘ideological superstructure’ – Keohane and Nye (2000). Economic accounts
politics, ideas, values, and beliefs – may, at of globalization convey the notion that the
times, neutralize or supersede economic forces. essence of the phenomenon involves ‘the
Leslie Sklair (2002), for example, highlights increasing linkage of national economies
the importance of what he calls ‘the culture- through trade, financial flows, and foreign
ideology of global consumerism’. direct investment … by multinational firms’
Overall, then, all three groups of globali- (Gilpin, 2000: 299). Thus expanding economic
zation critics make an important contribution activity is identified as both the primary aspect

of globalization and the engine behind its Indeed, many analysts consider the emer-
rapid development. gence of a transnational financial system the
Many scholars who share this economic most fundamental economic feature of our
perspective consider globalization a real phe- time. Its key components include the deregu-
nomenon that signals an epochal transforma- lation of interest rates, the removal of credit
tion in world affairs. Their strong affirmation controls, and the privatization of govern-
of globalization culminates in the suggestion ment-owned banks and financial institutions.
that a quantum change in human affairs has As sociologist Manuel Castells (2000: 53)
taken place as the flow of large quantities of points out, the process of financial globaliza-
trade, investment, and technologies across tion accelerated dramatically in the late
national borders has expanded from a trickle 1980s as capital and securities markets in
to a flood (Gilpin, 2000: 19). They propose Europe and the United States were deregu-
that the study of globalization be moved to lated. The liberalization of financial trading
the centre of social-scientific research. allowed for the increased mobility among
According to this view, the central task of this different segments of the financial industry,
research agenda should be the close examina- with fewer restrictions and a global view of
tion of the evolving structure of global eco- investment opportunities.
nomic markets and their principal institutions. Moreover, these scholars emphasize
Studies of economic globalization are usu- advances in data processing and information
ally embedded in thick historical narratives technology that contributed to the explosive
that trace the gradual emergence of the new growth of tradable financial value. New sat-
post-war world economy to the 1944 Bretton ellite systems and fibre-optic cables provided
Woods Conference and its post-war evolu- the nervous system of Internet-based tech-
tion (Schaeffer, 2005). During its operation nologies that further accelerated the liberali-
for almost three decades, the Bretton Woods zation of financial transactions. Most of the
system contributed greatly to the establish- growth occurred in the purely money-dealing
ment of what some observers have called the currency and securities markets that trade
‘golden age of controlled capitalism’ claims to draw profits from future produc-
(Luttwak, 1999: xii, 27). According to this tion. Aided by new communication technolo-
interpretation, existing mechanisms of state gies, global rentiers and speculators earned
control over international capital movements spectacular incomes by taking advantage of
made possible full employment and the weak financial and banking regulations in the
expansion of the welfare state. Rising wages emerging markets of developing countries.
and increased social services secured in the However, since these international capital
wealthy countries of the global north a tem- flows can be reversed swiftly, they are capa-
porary class compromise. ble of creating artificial boom-and-bust
Most scholars of economic globalization cycles that endanger the social welfare of
trace the accelerating integrationist tenden- entire regions. The 1997–8 Southeast Asia
cies of the global economy to the collapse of crisis was one such economic disaster cre-
the Bretton Woods system in the early 1970s ated by unregulated speculative money
and the rise of ‘neo-liberalism’ in the 1980s flows, followed by similar debacles in Russia
and its ascendancy to dominance with the (1998), Brazil (1999), Argentina (2000–3),
1989–91 collapse of command-type econo- and, most importantly, the Global Financial
mies in Eastern Europe. In addition to the Crisis (2008–9), which, in turn, contributed
issue of free trade, perhaps the two most greatly to the current European Debt Crisis.
important aspects of economic globalization While the creation of international finan-
relate to the changing nature of the produc- cial markets represents a crucial aspect of
tion process and the liberalization and inter- economic globalization, many scholars utiliz-
nationalization of financial transactions. ing this approach point to another important

economic development of the last three dec- particular, involves an important subset of
ades that involves the changing nature of issues pertaining to the principle of state sov-
global production: powerful transnational ereignty, the growing impact of intergovern-
corporations (TNCs) with subsidiaries in mental organizations, and the prospects for
several countries. Their numbers skyrock- global governance.
eted from 7,000 in 1970 to 80,000 in 2011. An influential group of scholars considers
Consolidating their global operations in an political globalization as a process intrinsi-
increasingly deregulated global labour mar- cally connected to the expansion of markets.
ket, enterprises like Wal-Mart, General In particular, steady advances in computer
Motors, Exxon-Mobil, Mitsubishi, and technology and communication systems such
Siemens belong to the 200 largest TNCs, as the World Wide Web are seen as the pri-
which account for over half of the world’s mary forces responsible for the creation of a
industrial output. The availability of cheap single global market. See, for example,
labour, resources, and favourable production Bryan and Farrell (1996), Kurdle (1999),
conditions in the Third World enhanced both Rao (1998) and Weiss (2011). As Richard
the mobility and the profitability of TNCs. Langhorne (2001: 2) puts it, ‘Globalization
Accounting for over 70 per cent of world has happened because technological
trade, these gigantic enterprises expanded advances have broken down many physical
their global reach as their direct foreign barriers to worldwide communication which
investments rose approximately 15 per cent used to limit how much connected or coop-
annually during the 1990s (Gilpin, 2000: 20). erative activity of any kind could happen
Their ability to ‘outsource’ manufacturing over long distances.’ According to even more
jobs – that is, to cut labour costs by dispers- extreme technological-determinist explana-
ing economic production processes into tions, politics is rendered powerless in the face
many discrete phases carried out by low- of an unstoppable and irreversible techno-
wage workers in the global south – is often economic juggernaut that will crush all gov-
cited as one of the hallmarks of economic ernmental attempts to reintroduce restrictive
globalization. policies and regulations. Economics is por-
trayed as possessing an inner logic apart
from and superior to politics. As Lowell
GLOBALIZATION AS POLITICAL Bryan and Diana Farrell (1996: 187) assert,
PROCESS the role of government will ultimately be
reduced to serving as ‘a superconductor for
Economic perspectives on globalization can global capitalism’.
hardly be discussed apart from an analysis of Perhaps the most influential representative
political processes and institutions. Most of of this view in the 1990s was Kenichi Ohmae
the debate on political globalization involves (1990, 1995, 2005). Projecting the rise of a
the weighing of conflicting evidence with ‘borderless world’ brought on by the irresist-
regard to the fate of the modern nation-state. ible forces of capitalism, the Japanese busi-
In particular, two questions have moved to ness strategist argues that, seen from the
the top of the research agenda. First, what are perspective of real flows of economic activ-
the political causes for the massive flows of ity, the nation-state has already lost its role as
capital, money, and technology across terri- a meaningful unit of participation in the
torial boundaries? Second, do these flows global economy. In the long run, the process
constitute a serious challenge to the power of of political globalization will lead to the
the nation-state? These questions imply that decline of territory as a meaningful frame-
economic globalization might be leading to work for understanding political and social
the reduced control of national governments change. No longer functioning along the
over economic policy. The latter question, in lines of discrete territorial units, the political

order of the future will be one of regional direction. For an excellent exposition of this
economies linked together in an almost argument, see Cohen (2001). See also Garrett
seamless global web that operates according (1998), Helleiner (1994, 1996) and Panitch
to free-market principles. For a more recent (1996: 83–113). The core message of this
example of the ‘end of the nation-state thesis’ group of academics is loud and clear: politics
from the opposite end of the ideological is the crucial category upon which rests a
spectrum, see Prem Shankar Jha (2006). proper understanding of globalization.
A second group of scholars disputes the A third group of scholars suggests that
view that large-scale economic changes sim- globalization is fuelled by a mixture of
ply happen to societies in the manner of natu- political and technological factors. John
ral phenomena such as earthquakes and Gray (1998: 218), for example, presents glo-
hurricanes. Instead, they highlight the central balization as a long-term, technology-driven
role of politics – especially the successful process whose contemporary shape has been
mobilization of political power – in unleash- politically determined by the world’s most
ing the forces of globalization (see, for powerful nations. According to Gray, it is the
example, Gowan, 1999; Kapstein, 1999; ultimate objective of the neo-liberal Anglo-
Korten, 2001; Luttwak, 2000). Hence, this American initiative to engineer a global free
group of scholars argues for the continued market. Predicting that the world economy
relevance of conventional political units, will fragment as its imbalances become
operating either in the form of modern insupportable, Gray foresees a gloomy end-
nation-states or ‘global cities’. Saskia ing to the current political efforts to establish
Sassen’s (1991, 2007, 2008) work empha- a single global market: ‘Trade wars will
sizes the key role played by global cities in make international cooperation more diffi-
the organization and control of globally ori- cult. … As global laissez-faire breaks up, a
ented economic and social processes. See deepening international anarchy is the likely
also Amen et al. (2006) and Brenner (2006). human prospect.’
At the same time, most proponents of this A far less pessimistic version of a perspec-
view understand that the development of the tive that combines technology and politics to
last few decades has significantly constrained explain globalization can be found in
the set of political options open to states, Castells’ (1996–8, vol. 3: 356) series of stud-
particularly in developing countries. ies over nearly two decades focusing on the
Jan Aart Scholte (2005), for example, ‘network society’. The Spanish sociologist
points out that globalization refers to gradual separates the powerful forces fuelling glo-
processes of ‘relative deterritorialization’ balization into three independent processes:
that facilitate the growth of ‘supraterritorial’ ‘The information technology revolution; the
relations between people. Scholte empha- economic crisis of both capitalism and stat-
sizes, however, that his concession to deter- ism, and their subsequent restructuring; and
ritorialization does not necessarily mean that the blooming of cultural social movements.’
nation-states are no longer the main organ- For a more recent assessment, see Castells
izing forces in the world. Equipped with the (2009). Castells points to the rise of a new
power to regulate economic activities within ‘informational capitalism’ based on informa-
their sphere of influence, states are far from tion technology as the indispensable tool for
being impotent bystanders to the workings of the effective implementation of processes of
global forces. If concrete political decisions socioeconomic restructuring. In this context,
were responsible for changing the interna- he acknowledges both the crisis of the
tional context in the direction of deregulation, nation-state as a sovereign entity and the
privatization, and the globalization of the devolution of power to regional and local
world economy, then different political deci- governments as well as to various suprana-
sions could reverse the trend in the opposite tional institutions. On the other hand, Castells

also emphasizes the continued relevance of seems to be out of step with the reality of a
nation-states as crucial bargaining agencies unilateralist American Empire.
that influence the changing world of power Political scientists such as David Held and
relationships. As new political actors emerge Anthony McGrew (Held et al. 1999) articu-
and new public policies are implemented, the late in their writings the need for effective
role of culture increases. While pointing to global governance structures as a conse-
the potential for global economic and eco- quence of various forces of globalization.
logical disasters brought on by globalization, They portray globalization as diminishing
Castells (1996–8, vol. 3: 379) ends on a far the sovereignty of national governance,
more positive note than Gray: ‘The dream of thereby reducing the relevance of the nation-
the Enlightenment, that reason and science state. Much to their credit, Held and McGrew
would solve the problems of humankind, is are two of the most vociferous advocates for
within reach.’ moving the academic debate on globalization
A fourth group of scholars approaches in a more ideational and normative direction.
political globalization primarily from the per- In Held’s view, neither the old Westphalian
spective of global governance. Represent system of sovereign nation-states nor the
atives of this group analyse the role of various post-war global system centred on the United
national and multilateral responses to the Nations offers a satisfactory solution to the
fragmentation of economic and political sys- enormous challenges posed by political glo-
tems and the transnational flows permeating balization. Instead, he predicts the emergence
through national borders. See the various of a multilayered form of democratic govern-
essays collected in Wilkinson (2005). Some ance based on Western cosmopolitan ideals,
researchers believe that political globaliza- international legal arrangements, and a web
tion might facilitate the emergence of demo- of expanding linkages between various gov-
cratic transnational social forces emerging ernmental and non-governmental institutions.
from a thriving sphere of ‘global civil soci- Rejecting the charge of utopianism often
ety’. This topic is often connected to discus- levelled against his vision, Held (1995:
sions focused on the impact of globalization 96–120) provides empirical evidence for the
on human rights and vice versa – see the existence of a tendency inherent in the glo-
essays in Brysk (2002). For example, Martin balization process that seems to favour the
Shaw (2000: 16) emphasizes the role of strengthening of supranational bodies and the
global political struggles in creating a ‘global rise of an international civil society. He pre-
revolution’ that would give rise to an interna- dicts that democratic rights will ultimately
tionalized, rights-based Western state con- become detached from their narrow relation-
glomerate symbolically linked to global ship to discrete territorial units. If Held’s
institutions. Thus, he raises the fascinating perspective on political globalization is cor-
prospect of ‘state formation beyond the rect, then its final outcome might well be the
national level’. Democratic theorist John emergence of a ‘cosmopolitan democracy’
Keane (2003: 98) has put forward a similar that would constitute the ‘constructive basis
model of what he calls ‘cosmocracy’ – a for a plurality of identities to flourish within a
messy and complex type of polity understood structure of mutual toleration and accounta-
as ‘a conglomeration of interlocking and bility’. For a more detailed elaboration of his
overlapping sub-state, state, and suprastate vision see Held (1995, 2006). In fact, even in
institutions and multi-dimensional processes the post-9/11 context, Held refuses to aban-
that interact, and have political and social don his hopes for restructuring world order
effects, on a global scale’. In the aftermath of toward a ‘cosmopolitan social democracy’
9/11, however, both Shaw’s and Keane’s opti- characterized by ‘strong competent govern-
mistic vision of a post-imperial multilateralism ance at all levels – local, national, regional,
directed by a Western political conglomerate and global (Held and McGrew, 2007: 131).

A number of academic critics have chal- vast, and the questions they raise are too
lenged the idea that political globalization is numerous to be completely fleshed out in this
fuelling a development toward cosmopolitan short survey. Rather than presenting a long
democracy. Most of their criticism boils laundry list of relevant topics, this section
down to the charge that Held and McGrew focuses on two central questions raised by
indulge in an abstract idealism that fails to scholars of cultural globalization. First, does
engage with current political developments globalization increase cultural homogeneity,
on the level of policy. Some critics argue that or does it lead to greater diversity and hetero-
the emergence of private authority has geneity? Or, to put the matter into less aca-
increasingly become a factor in the post-Cold demic terms, does globalization make people
War world. In their view, global collective more alike or more different? And second,
actors like religious terrorists and organized how does the dominant culture of consumer-
criminals are not merely symptoms of the ism impact the natural environment?
weakening nation-state, but their actions also Most commentators preface their response
dim the prospects for the rise of cosmopoli- to the first question with a general analysis of
tan democracy. See, for example, Hall and the relationship between the globalization
Biersteker (2002). Moreover, sceptics like process and contemporary cultural change.
Robert Holton (2011: 202–3) raise the suspi- Tomlinson (1999: 28), for example, defines
cion that Held and McGrew do not explore in cultural globalization as a ‘densely growing
sufficient detail the cultural feasibility of network of complex cultural interconnec-
global democracy. As cultural patterns tions and interdependencies that characterize
become increasingly interlinked through glo- modern social life’. He emphasizes that
balization, critics argue, the possibility of global cultural flows are directed by power-
resistance, opposition, and violent clashes ful international media corporations that uti-
becomes just as real as the cosmopolitan lize new communication technologies to
vision of mutual accommodation and toler- shape societies and identities. As images and
ance of differences. ideas can be more easily and rapidly trans-
mitted from one place to another, they pro-
foundly impact the way people experience
GLOBALIZATION AS CULTURAL their everyday lives. Culture no longer
PROCESS remains tied to fixed localities such as town
and nation, but acquires new meanings that
Held and McGrew might respond to these reflect dominant themes emerging in a global
criticisms by arguing that one major strength context. This interconnectivity caused by
of their approach lies in viewing globalization cultural globalization challenges parochial
not as a one-dimensional phenomenon, but as values and identities, because it undermines
a multidimensional process involving diverse the linkages that connect culture to fixity of
domains of activity and interaction, including location.
the cultural sphere. Indeed, any analytical A number of scholars argue that these pro-
account of globalization would be woefully cesses have facilitated the rise of an increas-
inadequate without an examination of its cul- ingly homogenized global culture
tural dimension. A number of prominent underwritten by an Anglo-American value
scholars have emphasized the centrality of system. Referring to the global diffusion of
culture to contemporary debates on globaliza- American values, consumer goods, and life-
tion. As sociologist John Tomlinson (1999: 1) styles as ‘Americanization’, these authors
puts it, ‘Globalization lies at the heart of mod- analyse the ways in which such forms of
ern culture; cultural practices lie at the heart of ‘cultural imperialism’ are overwhelming
globalization.’ The thematic landscape tra- more vulnerable cultures. The American soci-
versed by scholars of cultural globalization is ologist George Ritzer (1993), for example,

coined the term ‘McDonaldization’ to visions of homogeneity, jihad and McWorld

describe the wide-ranging process by which are dialectically interlocked in a bitter cultural
the principles of the fast-food restaurant are struggle for popular allegiance. For a neo-
coming to dominate more and more sectors of Marxist perspective on the rise of a global
American society, as well as the rest of the capitalist monoculture, see Schiller (1995:
world. On the surface, these principles appear 17–33). As might be expected, Barber’s dia-
to be rational in their attempts to offer effi- lectical account received a lot of public atten-
cient and predictable ways of serving peo- tion after the events of 9/11. They also helped
ple’s needs. Only toward the end of his study to resurrect Samuel Huntington’s 1993 thesis
does Ritzer allow himself to address the nor- of a ‘clash of civilizations’ involving primarily
mative ramifications of this process: when the West and Islam (Huntington, 1997:
rational systems serve to deny the expression 26–7, 45–8).
of human creativity and cultural difference, It is one thing to acknowledge the powerful
they contribute to the rise of irrationality in cultural logic of global capitalism, but it is
the world. In the long run, McDonaldization quite another to assert that the cultural diver-
leads to the eclipse of cultural diversity and sity existing on our planet is destined to van-
the dehumanization of social relations. ish. In fact, several influential academics
The American political theorist Benjamin offer contrary assessments that link globaliza-
R. Barber (1996: 17) also enters the norma- tion to new forms of cultural diversity. See
tive realm when he warns his readers against Appadurai (1996) and Hannerz (1992, 1996).
the cultural imperialism of what he calls Berger and Huntington offer a highly unusual
‘McWorld’ – a soulless consumer capitalism version of this ‘pluralism thesis’. Emphasizing
that is rapidly transforming the world’s that cultural globalization is ‘American in
diverse population into a blandly uniform origin and content’, they nonetheless allow
market. For Barber, McWorld is a product of for ‘any variations and sub-globalizations’ on
a superficial American popular culture assem- the dominant US cultural theme in various
bled in the 1950s and 1960s and driven by parts of the world (2002). Roland Robertson
expansionist commercial interests: ‘Its tem- (1995: 25–44) has famously argued that
plate is American, its form style … [m]usic, global cultural flows often reinvigorate local
video, theater, books, and theme parks … are cultural niches. Contending that cultural glo-
all constructed as image exports creating a balization always takes place in local con-
common taste around common logos, adver- texts, Robertson predicts a pluralization of
tising slogans, stars, songs, brand names, jin- the world as localities produce a variety of
gles, and trademarks.’ For a more sceptical unique cultural responses to global forces.
assessment of the supposed ‘Americanness’ The result is not increasing cultural homoge-
of globalization, see Marling (2006). nization, but ‘glocalization’ – a complex
Barber’s account of cultural globalization interaction of the global and local character-
contains the important recognition that the ized by cultural borrowing. These interac-
colonizing tendencies of McWorld provoke tions lead to a complex mixture of both
cultural and political resistance in the form of homogenizing and heterogenizing impulses.
‘jihad’ – the parochial impulse to reject and Often referred to as ‘hybridization’ or ‘cre-
repel Western homogenization forces wher- olization’, the processes of cultural mixing are
ever they can be found. Fuelled by the furies reflected in music, film, fashion, language, and
of ethnonationalism and/or religious funda- other forms of symbolic expression. Sociologist
mentalism, jihad represents the dark side of Jan Nederveen Pieterse (2003: 117), for exam-
cultural particularism. Barber (1996: 19) sees ple, argues that exploring ‘hybridity’ amounts
jihad as the ‘rabid response to colonialism and to ‘mapping no man’s land’. For Nederveen
imperialism and their economic children, cap- Pieterse, the hybridity concept ‘does not pre-
italism and modernity’. Guided by opposing clude struggle but yields a multifocus view on

struggle and by showing multiple identity on subjective forms of cultural globalization that
both sides, transcends the “us versus them” are often neglected in more common analyses
dualism that prevails in cultural and political of ‘objective’ relations of interdependence.
arenas’. Ulf Hannerz (1992: 96), too, empha- To some extent, then, scholars of cultural
sizes the complexity of an emerging ‘global globalization have shown more willingness
culture’ composed of new zones of hybridiza- to engage in sustained investigations of the
tion. See also Mendieta (2007). normative dimension of globalization than
In addition to addressing the question of their colleagues in political science or eco-
whether globalization leads to cultural homo- nomics. The same is true for those research-
geneity or heterogeneity, scholars like ers who have explored the connection
Nederveen Pieterse, Hannerz, and Robertson between cultural globalization and the natu-
seek to expand the concept of globalization ral environment, especially in light of the
by portraying it as a multidimensional ‘field’. escalating problem of global climate change.
In their view, globalization is both a material After all, how people view their natural envi-
and a mental condition, constituted by com- ronment depends to a great extent on their
plex, often contradictory interactions of cultural milieu. For example, cultures steeped
global, local, and individual aspects of social in Taoist, Buddhist, and various animist reli-
life. Cultural theorists such as Ulrich Beck gions often emphasize the interdependence
(2000: 102) and Arjun Appadurai (1996) of all living beings – a perspective that calls
have refined this argument by contrasting for a delicate balance between human wants
common interpretations of globalization as a and ecological needs. Nature is not consid-
‘process’ with the less mechanical concept of ered a mere ‘resource’ to be used instru-
‘globality’, referring to ‘the experience of mentally to fulfil human desires. The most
living and acting across borders’. extreme manifestations of this anthropo-
Appadurai identifies five conceptual centric paradigm are reflected in the domi-
dimensions or ‘landscapes’ that are consti- nant values and beliefs of consumerism.
tuted by global cultural flows: ethnoscapes The US-dominated culture industry seeks
(shifting populations made up of tourists, to convince its global audience that the
immigrants, refugees, and exiles), tech- meaning and chief value of life can be
noscapes (development of technologies that found in the limitless accumulation of
facilitate the rise of TNCs), finanscapes material possessions.
(flows of global capital), mediascapes (elec- The two most ominous ecological prob-
tronic capabilities to produce and disseminate lems connected to the global spread of con-
information), and ideoscapes (ideologies of sumer culture are human-induced global
states and social movements). Each of these climate change, such as global warming, and
‘scapes’ contains the building blocks of the the worldwide destruction of biodiversity.
new ‘imagined worlds’ that are assembled by Indeed, the US Union of Concerned Scientists
the historically situated imaginations of per- has presented data suggesting that the global
sons and groups spread around the globe average temperature increased from about
(Appadurai, 1996: 33). Suspended in a global 53.3oF in 1880 to 57.9oF in 2000. Further
web of cultural multiplicity, more and more increases in global temperatures could lead
people become aware of the density of human to partial meltdowns of the polar ice caps,
relations. Their enhanced ability to explore causing global sea levels to rise by up to
and absorb new cultural symbols and mean- three feet by 2100 – a catastrophic develop-
ings coexists in uneasy tension with their ment that would threaten the many coastal
growing sense of ‘placelessness’. Focusing regions of the world. The potential economic
on the changing forms of human perception and political ramifications of global climate
and consciousness brought on by global cul- change are dire, particularly for people living
tural flows, Beck and Appadurai discuss in developing countries in the global south.

With regard to the loss of biodiversity, many operations, and military technology linked to
biologists today believe that we are now in a transnationalization of defence production.
the midst of the fastest mass extinction of One of the most comprehensive surveys on
living species in the 4.5-billion-year history the subject can be found in Held et al. (2007).
of the planet. Environmental sociologist But rather than providing a full account of
Franz Broswimmer (2002), for example, every conceivable aspect of the debate, the
fears that up to 50 per cent of all plant and purpose of this chapter has been to show that
animal species – most of them in the global there exists a variety of approaches to the
south – will disappear by the end of this cen- subject, but no scholarly agreement on a sin-
tury. For a comprehensive overview of facts gle conceptual framework for the study of
and data related to global climate change, see globalization. Moreover, it is important to
Philander (2008). For a more readable bear in mind that any overly objectivist
account, see Gore (2006). approach to globalization is bound to over-
An interesting crossover among economic, look the insight that all social-scientific con-
political and ecological dimensions of glo- cepts are simultaneously analytical and
balization is the use of market based policy normative. This dual status of concepts means
instruments to manage environmental prob- that they never merely describe that to which
lems. Initiatives such as carbon ‘taxes’, ‘trad- they refer, but are also necessarily engaged in a
ing’, and biodiversity ‘banks’ have emerged normative process of meaning construction
in policy discussions at national and global (Offe, 1996: 5). It is virtually impossible for
levels about approaches to global warming, globalization scholars to interpret the public
species extinction, and overpopulation. discourse on the subject apart from their own
Implicit in the use of these market-based ideological and political framework. Hence,
policy tools, however, is still the driving neo- as I have argued in my work on the subject,
liberal ideological assumption that the mar- it is important to explore the ideological
ket can self-regulate and solve all problems, dimensions of globalization by seeking to
that capitalist based consumerism is a sus- make sense of the contemporary emergence
tainable way to live, even an appropriate way of various new ‘globalisms’, as well as by
to address ecological problems created by taking into account the various ideological
capitalist over-consumption in the first place. commitments of globalization researchers
(Steger, 2008). In spite of the obvious dan-
gers inherent in this move, the inclusion of
CONCLUSION one’s own beliefs and values does not neces-
sarily invalidate one’s research project. As
This chapter introduced the main academic the German philosopher Hans-Georg
approaches to the study of globalization by Gadamer (1975) has pointed out, the motiva-
linking them to the lively ongoing debate on tions and prejudices of the interpreter condi-
the subject. Still, this overview does not tion every act of understanding.
encompass all topics of the ever-expanding Hence, it would be a mistake to consider
discourse on the subject. In addition to the researcher’s values and preconceptions
exploring the economic, political, and cul- solely as a hindrance to a proper understand-
tural dimensions of globalization, many ing of social processes. In fact, the interpret-
scholars have raised a number of additional er’s inescapable normative involvement
topics, such as the structure and direction of enables the very act of understanding. As
transnational migration flows, the emergence Alan Scott (1997: 2) notes, the separation of
of transnational social movements such as analytical concerns from ideological and
the women’s movement, the spread of global normative matters harbours the danger that
pandemics, transnational crime, cyber crime, the ethos of scientific detachment might
and the globalization of warfare, military unintentionally serve politically motivated

attempts to provide ‘people with persuasive Castells M (2009) Communication Power. Oxford:
arguments to the effect that little can be done Oxford University Press.
in the face of these enormous economic, Chanda N (2007) Bound Together: How Traders, Preachers,
political and social developments’. Avoiding Adventurers, and Warriors Shaped Globalization.
this danger should remain a crucial impera- New Haven: Yale University Press, p.246.
Chase-Dunn C (1998) Global Formation: Structures of
tive guiding all approaches to the study of
the World Economy. Lanham, MD: Rowman and
globalization. Littlefield.
Clark I (1999) Globalization and International Relations
Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.34–40.
REFERENCES Cohen D (2006) Globalization and Its Enemies.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Amen M, Archer K and Bosman M (eds) (2006) Cohen ES (2001) The Politics of Globalization in the
Relocating Global Cities: From the Center to the United States. Washington, DC: Georgetown
Margins. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. University Press.
Amin S (1996) The challenge of globalization. Review Dicken P (2011) Global Shift: Mapping the Changing
of International Political Economy 3(2): 244–5. Contours of the World Economy. 6th edn. New York:
Amin A (1997) Placing globalization. Theory, Culture The Guilford Press.
and Society 14(2): 123–38. Doremus PN, Keller WW, Pauly LW, et al. (1998) The
Appadurai A (1996) Modernity at Large: Cultural Myth of the Global Corporation. Princeton, NJ:
Dimensions of Globalization. Minneapolis: University Princeton University Press.
of Minnesota Press, p.33. Frank AG (1998) ReORIENT: Global Economy in the
Barber BR (1996) Jihad vs. McWorld. New York: Asian Age. Berkeley, CA: University of California
Ballantine Books, p.19. Press.
Beck U (2000) What Is Globalization? Cambridge: Polity Gadamer H-G (1975) Truth and Method. New York:
Press, p.102. Seabury Press.
Berger P and Huntington S (2002) (eds) Many Garrett G (1998) Partisan Politics in the Global Economy.
Globalizations: Cultural Diversity in the Contemporary Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
World. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Giddens A (1990) The Consequences of Modernity.
Brenner N (ed.) (2006) The Global Cities Reader. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
London and New York: Routledge. Gills BK (2002) Globalization and the Politics of
Broswimmer FJ (2002) Ecocide: A History of Mass Resistance. Houndmills, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Extinction of Species. London: Pluto Press. Gilpin R (2000) The Challenge of Global Capitalism: The
Bryan L and Farrell D (1996) Market Unbound: World Economy in the 21st Century. Princeton, NJ:
Unleashing Global Capitalism. New York: Wiley, Princeton University Press, pp.19, 20, 294–5, 299.
p.187. Gore A (2006) An Incovenient Truth. New York: Rodale
Brysk A (ed.) (2002) Globalization and Human Rights. Books.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Gowan, The Global Gamble;
Burtless G, Lawrence RZ, Litan RE, et al. (1998) Gray J (1998) False Dawn. New York: New Press, p.218.
Globaphobia: Confronting Fears about Open Trade. Hall RB and Biersteker TJ (eds) (2002) The Emergence of
Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, pp.6–7. Private Authority in Global Governance. Cambridge:
Calhoun C (1993) Nationalism and ethnicity. Annual Cambridge University Press.
Review of Sociology 19: 215–16. Hannerz U (1992) Cultural Complexity: Studies in the
Carroll W, Desai R and Magnusson W (1996) Social Organization of Meaning. New York: Columbia
Globalization, Social Justice and Social Movements: University Press, p.96.
A Reader. Victoria, ON: University of Victoria, Hannerz U (1996) Transnational Connections: Cultures,
pp.21, 107. People, Places. London: Routledge.
Castells M (1996–8) The Information Age: Economy, Harvey D (1989) The Condition of Postmodernity.
Society, and Culture. 3 vols. Oxford: Blackwell, vol. 3, Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
pp.356, 379. Held D (1995) Democracy and the new international
Castells M (2000) Information technology and global order. In: Archibugi D and Held D (eds) Cosmopolitan
capitalism. In: Hutton W and Giddens A (eds) Global Democracy: An Agenda for a New World Order.
Capitalism. New York: New Press, p.53. Cambridge: Polity Press, pp.96–120.

Held D (2006) Democracy and the Global Order. Lechner FJ and Boli J (eds) (2011) The Globalization
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Reader. 4th edn. Oxford: Wiley- Blackwell.
Held D (2006) Models of Democracy. 3rd edn. Stanford, Luttwak E (1999) Turbo-Capitalism. New York: Harper
CA: Stanford University Press. Collins, pp.xii, 27.
Held D and McGrew A (2007) Globalization/ McGrew A and Held D (2007) Globalization Theory:
Antiglobalization. 2nd edn. Oxford: Polity, p.131. Approaches and Controversies. Cambridge: Polity.
Held D, McGrew A, Goldblatt D, et al. (1999) Global Marling WH (2006) How ‘American’ is Globalization?
Transformations: Politics, Economics, and Culture. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Mendieta E (2007) Global Fragments: Latinamericanisms,
Helleiner E (1994) States and the Reemergence Globalizations, and Critical Theory. Albany, NY: State
of Global Finance. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. University of New York Press.
Helleiner E (1996) Post-globalisation: Is the financial Offe C (1996) Modernity and the State: East, West.
liberalisation trend likely to be reversed? In: Boyer R Cambridge: Polity, p.5.
and Drache D (eds) States Against Markets: The Ohmae K (1990) The Borderless World: Power and
Limits of Globalisation. London: Routledge. Strategy in the Interlinked World Economy. New
Hirst P, Thompson G and Bromley S (2009) Globalization York: Harper Business.
in Question: The International Economy and the Ohmae K (1995) The End of the Nation-State: The Rise
Possibilities of Governance. 3rd edn. Cambridge: of Regional Economies. New York: Free Press.
Polity Press. Ohmae K (2005) Next Global Stage: Challenges and
Holton R (1998) Globalization and the Nation-State. Opportunities in our Borderless World. Philadelphia,
New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press, pp.196, 202–3. PA: Wharton School Publishing.
Huntington SP (1997) The Clash of Civilizations: Panitch L (1996) Rethinking the role of the state. In:
Remaking of World Order. New York, NY: Touchstone, Mittelman JH (2004) Whither Globalization? The
pp.26–7, 45–8. Vortex of Knowledge and Ideology. London:
Jameson F (1998) Preface. In: Jameson F and Miyoshi M Routledge, pp.83–113.
(eds) The Cultures of Globalization. Durham, NC: Philander SG (2008) (ed.) Encyclopedia of Global
Duke University Press, pp.xi–xii. Warming and Climate Change. London: Sage.
Jha PS (2006) The Twilight of the Nation-State: Pieterse JN (2003) Globalization and Culture: Global
Globalisation, Chaos and War. London: Pluto Press. Melange. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield,
Kapstein EB (1999) Sharing the Wealth: Workers and p.117.
the World Economy. New York, NY: Norton. Rao CP (ed.) (1998) Globalization, Privatization and
Keane J (2003) Global Civil Society? Cambridge: Free Market Economy. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
Cambridge University Press, p.98. Ritzer G (1993) The McDonaldization of Society: An
Keohane RO (1984) After Hegemony. Princeton, NJ: Investigation Into the Changing Character of
Princeton University Press. Contemporary Social Life. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine
Keohane RO (2001) Governance in a partially globalized Forge Press.
world. American Political Science Review 95(1): 1–13. Ritzer G (ed.) (2007) The Blackwell Companion to
Keohane RO (2002) Moral commitment and liberal Globalization. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
approaches to world politics. In: Hovden E and Robertson R (1992) Globalization: Social Theory and
Keene E (eds) The Globalization of Liberalism. New Global Culture. London: Sage.
York, NY: Palgrave, pp.11–35. Robertson R (1995) Glocalization: Time–space and
Keohane RO and Nye JS Jr (2000) Globalization: What’s homogeneity–heterogeneity. In: Featherstone M,
new? What’s not? (And so what?) Foreign Policy Lash S and Robertson R (eds) Global Modernities.
118: 104–19. London: Sage, pp.25–44.
Korten C (2001) When Corporations Rule the World. Robinson WI (2004) A Theory of Global Capitalism:
2rd edn. West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press. Production, Class, and the State in a Transnational
Kurdle RT (1999) The three types of globalization: World. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press.
Communication, market, and direct. In: Väyrynen R Rodrik D (1997) Has Globalization Gone Too Far?
(ed.) Globalization and Global Governance. Lanham, Washington, DC: Institute for International
MD: Rowman and Littlefield, pp.3–23. Economics, pp.7–8.
Langhorne R (2001) The Coming of Globalization: Its Rodrik D (2007) One Economic, Many Recipes:
Evolution and Contemporary Consequences. New Globalization, Institutions, and Economic Growth.
York: Palgrave, p.2. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Rosenau JN (2003) Distant Proximities: Dynamics Steger MB (2008) The Rise of the Global Imaginary:
Beyond Globalization. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Political Ideologies from the French Revolution to the
University Press, p.12. Global War on Terror. Oxford: Oxford University
Rosenberg J (2000) The Follies of Globalisation Theory. Press.
London: Verso. Steger MB (2013) Globalization: A Very Short
Rosow SJ (2003) Globalisation as democratic theory. Introduction. 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Millennium: Journal of International Studies Stiglitz J (2006) Making Globalization Work. New York:
29(1): 31. WW Norton.
Rugman A (2001) The End of Globalization. New York: Strange S (1996) The Retreat of the State: The Diffusion
Random House. of Power in the World Economy. Cambridge:
Rupert M and Smith H (eds) (2002) Historical Materialism Cambridge University Press, pp.xii–xiii.
and Globalization. London: Routledge. Tomlinson J (1999) Globalization and Culture. Chicago,
Sassen S (1991) The Global City: New York, London, IL: University of Chicago Press, pp.1, 28.
Tokyo. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Veseth M (2010) Globaloney 2.0: The Crash of 2008
Sassen S (1998) Globalization and Its Discontents: and the Future of Globalization. Lanham, MD:
Essays on the New Mobility of People and Money. Rowman and Littlefield.
New York: New Press. Wade R (1996) Globalization and its limits: Reports on
Sassen S (2007) A Sociology of Globalization. New the death of the national economy are greatly exag
York: WW Norton. gerated. In: Berger S and Dore R (eds) National
Sassen S (2008) Territory, Authority, Rights: From Diversity and Global Capitalism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell
Medieval to Global Assemblages. Princeton, NJ: University Press, pp.60–88.
Princeton University Press. Wallerstein I (1979) The Capitalist World Economy.
Schaeffer RK (2005) Understanding Globalization. 3rd Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
edn. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. Wallerstein I (1984) The Politics of the World Economy.
Schiller H (1995) The global information highway: Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Project for an ungovernable world. In: Brook J and Wallerstein I (1990) Culture as the ideological battle
Boal IA (eds) Resisting the Virtual Life. San Francisco, ground of the modern world system. In: Featherstone
CA: City Lights, pp.17–33. M (ed.) Global Culture. London: Sage, p.38.
Scholte DJA (2005) Globalization: A Critical Introduction. Waters M (1991) Globalization. 2rd edn. London:
2nd edn, New York: St. Martin’s Press. Routledge.
Scott A (1997) Introduction: Globalization: Social pro Weiss L (1998) The Myth of the Powerless State:
cess or political rhetoric? In: Scott A (ed.) The Limits Governing the Economy in a Global Era. Ithaca, NY:
of Globalization: Cases and Arguments. London: Cornell University Press, p.212.
Routledge, p.2. Weiss T (2011) Thinking about Global Governance:
Shaw M (2000) Theory of the Global State: Globality as Why People and Ideas Matter. London: Routledge.
an Unfinished Revolution. Cambridge, UK: Wilkinson R (ed.) (2005) The Global Governance
Cambridge University Press, p.16. Reader. London and New York: Routledge.
Sklair L (2002) Globalization: Capitalism and Its Zysman J (1996) The myth of a ‘global’ economy:
Alternatives. 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Enduring national foundations and emerging regional
Press. realities. New Political Economy 1(2): 157–184.

Approaches To Globalization

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Approaches To Globalization

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Approaches To Globalization

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

Approaches to the Study of

INTRODUCTION to make more sense to survey various approaches

01_Steger et al_Ch-01-Part-I.indd 7 29-Apr-14 3:29:44 PM

01_Steger et al_Ch-01-Part-I.indd 8 29-Apr-14 3:29:44 PM

01_Steger et al_Ch-01-Part-I.indd 9 29-Apr-14 3:29:44 PM

01_Steger et al_Ch-01-Part-I.indd 10 29-Apr-14 3:29:44 PM

01_Steger et al_Ch-01-Part-I.indd 11 29-Apr-14 3:29:44 PM

01_Steger et al_Ch-01-Part-I.indd 12 29-Apr-14 3:29:44 PM

01_Steger et al_Ch-01-Part-I.indd 13 29-Apr-14 3:29:44 PM

01_Steger et al_Ch-01-Part-I.indd 14 29-Apr-14 3:29:44 PM

01_Steger et al_Ch-01-Part-I.indd 15 29-Apr-14 3:29:44 PM

01_Steger et al_Ch-01-Part-I.indd 16 29-Apr-14 3:29:44 PM

coined the term ‘McDonaldization’ to visions of homogeneity, jihad and McWorld

01_Steger et al_Ch-01-Part-I.indd 17 29-Apr-14 3:29:44 PM

01_Steger et al_Ch-01-Part-I.indd 18 29-Apr-14 3:29:44 PM

01_Steger et al_Ch-01-Part-I.indd 19 29-Apr-14 3:29:44 PM

01_Steger et al_Ch-01-Part-I.indd 20 29-Apr-14 3:29:44 PM

01_Steger et al_Ch-01-Part-I.indd 21 29-Apr-14 3:29:44 PM

01_Steger et al_Ch-01-Part-I.indd 22 29-Apr-14 3:29:44 PM

You might also like