Globalization

For more information on globalization, visit Britannica.com.

View more Business & Finance videos

Interdependence of buyers and sellers of financial instruments in financial centers around the world. This phenomenon is due mainly to several factors: (1) the maturation of the Eurocurrency markets since the 1960s; (2) dramatic changes in trading room technology in recent years, providing market makers with near instantaneous access to current market data on commodities and financial instruments; (3) a desire by financial institutions to expand lending and other activities beyond geographic boundaries; and (4) a desire to control balance sheet risk through Interest Rate Swaps and other financial swap agreements.

For example, the growing use in international financial markets of marketable debt instruments, principally in the Eurobond market, as opposed to traditional bank lending, as a financing vehicle for major corporate borrowers, and also sovereign governments. The shift away from bank credit instruments, such as Note Issuance Facilities, toward Floating Rate Notes and Eurocommercial paper began in the early 1980s, and was aided by the strong secondary market in Eurobond financings. Both commercial banks and investment banks participate in this market. Outside the United States, U.S. Commercial banks are not confined by Glass-Steagall Act limitations on securities underwriting, and are active participants in the Eurobond market.

Advances in Information Technology allowed traders in foreign exchange and other money market instruments to manage positions on a 24-hour basis, by moving their trading book to a different financial center at the close of trading. This practice, known as passing the book, permits financial institutions that make markets in New York, London, or Tokyo, for instance, to maintain a single trading book listing positions, limits, and exposures for the entire firm, rather than keeping separate books in each trading center.

Globalization is the process by which the economies of countries around the world become increasingly integrated over time. This integration occurs as technological advances expedite the trade of goods and services, the flow of capital, and the migration of people across international borders. The term has been used in this context since the 1980s, when computer technology first began making it easier and faster to conduct business internationally. Globalization can also refer to the efforts of businesses to expand their operations to new countries and markets.

According to a cover story in Business Week, globalization "has created millions of jobs from Malaysia to Mexico and a cornucopia of affordable goods for Western consumers. It has brought phone service to some 300 million households in developing nations and a transfer of nearly $2 trillion from rich countries to poor through equity, bond investments, and commercial loans. It's helped topple dictators by making information available in once sheltered countries. And now the Internet is poised to narrow the gulf that separates rich nations from poor nations even further in the decade to come."

Without a doubt, globalization has had a number of positive effects on nations and businesses around the world. Yet the concept—once regarded as almost universally positive—has undergone a bit of a reassessment in recent years. In fact, widespread protests against the World Trade Organization (WTO) and consumer boycotts arising from the practices of multinational corporations in developing countries have raised public awareness of the hazards of globalization. "The plain truth is that market liberalization by itself does not lift all boats, and in some cases, it has caused severe damage to poor nations," the Business Week article admitted. "What's more, there's no point denying that multinationals have contributed to labor, environmental, and human rights abuses as they pursue profit around the globe."

The Controversy Over Globalization

Globalization gives companies access to wider markets and consumers access to a greater variety of goods and services. But the benefits of globalization are not always shared by all of the parties involved in trade. Unfortunately, developing countries—which need the potential benefits of globalization the most—are often the losers. "The downside of global capitalism is the disruption of whole societies, from financial meltdowns to practices by multinationals that would never be tolerated in the West," the Business Week article noted. "Industrialized countries have enacted all sorts of worker, consumer, and environmental safeguards since the turn of the century, and civil rights have a strong tradition. But the global economy is pretty much still in the robber-baron age."

Some people view globalization in positive terms, as a key force in promoting worldwide economic development. But others believe that unrestricted global trade will only serve to increase the inequality between developed and developing countries. In reality, globalization offers both opportunities and risks for developing countries, and there is a great deal of variation in their experiences with it. Some regions, like Asia, have integrated into the global economy quickly and achieved economic growth as a result. But other regions, like Africa, have suffered from increased political instability, poverty, and environmental degradation since they became involved in international trade. "The real question isn't whether free markets are good or bad," the Business Week article stated. "It is why they are producing such wildly different results in different countries. Figuring out that answer is essential if businesses, government leaders, and workers are all to realize the benefits of global markets."

In the late 1990s, there was a great deal of debate about how advanced economies and multinational corporations could help developing nations to share in the benefits of globalization. Some experts claim that developing nations need debt relief, an increased flow of direct financial investment and technology, and unrestricted access to markets in advanced countries in order to begin catching up. Others claim that these measures are pointless unless the leaders of the developing nations show a willingness to establish a stable government and invest in the education of their citizens. "Before trade and foreign capital can translate into sustainable growth, governments first must deliver political stability, sound economic management, and educated workers," the Business Week article argued. Otherwise, foreign investment would likely lead to government corruption and the exploitation of workers.

The potential problems with globalization are not limited to developing nations, however. Some workers in advanced economies—particularly those in unskilled jobs and belonging to labor unions—feel that they are being increasingly displaced by low-wage competition in developing countries. Some of these workers are unable to make the transition to skilled jobs and service-oriented industries. Other critics of globalization claim that integration into a global economy reduces the sovereignty of nations, especially in regards to economic policy making. They worry that advanced nations will face limited choices in tax and monetary policies under the rules of world trade.

The concerns of developed and developing countries overlap to create a complex web of problems for globalization. Some countries will inevitably be viewed as trying to impose their values on other countries. "Balancing growth with environmental and labor regulations is wrenchingly complex in countries where people live on the margin," according to Business Week. "Many poor nations fiercely resist discussion of labor or environmental issues in the WTO because they feel the process will be hijacked by Western protectionists. The feeling is that Western unions will shield jobs at home by imposing standards that drive up labor costs in emerging markets to levels where developing nations can't compete."

The Role of the Wto

In the late 1990s, much of the controversy over globalization focused on the World Trade Organization (WTO). The WTO was established in 1995 to facilitate world trade and resolve disputes between nations. Headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, the WTO had 134 member nations in 1999, three-quarters of which were developing nations. According to Simon J. Evenett in an article for Finance and Development, the WTO "serves the developing countries' interests by facilitating trade reform, providing a mechanism for settling disputes, strengthening the credibility of trade reforms, and promoting transparent trade regimes that lower transaction costs."

Shortly after it was established, the WTO became a lightning rod for controversy over globalization. "Seen through one lens, the World Trade Organization is a benevolent United Nations of trade, with just enough enforcement powers to help nations work out their differences," Steve Wilhelm wrote in the PugetSound Business Journal. "Seen through another lens, the WTO is a menacing, corporate-dominated world government of trade in which the legislative body and the courts operate outside the scrutiny of anyone who's not a government leader or corporate lawyer. From this viewpoint, the organization's power to adjudicate trade disputes also gives it the power to override national laws, including environmental protections. In a sense, it compromises the sovereignty of its member nations."

The two main issues embraced by anti-WTO activists are the rights of laborers and protection of the environment. "As production and consumption grow around the world, many impacts fall on the people who supply labor to produce things, and the environment that supplies the raw materials and absorbs the effluent," Wilhelm noted. Those who oppose the WTO worry that global free trade will threaten hard-fought labor and environmental victories in the United States and other developed nations. For example, activists protested that—under WTO rules—the United States could not prevent the import of shrimp caught in nets that also caught an endangered species of sea turtle.

Protesters were also concerned about the loss of American jobs overseas and the poor social and environmental records of multinational corporations operating in developing countries. "The heady, unrealistic days of globalization appear to be over," Business Week noted. "Where once it was promised that the simple spread of markets would melt poverty, dissolve dictatorships, and integrate diverse cultures, today the mere mention of globalization generates anger, discord, and accusations."

Four Levels of Globalization

Globalization most often refers to the increasing degree of connection between various countries and their economies. But another definition involves the efforts of businesses to expand their operations into foreign markets. This definition has gained importance with the advent of the Internet, which gives all companies the potential to achieve global reach in their operations.

As Jennifer Derryberry wrote in Sales and Marketing Management, businesses generally operate at one of four basic levels of globalization. The first level is a multidomestic company. At this level, the business consists of several independent units that operate in different countries, with little communication between them. The second level, an international company, maintains a headquarters in one country and operates branches in other countries. At this level, the company is likely to impose its home country bias on other markets rather than making a true effort to integrate into the global economy.

The third level of globalization, a transnational company, consists of loosely integrated business units in several countries. At this level, the company makes a greater effort to address the local needs of operations in each country. The fourth level of globalization is a truly global company. This type of business views the world as a single market, develops an overall strategy for its various operations around the world, and applies the lessons of each country to ensure its global success. Derryberry noted that this is the ideal level for a globalizing organization, but that it is not easy to achieve.

Further Reading:

Bates, Jenny. "Get Globalization Message—and Agenda—Right." Journal of Commerce and Commercial. April 27, 2000.

Bruce, Barnard. "A Brief History of the WTO." Europe. November 1999.

Derryberry, Jennifer. "What It Really Means to Go Global." Sales and Marketing Management. December 1999.

Evenett, Simon J. "The World Trading System: The Road Ahead." Finance and Development. December 1999.

Gilpin, Robert. The Challenge of Global Capitalism. Princeton University Press, 2000.

"Global Capitalism." Business Week. November 6, 2000.

"Globalization: Lessons Learned." Business Week. November 6, 2000.

International Monetary Fund. World Economic Outlook. May 2000.

Micklethwait, John, and Adrian Wooldridge. A Future Perfect: The Challenge and Hidden Promise of Globalization. Times Books, 2000.

Wilhelm, Steve. "Labor, Ecology Issues Are at Heart of Protests." Puget Sound Business Journal. November 12, 1999.

Woods, Bob. "The New Economy." Chief Executive. August 2000.

The increase in the volume, scale, and velocity of social (and environmental) interactions. Globalization is not new, pre-dating colonialism, and Massey (Geography 87) points out that the current manifestation of globalization is ‘not a force of nature…[but] a political and economic project which requires the…efforts of the World Trade Organisation, International Monetary Fund, United States of America, multinational corporations, World Bank etc., to push it forward’.

The recent swift progress of this ‘neoliberal’ globalization also results from vertical integration, the development of advanced information technology and communications, economies of scale in mass transport systems, and the liberalization of national and international regulatory frameworks. These now allow global corporations to locate wherever they wish, triggering world-scale flows, processes, and production systems. World investments are no longer geographically constrained, but can flow to places offering the best returns; foreign direct investment in the late 1990s grew twice as fast as world trade (though mostly in proximate states).

The result of this increased mobility of capital is a radical restructuring of the global economy. The core capitalist countries (USA, Western Europe, and Japan) have experienced a period of de-industrialization—most of their manufacturing jobs were shipped to less economically developed countries as transnational corporations took advantage of the cheaper labour, cheaper regulations, and hence cheaper production costs there (N. Henry, C. McEwan, and J. S. Pollard, Area 34), and these nation-states have lost some of their control of capital. Interestingly, the migrations of people become more problematic as the migrations of finance become easier; the ‘borderless world’ is not a reality for a would-be migrant from less, to more, economically developed countries.

Globalization has many detractors, who claim that global capital privileges profit over local interests and deplore the ‘Westernization’ of local cultures and what they see as the negation of local identities and autonomies. Others suggest that globalization is a dialectical process; although it invades local contexts of action, it doesn't destroy them. Instead, new forms of local existence and expression emerge (Bollywood as well as Hollywood; see creolization). Local products can be globally advertised via the World Wide Web, and newly agriculturalizing countries like Kenya can sell to Western supermarkets via global commodity chains, which have lowered the threshold of entry for smaller enterprises.

A central part of the rhetoric of contemporary world politics and the subject of increasing volumes of academic analysis. It resists any single or simple definition. Although often associated with claims that the present world system is undergoing transformation, it is an old idea. There is a long tradition of writers emphasizing the external economic constraints that act upon nation states and the transforming impact of global economic processes, with Marx being amongst the most powerful and prescient. Such themes were revived in the late 1960s and early 1970s when writers on interdependence and modernization argued that the rapid expansion of international trade and investment, the increased awareness of ecological interdependence, the declining utility of military power, and the increasing power of non-state actors (multinational corporations but also religious organizations and terrorist groups) constituted a systemic shift that would increasingly undermine the traditional role and primacy of nation states. The 1970s literature on interdependence faded under pressure from two sources. First, the reappearance of superpower confrontation and the second Cold War appeared to justify those who took a more Hobbesian view of international life, dominated by military confrontation rather than economic exchange. Second, within academia, statists and realists responded vigorously, arguing, for example, that multinational corporations were closely tied to states and to patterns of interstate politics; that the state was still the most important institution of international order; that military power had not declined in its utility; and, most important of all, that the international political system with its dominant logic of power balancing remained the most important element of any theory of international politics.

However, with the end of the Cold War, academic interest shifted back to the role of external or global economic factors, this time under the broad banner of ‘globalization’. It is far from easy to gather together the wide variety of meanings attached to the term globalization. At one level it appears simple. Globalization is about the universal process or set of processes which generate a multiplicity of linkages and interconnections which transcend the states and societies which make up the modern world system. It involves a dramatic increase in the density and depth of economic, ecological, and societal interdependence, with ‘density’ referring to the increased number, range, and scope of cross-border transactions; and ‘depth’ to the degree to which that interdependence affects, and is affected by, the ways in which societies are organized domestically.

In reality, much of the muddle and inconclusiveness of the debates on globalization stem from the ambiguities of the concept. Globalization is sometimes presented as a causal theory: certain sorts of global processes are held to cause certain kinds of outcomes; sometimes it is a collection of concepts, mapping (but not explaining) how the changing global system is to be understood; and sometimes it is understood as a particular kind of discourse or ideology (often associated with neo-liberalism). There are also important distinctions between economistic readings of globalization (that stress increased interstate transactions and flows of capital, labour, goods and services) and social and political readings (that stress the emergence of new forms of governance and authority, new arenas of political action (‘deterritorialization’ or the ‘reconfiguration of social space’), or new understandings of identity or community). Within economistic readings, there are distinctions between a traditional focus on interstate economic transactions and broader shifts in transnational production-structures and the emergence of new kinds of deterritorialized markets. Distinctions are also drawn between globalization, internationalization, westernization, and modernization. And there is the important distinction between the claim that globalization should be seen as the continuation of a deep-rooted set of historical processes and the view that contemporary globalization represents a critical break-point or fundamental discontinuity in world politics.

Perhaps the most important single idea concerns the growing disjuncture between the notion of a sovereign state directing its own future, the dynamics of the contemporary global economy, and the increasing complexity of world society. More specifically, there are three broad categories of claim that globalization is having a deep, perhaps revolutionary, impact. In the first place, it is widely argued that certain sets of economic policy tools have ceased to be viable and that states face ever increasing pressures to adopt increasingly similar pro-market policies. Because of the increasing power of financial markets, governments are forced into pursuing macroeconomic policies that meet with the approval of these markets. Increasing trade also places governments under pressure to adopt pro-market policies, avoiding policies which would imply the need to harm business by taxation, or to raise interest rates as a consequence of increased borrowing. They also find themselves forced to cut back the role of the public economy in order to attract inward investment from increasingly footloose multinational companies quick to punish governments who stray from the path of economic righteousness by exercising their exit option. Consequently, the range of policy options open to governments is claimed to be dramatically reduced.

A second cluster of arguments relates to the degree to which globalization has created the conditions for an ever more intense and activist global or transnational civil society. The physical infrastructure of increased economic interdependence (new systems of communication and transportation) and the extent to which new technologies (satellites, computer networks, etc.) have increased the costs and difficulty for governments of controlling flows of information, has facilitated the diffusion of values, knowledge, and ideas, and enhanced the ability of like-minded groups to organize across national boundaries. Transnational civil society, then, refers to those self-organized intermediary groups that are relatively independent of both public authorities and private economic actors; that are capable of taking collective action in pursuit of their interests or values; and that act across state borders. Globalization writers have laid great emphasis on the roles played by non-governmental organizations, social movements, and multinational corporations, but such activity also includes transnational drug and criminal groups and transnational terrorism. The analytical focus of much of this work has been on transnational networks—for example, knowledge-based networks of economists, lawyers, or scientists; or transnational advocacy networks which act as channels for flows of money and material resources but, more critically, of information and ideas.

A third cluster of arguments suggests that it is institutional enmeshment rather than economic transactions or the ‘reconfiguration of social space’ that has most constrained the state. On this view, states are increasingly rule-takers over a vast array of rules, laws, and norms that are promulgated internationally but which affect almost every aspect of how they organize their societies domestically. Proponents of this view highlight the tremendous growth in the number of international organizations; they point to the vast increase in both the number of international treaties and agreements and the scope and intrusiveness of such agreements; and they suggest that important changes are occurring in the character of the international legal system (the increased pluralism of the process by which new norms and rules emerge; the appearance of more and more ‘islands of supranational governance’ (such as the EU or the WTO); the blurring of municipal, international, and transnational law; and the increased importance of informal, yet norm-governed, governance mechanisms, often built around complex transnational and transgovernmental networks).

The critics attack along a number of fronts. First, they highlight the lack of clear and consistent definitions of globalization and the deep ambiguities as to what ‘globalization theory’ is supposed to involve or explain. Second, they point to the mounting empirical grounds for scepticism, for example: that levels of globalization are not higher or more intense than in earlier periods (especially the period before WW1); that there is no clear evidence of state retreat, of welfare states being cut back because of globalization pressures, of transnational capital standing in automatic opposition to social welfare, or of globalization being the most important factor in explaining levels of inequality in OECD countries. Whilst many of the changes and challenges of globalization are very real, the critics argue that they do not point in a single direction and certainly do not provide secure grounds for accepting the claim that some sort of deep change or transformation is under way. Third, the critics argue that globalization has been driven not by some unstoppable logic of technological innovation, but by specific sets of state policies, backed by specific political coalitions. This suggests that states themselves are not passive players and that the impact of globalization will often depend on national-level political and institutional factors. Equally, even where liberalizing effects can be attributed to globalization, it is not always the case that this implies state retreat—as in the process by which privatization and deregulation have involved re-regulation. Nor does globalization inevitably push governments towards declining state activism. It can, on the contrary, lead to increased pressure on government to provide protection against the economic and social dislocations that arise from increased liberalization and external vulnerability. Finally, the critics remain deeply unconvinced by the arguments for systemic transformation, highlighting the degree to which international institutions are created by states for particular purposes and the evident capacity of powerful states to resist or even abandon such institutions; the continued importance of military power controlled by states and of political boundaries and of national allegiances even in regions of dense economic and societal interdependence; and the very deep resistance of the United States as the global hegemon to contemplate giving up its own sovereignty and the capacity of the United States to both shape and resist the course of globalization.

— Andrew Hurrell

Globalization became a buzzword following the end of the Cold War, but the phenomenon has long been a factor in the foreign relations of the United States and has deep roots in history. To the extent that it meant the expansion of trade and investments, it can be defined as economic expansion, as in the transition from territorial expansion in the nineteenth century to the increasing internationalization of markets in the twentieth century. In the aftermath of World War II, economic internationalism, or the suggestion of growing interdependence of nations and the development of international institutions, seemed to capture the essence of what more recently has been termed globalization. But such usages are too limited; they do not adequately define a phenomenon that shaped American diplomacy and its constituent elements of economics and culture.

Definition and Conceptualization

"Globalization" is a fairly new term. Professor Theodore Levitt, a marketing professor at the Harvard Business School, apparently first employed it in a 1983 article in the Harvard Business Review. It is arguable, however, that the basic concept dates to the first humans. Defined broadly, globalization is the process of integrating nations and peoples—politically, economically, and culturally—into a larger community. In this broad sense, it is little different from internationalization. Yet globalization is more than this incremental process that over the centuries has brought people and nations closer together as technological innovation dissolved barriers of time and distance, and enhanced flows of information promoted greater awareness and understanding.

The focus, as the term suggests, is not on nations but on the entire globe. Consequently, a more sophisticated definition might emphasize that contemporary globalization is a complex, controversial, and synergistic process in which improvements in technology (especially in communications and transportation) combine with the deregulation of markets and open borders to bring about vastly expanded flows of people, money, goods, services, and information. This process integrates people, businesses, nongovernmental organizations, and nations into larger networks. Globalization promotes convergence, harmonization, efficiency, growth, and, perhaps, democratization and homogenization.

Globalization also has a dark side. It produces economic and social dislocations and arouses public concerns over job security; the distribution of economic gains; and the impact of volatility on families, communities, and nations. Many also worry about a growing concentration of economic power; harm to the environment; danger to public health and safety; the disintegration of indigenous cultures; and the loss of sovereignty, accountability, and transparency in government. These, too, are issues that have been topics of concern to American diplomats and foreign policymakers throughout the twentieth century.

There are two principal drivers to globalization: technological innovation and changing ideas about how to organize and regulate economic activity. Rapidly changing technologies for transportation and communications continue to dissolve the barriers of time, distance, and ignorance that once complicated long-range relationships. In the twentieth century some of the most important technological innovations that changed diplomacy were the jet plane, satellite communications, fiber-optic cables, and the Internet. Ideas also shape globalization, particularly the widespread belief that free trade, private enterprise, and competitive markets promote efficiency and economic growth. Another set of ideas also influences the globalization process: the belief among international lawyers that harmonization of standards, rules, and legal systems is the most appropriate way to resolve business conflicts. The impact of technology and ideas are the building blocks of globalization, and have shaped U.S. power, policy, and diplomatic conduct.

The globalization process has other independent drivers. In the history of the modern world, a rising population in less-developed areas frequently has triggered emigration to areas of economic opportunity, and this in turn has frequently produced a stream of remittances to family members who remained behind. Famine and malnourishment, as well as the need for energy and industrial raw materials to support advanced economies, also affect the globalization process, promoting greater flows of materials, food, and goods, and thus enhancing the interdependence of people and economies. Also, two World Wars, a Cold War, and the Great Depression disrupted in significant ways the ongoing globalization process through much of the twentieth century. Finally, leadership is an important element of all human activity. Had the United States, as the world's leading economic and military power in the twentieth century, not committed its public policy to promoting an open, and nondiscriminatory, international economic system, it is quite possible that the globalization process would have taken a different course—perhaps one that gave priority to regional blocs.

In explaining the emergence of globalization, it is almost trite to observe that the underlying forces of technology and economics have transformed the traditional nation-state system and compressed once-formidable barriers of time and space. But post–Cold War globalization did just that, although the process had roots in the late-nineteenth-century growth of American power. The concept, therefore, requires scholars of foreign relations to leap outside of the normal parameters of the nation-state and political-military affairs and take into account such elements as the flows of goods, services, and money; the increasing international mobility of people (and especially business professionals and skilled workers); the emergence and growth of large corporations that view the world as a single market in which they allocate resources, shift production, and market goods; the expansion of financial, legal, insurance, and information services; and the interconnections of cultures, customs, political processes, and ideas.

Mindful that the concept addresses historical transformations, scholars in political science, economics, linguistics, anthropology, geography, law, art, and film studies help to define the term. Political scientists, economists, and business historians have accurately identified techno-economic globalization as the precursor of other forms of globalization, such as transnational cultural exchanges. That is, the open and expanding market, in a synergistic relationship with technology (including scientific developments), has given rise to concomitant political, institutional, social, intellectual, and diplomatic changes. Economics and technology exert an enduring impact on international relationships, seemingly proceeding on their own separate tracks but not immune from events.

This calls into question the interpretation of economic determinists, for globalization complicates while it also complements Marxism, corporatism, and the like. To be sure, the power of markets associated with money, goods, services, and information facilitates international relationships, but it does so in diverse ways. Wealth is only one of the critical factors propelling the global economy. When viewed from a perspective of globalization, Marxism overemphasizes capitalism's contradictions of overproduction and underconsumption, diverting attention from the impact of economic and business concerns on diplomacy. Corporatists tend to discount the influence of strategic, humanitarian, and idealist considerations in government circles and within the private sector as well, while world systems theorists draw on an international lineup of states rather than global, private-oriented networks.

Traditional approaches to diplomatic history, including post-revisionism, also ignore the globalization construct in that they relegate economics and technology to a second tier in their levels of analysis. Globalization requires attention to nongovernmental actors, including religious and philanthropic organizations, consumer and environmental groups, workers, and unions, along with those active in business and finance. By including these groups, globalization lends an appreciation to the variety of concerns in U.S. foreign relations, from national security to advancing national ideals to humanitarian concerns.

Globalization is also not event or crisis driven, which are common foci for diplomatic historians. Instead, it explores the factors that are significant to diplomacy in the long run. For instance, the dispute between Guatemala and the United Fruit Company that led to the ouster of the government of Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán in 1954 is considered a crisis point in Cold War diplomacy. But just as important is discussion of the efforts of Carl Lindner, owner of United Fruit's successor, Chiquita Brands. He opened Western European markets to exports of Central American bananas by using the power of the purse to reward American politicians of both parties, thus placing his agenda at the cutting edge of U.S. trade diplomacy toward the European Common Market. Diplomatic history can account for such actions, which are often hidden by more traditional approaches, by placing the Guatemala episode and other flash points in the context of the globalized expansion of business and culture.

With its application to the many strands of the historiography of U.S. foreign relations, it is clear that globalization promotes new ways of explaining American diplomacy. And because globalization is a historical phenomenon, scholars and commentators can draw on it as an interpretive device to examine change and continuity across the world at various times. Technology and economics have long colluded with each other, beginning at least with the Industrial Revolution. Yet conquests, trade, slavery, and religious expansion, across the world as it was then known, have occurred farther back than that. The spread of Islam, the Crusades, the Roman Empire, and continuous agricultural revolution all represented the inexorable push of the market and technology that lay at the foundation of globalization. Economic globalization undergirded strife, growth, and interchange within and beyond local boundaries throughout history, but the globalizing economy, through the penetrating impact of technology, has also changed culture and politics. Globalization is of a synthetic quality in that it addresses the factors that comprise American diplomatic history; it helps group priorities in foreign relations and explain them in a coherent way.

First Era of Modern Globalization: to 1914

The current brand of globalization in American diplomacy can be traced back to the post–Civil War era, when internationalization and Americanization emerged in U.S. ideology and expressions of power. From this period to World War I, globalization came under the rubric of Anglo-American control of the transatlantic economy. From about 1850 to 1914 an international economy existed, managed by Great Britain, resting on free trade and open capital markets and reliant on colonies and developing areas as resource bases and on consumers in advanced nations. It was in the midst of this first international industrial economy that the United States rode to world power on the strength of its economic muscle and competed with Europeans, spurred on by production and technological inventions.

This period did not experience the revolutionary form of globalization that characterized the post–Cold War years, with their highly synchronized and integrated worldwide communications, transportation, and politics. In the earlier era, less production was attributed to foreign operations. Those affected by globalization were mostly of the elite, rather than the masses, in the early twentieth century. In the pre–World War I period, it was clear which nation controlled production, marketing, culture, and the like, while the multitrillion-dollar world market of the 1990s and beyond had no natural owners. The velocity of globalization in the pre-1914 years was immensely slower than at the end of twentieth century, as were the volume and the scope. The years before World War I did not witness the fundamental transformation in the global economy that started in the last century's final two decades.

Evident in the earlier era, however, were improvements in technology and a greater volume of world economic connections that indicated the influence of globalization on American power, diplomacy, and the economy. However, remarkable changes wrought by new business networks were not fully understood by diplomats back then. Some policymakers noted the importance of new technology and economic relationships; the presidents of these times, for instance, became more aware of global economic concerns. That was particularly true of William McKinley, known for the protectionist tariff with his name but actually a far-sighted globalizer. But they could not possibly foresee all of their applications. Movement toward globalization occurred, nascent and incomplete and interrupted by events of the twentieth century though it was. Thus, it is fair to argue that globalization offered, and offers, a new paradigm in which to view not only diplomatic history, but world history as a whole.

By the twentieth century, the United States had begun to replace Britain's colonial and trans-Atlantic systems of free trade and governmentrun transportation and communication networks. The new form of organization was a structured but open economic system of private enterprise and business-friendly public support for access to foreign markets, inventions, immigration, and adherence to international law. Private enterprise could export and produce abroad, the fruits of America's leadership in technology and intellectual property. People and ideas could move easily, facilitating the outward diffusion of America's political ideals and cultural values. America practiced an informal imperialism—in which investment and trade accompanied missionaries and, on occasion, the military—that gradually superseded British industrial and agricultural power.

The early era of globalization, before World War I, was greased by the technological leaps of transportation improvements like the steamship, and by marvels like the Suez and Panama Canals, which sped European and American commerce around the globe. Transatlantic cables, then direct telegraph links to Latin America and connections through British cable to Asia, allowed American investors and merchants to communicate faster abroad, thus expanding their markets. The great expositions of the age—in Chicago in 1893, Omaha in 1898, Buffalo in 1901, and St. Louis in 1904, as well as later gatherings in West Coast cities—publicized American achievements and the promise of empire based on progress in technology. Global connections shrunk the world itself.

Globalization was also driven by the emergence of America in the international economy. Capital exports, the plethora of inventions with American trademarks that were sold overseas, and a greater presence in financial markets boosted U.S. power. For instance, one of the most successful exporters was a capital goods firm, the Baldwin Locomotive Works of Philadelphia, whose engines came to symbolize power, speed, and the march of civilization. In 1900 Baldwin exported an average of one engine a day, shipping locomotives to South America, Africa, Asia, Australia and Europe. Exports soared after its engines gained recognition for their speed and for hauling weight up steep grades. At the turn of the twentieth century, Baldwin locomotives climbed Pikes Peak, hauled the Trans-Siberian Express, roamed the Argentine pampas, and whistled past the Egyptian pyramids. In the British Empire, American firms won contracts for building railroad bridges in Uganda and supplying rails for the construction of Cecil Rhodes's Cape to Cairo Railway, a project intended to develop British trade in Africa. Elsewhere, in the world's breadbaskets, Argentine, Australian, and Russian farmers used U.S. machinery to gather grain. Here were the companies that engaged in the international economy, as well as the privately run globalized market that was outside the realm of states.

Such economic connections promoted cultural ones as well. Thus, early signs of globalization in cultural exchanges were evident in sports (the Olympic Games), marriage, tourism, entertainment (Buffalo Bill's Wild West Show), the temperance movement, missionary work, and philanthropy. Regarding the latter, American-led internationalization in the years before World War I involved magnates like Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller, who turned to global philanthropy to counteract the label of "robber baron" and to advance their social concerns. Carnegie bequeathed millions to build public libraries in the United States and throughout the British dominions. For his part, Rockefeller established a huge foundation with a global mission to promote the well-being of mankind throughout the world. The oil baron personally contributed some $530 million to foundations and his son added another $537 million, which went for medical and scientific research, public health, education, and international exchange programs. The Foundation combated yellow fever and tropical African diseases. In China it established Peking Union Medical College to spread knowledge of medicine and sanitation, conduct research, and support the medical activities of Western missionaries. In addition, Carnegie's associate Henry Phipps in 1908 donated enough money so that Washington, D.C., could host the sixth International Congress on Tuberculosis, a disease that had killed thousands across the world. His contemporary, Darius Ogden Mills, funded an expedition to Chile in 1912 that measured over three hundred of the brightest stars in one-quarter of the sky surrounding the South Pole.

Besides the globalization of science and medicine, the fortunes of Americans were also spent on human rights causes. Jacob Schiff, the famous head of the banking firm Kuhn, Loeb and Company, turned his attention in 1906 to funding the American Jewish Committee, an organization dedicated to alleviating the persecution of Jewry at home and abroad. A host of banking, mining, and export firms, moreover, poured money into relief projects before World War I. For example, the New York Merchants Association raised $8,000 to help the victims of the Valparaiso earthquake of 1906, Guggenheim Sons, W. R. Grace and Company, and others more than matched this amount. In sum, the rich in America transferred some of their wealth to the international stage, in the process moving outside the realm of nations to influence the world economy. This is the essence of globalization.

Disrupted Globalization: 1914–1939

The period from the end of World War I to 1950 also experienced some elements of globalization as new technology joined expansion in finance, trade, investment, and culture throughout the world. Yet in a major sense this was an era of deglobalization: first, the international economic system malfunctioned or broke down; then, during the Cold War, the world divided along ideological fissures.

World War I accelerated the expansion of U.S. business overseas. American firms were especially successful in replacing dominant British firms in Western Hemisphere and Asian markets. In addition, war requirements created a soaring U.S. demand for raw materials, especially copper, iron, and other key mineral products. Soon American firms, with the help of their government, began scouring the world for essential raw materials. Rubber companies acquired plantations in Sumatra, sugar producers expanded operations in Cuba, and meat packers enlarged their operations in South America. Paper companies opened pulp and papers mills in Canada, while mining companies purchased nitrate, iron, and copper mines in Chile. Oil companies explored China, the Dutch Indies, and other remote regions and invested heavily in unstable Mexico. War needs drove much of this overseas expansion, but American business leaders were not oblivious to long-term opportunities.

President Woodrow Wilson left an enduring mark on U.S. foreign relations, especially in providing American leadership for the postwar economic and financial system. But if he was the father of internationalism, then he also presided over the disruption of globalization. The defeat of the Treaty of Versailles demonstrated the variations in thinking about globalization. Prevailing sentiment was not prepared to abandon nationalism even as the expansive course of global commerce and investment and America's role in the world maintained their momentum. Americans would not fully adopt Wilsonian ideals until after the Cold War. In addition, globalization took a backseat to revolution. Mexico's new constitution under the Carranza government of Venustiano Carranza provided for restrictions on foreign ownership of land and subsoil resources. This meant that American investors would be limited to oil reserves; at the broader level, the clash was between nationalism and international legalism, with the former winning out. In Russia, the Bolshevik government survived a shaky start, including a civil war in which Americans participated, to create a decidedly anti-capitalist regime. At first the Soviet Union promoted globalization of the masses but not capital, lashing out at the imperialist nature of capitalist globalization. Moscow then retreated to building a socialist state under Communist Party control at home. Thus, the world started to split ideologically and politically even as Wilson's vision reached its expressive high point.

Yet many bankers and administration officials still sought outward, long-term solutions to promote peace and prosperity. Because Europe had bought three-fifths of American exports before the war, freer trade was a national interest after World War I. More generally, policymakers embraced internationalism. Understanding that the Great War had caused an explosion in U.S. exports and imports, that suffering farmers could be aided by overseas expansion, and that America held a key role in global finance, Republican administrations of the 1920s did not separate the international from the domestic. They pushed for globalism, albeit a less political brand than Wilson's. Global disarmament indicated one side of Republican engagement in the world. This effort energized citizens, diplomats, and businessmen into even more cooperative, internationalist endeavors during this era than before the war.

Cultural internationalism grew stronger as nations created numerous associations designed to facilitate global ties. An International Office of Museums, and International Congress on Popular Arts, and an International Society for Contemporary Music fostered linkages and understanding. In the United States, political scientists began studying the causes of war and universities offered new courses in various national histories and languages, all a reflection of the need to understand the global context in which America operated. Americans organized hundreds of scholarly discussion groups, such as the Institute of Pacific Relations, a multinational association of journalists, academics, and businessmen based in New York City. The new Guggenheim Foundation funded artistic projects and scholarly research, focusing on Latin American intellectuals. The Institute of International Education funded and directed foreign students to universities throughout the United States. Asians were the main beneficiaries, but increasingly, Latin American and European youth traveled to America to study. In this globalized ethos, Americans believed in peace and prosperity wrought by international contact. The influence of such private activity on foreign policy was extensive, demonstrating that globalization continued to some degree. Disarmament was one arena, regional stabilization and multilateralism another, and arbitration yet another.

Business made global connections in the 1920s. Air transport and travel became a reality under the machinations of Pan American World Airways under the leadership of Juan Trippe. American trade and investment multiplied. Along with the spread of radio, cinema was not only an American phenomenon but a global one as well; people around the world listened and watched the new media and thus developed some common cultural markers. Hollywood stars such as Douglas Fairbanks and Mary Pickford were known worldwide, for example.

Nonetheless, the onset of the Great Depression and World War II dealt a setback to further globalization. The globalizers of the 1920s—the Republican presidents and bureaucrats, the business and banking establishments—were ultimately limited by their own ideology and by the powerful concentration of forces that elevated the domestic economy over the international order. The effort at privatizing decisions and policy ultimately grounded itself on the Smoot-Hawley Tariff and imperial trade preferences of the 1930s, which reserved British Empire markets for member states and excluded or discriminated against outsiders such as America. And politics could not be taken out of the economy; businessmen could not be trusted with, nor were they capable of, running the global system of trade and finance. The Republican governments promoted the ideology of technoglobalization but often refused to take responsibility through policies of running the world economy. They were unwilling to make the tough moves that involved political haggling at home—on matters like reducing war debts and tariffs, for instance—that were requisites to continuing their brand of internationalism. This proved especially so when economic times spiraled from prosperity to misfortune during the Great Depression.

Paradoxically, however, as governments turned away from efforts to harmonize and integrate the international economy to cope with domestic distresses, advances in technology continued to erode the barriers of time, distance, and ignorance that separated nations and people. Some of the most significant improvements in air travel and mass communications, particularly the movies and short-wave radio, took place during the 1930s. At a time when dire economic circumstances compelled most government leaders to think local, a few leaders in government and business dared to speak up for closer international economic cooperation. Thus, Thomas J. Watson, Jr., the head of International Business Machines (IBM) and the International Chamber of Commerce, mimicked Secretary of State Cordell Hull in proclaiming that freer international economic relations meant world peace, and that if goods did not cross borders, he feared that armies would.

A World Divided: 1940–1950

World War II further threatened Anglo-American-style globalization. The Axis powers—a loose coalition of Germany, Italy, and Japan—resorted to military force to overthrow the post-Versailles world order and to establish closed, regional systems dominated from Berlin, Rome, and Tokyo. The conflict afforded the United States a second chance to provide leadership and to promote its vision of a peaceful, prosperous, and united world. The Roosevelt administration pressed plans for international rules and institutions that would structure the post–World War II global economic and political system. In joining technology with national security, the war forged an enduring partnership among business, government, and science. Afterward, the new military-industrial complex would sustain America as an economic and military superpower, develop endless frontiers for scientific discovery, and speed the globalization process.

In effect, scientists and their laboratories, with government funding and direction, contributed in a major way to the success of the war effort, and in the process they developed many new products that had commercial applications which would transform the postwar world. Atomic energy, for instance, had many peaceful applications, particularly as a source of electrical power. The mass production of penicillin transformed the treatment of disease. Also, radar provided the basis for microwave cooking. The first computers appeared during World War II to assist the military with code breaking and long-distance ballistics calculations. ENIAC, one of the first, was a huge machine, occupying 1,800 square feet and using 18,000 bulky vacuum tubes. Not until the development of transistors and the microchips that resulted from them could cheap and reliable computing power be loaded into desktop and portable units. The transistor, which was developed in 1947 and 1948, grew out of wartime research on silicon and germanium at Bell Telephone Laboratories in New Jersey. The transistor led directly to the technology of the personal computer, which itself spawned the globalized information age in the last third of the twentieth century.

No industry benefited more from wartime cooperation and federal contracts than aviation. At the outbreak of war the Boeing Company of Seattle, renowned for its seaplanes and engineering skills, had fewer than two thousand employees and was on the verge of bankruptcy. From this inauspicious beginning the company flourished on the strength of its bombers (the B-17 Flying Fortress and the B-29 Superfortress). Employment rose to nearly forty-five thousand. At the end of the war Boeing, on the strength of its experience and reputation in military aircraft production, turned its attention to the civilian market, using the B-29 as the basis of the luxurious 377 Stratocruiser that Pan American used on Atlantic routes. It contained a spiral staircase and a downstairs bar, but was soon superseded by the four-engine 707 passenger jet, launched in 1954. The latter also had roots in military work to develop a jet tanker and from wind tunnel experiments with jet engines during World War II. Thus, with government assistance, American companies like Boeing, Douglas, and Lockheed would come to dominate the rapidly expanding world market for civilian aviation.

Growth was also in order for consumer goods, which were also foundations for later globalization. Robert W. Woodruff, who had taken over the Coca-Cola Company in 1923, aimed to make his beverage an ordinary, everyday item for Americans and people around the world. He built on his foreign operations, particularly in Europe, during World War II by having Coke accompany the military overseas. Soldiers not only identified with Woodruff's product during and after the war but heroes requested it—as did an American pilot who crashed in Scotland and asked, upon regaining consciousness, for a Coke. The beverage was so pervasive that the Nazis and Japanese denounced it as a disease of American society. By war's end the company ran sixty-three bottling plants across the globe, on every continent. Its net profits in 1948 soared to $35.6 million, elevating it to near-universal acceptance as the world's beverage of choice.

The Cold War dashed the hopes of internationalists who would have facilitated the globalization of the world economy, but still strides were made toward the technoglobal system, induced particularly by governments working through the United Nations. In these instances, officials instilled international law and arbitration processes in the international economy, yet another foundation of globalization. For instance, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) pushed for global rules to govern the dynamic medium of air transport and travel. The objective was to establish international law, as well as promote order, safety, and efficient development in aviation, although ICAO authority remained limited by national desires to control lucrative commercial air traffic. The ICAO, established on a permanent basis in April 1947, provided the framework for the vast expansion of commercial airspace after World War II. By the late 1960s its 116 member nations connected markets around the world more closely by integrating various technical aspects of airplane transport, such as air navigation codes, as well as by devising a mechanism to resolve civil disputes, promote simpler procedures at borders, and boost Third World development in civil aviation—all enhancing globalization through air transport.

The protracted Cold War struggle that divided the world into two spheres of influence—one led from Washington, the other from Moscow—prompted national security considerations, rather than invisible market forces, to define international relationships. Governments continued to regulate trade and financial exchanges, despite efforts to lower barriers and promote commerce. But America's technological advantage, adaptable production processes, and access to resources, so decisive in the struggle against Axis aggressors, helped win the conflict. Also, a new generation of U.S. political and corporate leaders, familiar with mistakes made at the end of World War I when the United States shunned overseas responsibilities, chose to accept this second opportunity to guide the world. Furthermore, as it turned out, these internationalists were also better salesmen than Soviet leader Joseph Stalin and his heirs, who presided over a decrepit, controlled Soviet economy unable to satisfy basic consumer wants. Aware that a troubled world had an insatiable appetite for American values, goods, and services, U.S. leaders exploited their comparative advantage in communications and marketing to advance the American dream of democracy, mass consumption, and individual enterprise. In the long Cold War, the formula of guns, butter, and liberal ideals eventually proved a winner that spread American values on a global basis. Without America's Marshall Plan, support for Japan, and containment of the Soviet Union, the history of the Cold War might have turned out quite differently, and likewise for the course of globalization. Had the USSR won the Cold War, Soviet-directed expansion would have been far different—far more capricious, authoritarian, and state-managed—than the American-led alternative based on the rule of law, democratic elections, open markets, and the relentless energy of technology and entrepreneurship. Thus, the era of globalization that began near century's end evolved, ironically, from the deglobalized structure of the Cold War.

Globalization Undercurrents: 1951–1972

The indicators of globalization were present throughout the superpower struggle. Prosperity and peace brought greater individual mobility. Before World War I an average of 1.5 million people arrived annually at U.S. shores, with about half that many departing. Travel lagged until after World War II and then revived. Two million people arrived in 1956, 10 million in 1970. Immigration, which fell to a low of 24,000 in 1943 and stagnated during the Depression and World War II, revived slowly after the war, reaching 327,000 in 1957. The largest numbers of immigrants—many of them war refugees—continued to come from Europe, and at this time particularly from Germany. Air travel also took off. Before the 1940s the typical traveler from abroad came by sea; after World War II the traveler arrived by air. On domestic routes the number of revenue passengers rose rapidly from 6.6 million passengers in 1945 to 48.7 million in 1957 and 153.4 million in 1970. On international routes the rise was equally dramatic: from 476,000 in 1945 to 4.5 million in 1957 and 16.3 million in 1970.

Despite Cold War crises and the further regionalization of the world economy, highlighted by the launching of the European Common Market in 1957 (which lured massive American investment), a revolution in critical technologies—including transatlantic telephone service, satellite communications, computers, and jet travel—accelerated the globalization process and ushered in a new era of rapid intercontinental travel, instantaneous communications, and economic interdependence. America's humbling experience in Vietnam, dollar woes, and the rise of oil exporting nations in the 1970s did not dampen globalization. Americans still enjoyed the benefits of unprecedented prosperity spurred by technology and economic expansion overseas. They bought new homes equipped with the latest labor-saving appliances, vacationed and studied abroad, and followed breaking news and sporting events abroad on new color television sets receiving signals transmitted via space satellites. Despite domestic political turmoil, technoglobalization continued to press forward, gradually transforming the world of separate nations.

Marshall McLuhan, a Canadian who analyzed the impact of mass media on society, made the metaphor of the "global village" famous in 1962 as a reference to the new electronic interdependence that had recreated the world. At the time, McLuhan was concerned largely with how noninteractive communications like radio and television were homogenizing the world: everyone watched the same sporting events, news, and soap operas. He identified a significant trend. The late 1950s was a period of enormous change as technical developments in aviation, transportation, and communications brought cost reductions and improved service. People, goods, and capital began to move across borders, creating interactive bonds among people and between nations. These flows integrated markets, harmonized tastes, and homogenized cultures.

Some of the most significant advances involved air transportation for people and freight. In 1957, Boeing, having gambled 25 percent of its net worth on development of a long-range passenger jet, launched the 707-120, designed as both a tanker for the air force and a civilian jet. Equipped with long-range Pratt and Whitney J-57 engines, it halved flying time across the Atlantic and opened the era of cheap air travel. The number of passengers departing internationally on scheduled airliners rose 340 percent (from 4.3 million to 18.9 million) from 1957 to 1973 as airlines introduced tourist-class fares. A round-trip flight, New York to London, fell to $487. The arrival of the wide-bodied Boeing 747 in 1969 further expanded capacity and drove down costs. Originally designed as a cargo carrier, it could accommodate two containers side by side that could be transferred to trucks; soon, high-value goods were moving swiftly by jet freighter. It also offered lower operating costs at a time when fuel prices were rising.

Thus, by the early 1970s improvements in air transport made it possible for business to source suppliers and serve markets globally. From 1957 to 1973 the number of revenue ton miles for air cargo on scheduled international flights rose 866 percent from 128.2 billion tons in 1957 to 1.2 trillion ton in 1973. It would be a decade before the full impact of these improvements worked their way through the marketplace. Air service continued to expand rapidly and airfares fell. Charter service grew rapidly on the transatlantic route and fares on scheduled airliners fell below $200 (New York to London) by 1970. Millions of college students read Arthur Frommer's best-seller, Europe on $5 a Day (first published in 1957), put on their backpacks, and set out to see Europe and learn about "foreign affairs." Meanwhile, improved engine design and weight reduction led to longer-range planes. In 1976 Boeing launched the 747 SP, which had the capacity to carry 233 passengers nonstop with full payload between New York and Tokyo. By 1989 Boeing was producing the 747-400; it could carry 412 passengers for up to twenty hours at subsonic speeds.

Along with the arrival of reliable, efficient jet freight in the late 1960s, other important cost-saving developments occurred in maritime shipping, including containerization. In the 1950s longshoremen could typically handle from ten to fifteen tons of cargo per hour. The use of truck-trailer, standard-size containers, brought productivity up to from six hundred to seven hundred tons per hour. This meant faster ship turnaround, better coordination, and lower transportation costs. Beginning in April 1956, when the trucking executive Malcolm McLean first moved loaded trailers between two U.S. port cities on an old World War II tanker, containerization took off. Grace and Matson lines adopted it in 1960 and the rush to containerization peaked in 1969, during the Vietnam War. In addition, the international shipping industry developed specially designed ships for automobiles (the first auto carriers could handle from one thousand to two thousand cars) and LNG (liquified natural gas) tankers after the 1973 war in the Middle East..

Improvements in communications also boosted the globalization process. Until the mid-1950s individuals could not communicate quickly and easily across the Atlantic and the Pacific Oceans. In 1927 commercial telephone service using high-frequency radio opened between New York and London. But this interactive advance was not designed for mass communications. Radio telephones were noisy, unreliable, and costly—forty-five dollars for the first three minutes. September 1956 brought the most significant improvement in communications in over a century when American Telephone and Telegraph opened the first transatlantic telephone cable (TAT-1) by using microwave amplification techniques. The number of transatlantic telephone calls soared—climbing slowly from 10,000 in 1927 to 250,000 in 1957, and then jumping to 4.3 million in 1961. Soon large corporations such as Ford began using the telephone cable to exchange information and coordinate their over-seas operations from their U.S. headquarters. While telephone cables improved business communications among metropolitan centers, large areas of the world could not take advantage of telephone communications. Starting in the 1980s, satellite communications ended this isolation and made the emerging global village truly interactive.

The arrival of jet planes and transoceanic telephones facilitated business expansion, but so did American scientific leadership. World War II and the early Cold War saw many technological advances, and U.S. firms moved quickly to commercialize products from military research. Between 1945 and 1965 the number of patents granted in America more than doubled, rising from 25,695 to 62,857. Five times as many patents went to U.S. firms as to foreign corporations. As late as 1967 the United States accounted for 69 percent of research and development in major countries. A good illustration was the transformation of IBM, which took its domination into the global marketplace.

The Cold War generated momentum for globalization in other ways, too. National Science Foundation, National Space and Aeronautics Administration, and Defense Department contracts spurred basic research throughout the 1960s, and space research particularly spun off growth in intelligence gathering, electronics and engineering, and weaponry. Laboratories hired thousands of corporate engineers to work on missile and aerospace projects, and clusters of companies and laboratories sprouted up near major academic institutions. The space program's budget steadily increased to $1.2 billion by 1962, and steps were taken to orbit a man around the earth (via the Mercury Project from 1959 to 1962), and eventually to send him to the moon (through the Apollo Project in 1969). These were the precursors to the space shuttle and satellite communications of the 1980s and beyond, which fueled the globalization of information.

Decentralization Accelerates: 1973–1989

From the mid-1970s onward the process of world political and economic decentralization, so essential to globalization, picked up momentum. The technological transformations allowed American and other multinational firms to escape national regulations, and also helped free ordinary people from the boundaries of the nation-state. In addition, the rise of the OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries) oil cartel shifted global economic power away from the West. Free exchange rates, unfixed from the gold-dollar standard, gave great flexibility to international investors. American businesses would weather the energy crises and the final phase of the Cold War in different ways. With U.S. tariff barriers continuing to fall and foreign competition surging into the American market, high-cost domestic industries such as steel, autos, and machine tools lost market share to new entrants from abroad. But many bigand medium-sized firms did well in a changing, competitive environment. Firms with leading-edge technologies took advantage of market-opening opportunities to expand abroad. In the era of jet travel and networked business communications, the battle for market share was increasingly fought on a global playing field, involving all of the world's major high-income markets—Japan, Europe, and North America. Companies and nations converged as global markets for standardized consumer products appeared; transnational companies now sold the same reliable, low-priced goods in Brazil as they did in Biafra.

Even as the economic changes occurred, however, and despite the re-ignition of Cold War tensions during the late Carter and early Reagan administrations, ideological shifts occurred that reflected the emerging age of globalization. One was a new international outlook encouraged by better communications, transportation, open borders, deregulation, and the revival of nineteenth-century, laissez-faire liberalism. Business leaders began to think globally and to develop global networks that could exert influence over national political leaders through money and ideas. During the energy crisis of 1973, America's corporate elite reached out to foreign business leaders. Led by Chase Manhattan's David Rockefeller, they formed the multinational Trilateral Commission in 1973, with members from business, politics, law, and academia in America, Western Europe, and Japan. The idea was to facilitate cooperation among resource-rich nations, but outside of government supervision. Similarly, European business leaders began to meet in Davos, Switzerland, in 1982 to develop a common international strategy for European business. This network expanded in the 1980s to include world business and political leaders. In those years it launched the annual World Economic Forum, held every January and bringing together the world's movers and shakers to network, deal, and discuss public policy issues. Similarly in America during the Carter and Reagan years, business lobbying expanded from initial efforts to contain unions to the pursuit of an active agenda of deregulating markets, cutting taxes, and promoting free trade.

The deregulatory business agenda reflected another important paradigm shift that encouraged globalization. The Washington consensus had stressed an active and expansive role for the federal government, but in the 1970s economic thought turned toward a less-regulated marketplace. Under the influence of academic economists Murray Weidenbaum and Milton Friedman, a neoclassical attack on Keynesian interventionism was launched during the Reagan years. It emphasized entrepreneurship, reliance on the Federal Reserve System and monetary policy to manage the economy, tax relief, labor-market competition, deregulation, fluctuating exchange rates, and free trade in goods. In time, this consensus came to include free trade in money, or capital account convertibility.

President Ronald Reagan can be credited with fostering the second era of techno-economic globalization by expounding on the possibilities for freedom, political and economic, under U.S. leadership. He was the first president to push openly for free trade and privatization of government services, and one of the first to appreciate how new technologies of communication were transforming the marketplace and weakening the authority of totalitarian regimes. As he left office the technoglobal revolution was accelerating, bringing major changes to economics and politics, and to culture and society as well. His successors wrestled with the implications of globalization at home and abroad. They initiated new integrative bodies that restructured the global economy, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the World Trade Organization (WTO), institutions that emphasized a rules-based economic system and liberalization of international commerce and that further integrated business processes worldwide. The freer exchanges of goods, capital, and culture inherent in globalization arose from the Cold War's ashes and took America into a new era in which transnational contacts rivaled state power.

American-Led Globalization: 1990–2001

The Clinton administration perceived that globalization had the potential to harmonize behavior, customs, and politics and usher in prosperity, development, and democracy. As the world's only superpower, the United States would lead the way toward openness, free access, and political stability. Also, President William Jefferson Clinton's enthusiasm for globalization was not shared by all Americans; many wondered if globalization was both inevitable and desirable. As the new millennium began, the business community seemed united in support of globalization, but among ordinary people there were concerns about jobs, food safety, harm to the environment, sovereignty, cultural homogenization, and the like. Americans were as unsure about the costs and benefits of this second era of globalization as they had been during the first one before World War I.

The Clinton administration veered from postwar history and adopted the universalist, integrative, and democratic posture of globalization. Economics replaced security on the U.S. policy agenda; globalization was the focus. The administration tied free markets to democracy. After the Mexican peso crisis of 1994, the president placed economic diplomacy at the center of foreign policy, supporting the consolidation of market democracy throughout the world, an ideology that put him in stride with global business but at odds with many in his own party who were tied to the traditional big government, workerprotection liberalism of the past.

The outpouring of analyses of globalization grew during the mid-1990s. Scholars, journalists, and politicians focused on the concept and process, but above all, on its influence. The widespread use of the Internet (304 million people in 2000) brought the issue into homes throughout the world. When added to the Clinton administration's oftentimes single-minded purpose of expanding American trade and investments over-seas, the establishment of NAFTA and the WTO, and the soaring rebound of the U.S. economy from a recession early in the 1990s, globalization had a certain cachet among Americans of all political stripes and economic status.

Americans were not the only ones anxious over globalization. In western Europe and many developing countries, globalization was a dirty word, associated in the public mind with American sneakers, blue jeans, burgers, and videos. The French were most skeptical. In one poll, 65 percent said globalization increased the gap between rich and poor; 56 percent thought it threatened national identity. The French Ministry of Culture sought to rally Europeans and to restrict access for Hollywood films and American television programs.

Around the world, defenders of traditional values sought to block the spread of American-style pop culture, but globalization proved a worthy foe. Iranian religious fundamentalists raided homes to confiscate videos and satellite dishes, and in neighboring Afghanistan the Taliban closed movie theaters, burned films, and denied schooling to women. Try as they might, the fundamentalists could not eradicate this powerfully projected alien culture. Their efforts merely benefited smugglers and the flow of contraband. Many discreetly hid satellite dishes to access Western television. The failure of Islamic fundamentalists to stamp out Western influences, like the inability of state-controlled societies in Eastern Europe to block the appeal of Western democracy and consumerism, demonstrated the power of mass communications in the era of satellites and videocassettes. It also underscored the global appeal of American values to the young, the well-educated, and the affluent, an amorphous yet tangible element of U.S. power in the world.

Yet the argument that globalization led to American cultural dominance ignored the appeal of the competition. At the time anti-globalization demonstrators were protesting in Seattle against the WTO in December 1999, children throughout America were gripped by the Japanese fad game Pokemon. Film industries in India and Hong Kong presented competition to Hollywood, and MTV discovered the need to vary its formula in the world's various regional markets—providing, for example, Chinese music in China and Hindi pop in India. True cultural globalization, not just Americanization, was in effect.

Among the world's cosmopolitan elite—business leaders, government officials, academics, and media types—the requirements of globalization produced a convergence. English became the predominant language of commerce and transnational communications, and business and government leaders wore Western business suits, flew in the same airplanes, stayed in the same hotels, read the same newspapers (the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times), and communicated with cellular phones and e-mail. The acceptance of American-style globalization reflected the success of U.S. business, the need to play by the rules of the world's largest open market, U.S. leadership in technological innovation and the information revolution, and the attraction of America's universal values. It also reflected the victories over fascism, militarism, and communism during the twentieth century that allowed the Anglo-American powers to establish the United Nations system, design the institutions of international economic and financial collaboration, and press for acceptance of common standards and the rule of law that were so crucial to globalization.

The post–Cold War era of economic globalization, however, also represented a synergistic dimension in which changes in technology, business strategy, and government policies combined to produce effects far more profound than the sum of incremental steps. The changes hinged on the integration of capital markets, the growing irrelevance of national borders, and the technological leveraging of knowledge and talent worldwide. As the Internet was empowering ordinary people with information, governance of the global system became more segmented in functional supranational institutions run by specialized elites. The International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, the WTO, and the Bank for International Settlements set the rules and handed out sanctions.

Integration and mobility were keys. Production, capital flows, and workers were increasingly integrated into a global marketplace dictated by transnational corporations. In 1970 there were 7,000 transnational corporations; in 2000 the numbers were some 63,000 parents and 690,000 foreign affiliates as well as a large number of interfirm arrangements. Gross product affiliated with the production of transnationals increased faster than global GDP and global exports. The foreign affiliates of transnational corporations employed six million persons and had foreign sales of $2 trillion. Their reach in every aspect of the world economy—from production to distribution—grew exponentially. In the last half of the twentieth century, international trade accelerated. The world economy grew sixfold in that time, climbing from $6.7 trillion in constant prices to $41.6 trillion in 1998, while global exports of goods rose seventeenfold, from $311 billion to $5.4 trillion. Much of the growth occurred among units of transnational corporations and involved services, which represented one-fifth of total world trade at the end of the century. From 1970 to 2000, the volume of foreign direct investment rose almost fifteenfold; in the latter year it was twice that of 1990. By then, dozens of nations had enacted special laws to attract foreign capital.

Financial globalization, reflecting the integration of equity and bond markets, was another powerful factor driving world economic integration and growth. As in late-nineteenth-century Britain, the upper and middle classes increasingly invested their savings overseas. The assets of U.S.-based international and global mutual funds climbed from $16 billion in 1986 to $321 billion in late 1996. Forty-four million American households held mutual funds, compared to 4.6 million in 1980. Moreover, the velocity of foreign exchange transactions spiraled. In 1973 average daily turnover in foreign exchange markets was $15 billion compared to $60 billion in 1983, $880 billion in 1993; and an estimated $1.5 trillion in 1998. Moreover, in a world of electronically integrated financial markets, money flowed into and out of countries in response to changing market conditions. In 1996 foreign investors put $100 billion into Asia; the next year they withdrew $100 billion.

Technology abetted globalization. World production of technology multiplied six times between 1975 and 1986; international trade in technology soared nine times. Improvements in communications and transportation abetted the process. In 1956, eighty-nine telephone conversations took place simultaneously through the transatlantic telephone cable. By the end of the millennium, about one million conversations occurred simultaneously by satellite and fiber optics. Add in e-mail and faxes and the ease, speed, and volume of communications have been magnified. Between 1955 and 1998, ship tonnage rose sixfold; the unit cost of carrying freight by sea fell 70 percent between 1920 and 1990. The volume of air freight soared from 730 million to 99 billion ton-kilometers. As with shipping, costs fell sharply. Between 1930 and 1990 the average revenue per mile for air transportation dropped from 68 cents to 11 cents (in constant dollars).

Cheaper airfares also enhanced individual mobility. Between 1950 and 1998 international tourist arrivals rose twenty-five-fold—from 25 million to 635 million. By 2000, two million people crossed a border somewhere in the world every single day. Some of them were political refugees; others simply seeking economic opportunities. At the end of the twentieth century, some 150 million people lived outside the country of their birth. This amounted to 2.5 percent of the world's population, or one in every forty people. Many of them remitted earnings to families and relatives in native countries. From 1970 to 1998, the number of immigrants living in America tripled from 9.6 million to 26.3 million. It is estimated that immigrants from Central America remitted $8 billion a year to their home countries during the last years of the twentieth century. Many of the foreign students who entered the United States for graduate education remain, contributing to the brain drain from developing lands but augmenting the supply of highly trained professionals in America. In 1990 one-third of Silicon Valley's scientists and engineers were foreign born.

Many of the less educated who remained in their homelands, moving from countryside to city, have joined the global economy. Labor became part of a global assembly line; transnationals working for the Nike Company and other multinational firms assembled products from components manufactured in factories throughout the world, while management, administration, and research and development were done at the headquarters. Service jobs in law firms, insurance, and data entry focused on electronic production, which meant that jobs flowed in and out of countries at great speed. Globalization had, simply, changed the world and its business, including the projection of national power and diplomacy.

Along with the globalization of brands like Nike, McDonald's, Coca-Cola, and Marlboro, the process also benefited sports teams. Michael Jordan's star qualities, as well as the global reach of satellite television, established a worldwide following for the Chicago Bulls. Soccer's Manchester United and baseball's New York Yankees also appealed to extensive audiences. An influx of eastern European players strengthened the international appeal of the National Hockey League. The National Basketball Association's open-door policy to talent attracted forty-five foreign players from twenty-nine countries, and as a result the NBA broadcast in 210 countries and forty-two languages. Major League Baseball, which began opening its season in foreign locations, inaugurated the 2001 season with 854 players, 25 percent of them born outside the United States. As a result of Ichiro Suzuki's success with the Seattle Mariners, the team's home games were televised live in Japan. Thousands of Japanese baseball fans even flew to Seattle to attend home games of a club owned by Nintendo president Hiroshi Yamauchi.

Along with rapid growth and increasing integration of markets, however, the age of globalization produced greater volatility. The Mexican peso crisis of 1994 and the Asian economic crisis of 1997–1998 underscored the vulnerability of the market-driven globalization system and how quickly strife could spread in a world linked by high-velocity communication, financial, and transportation networks. The Asian economic crisis also showed globalization's impact in the political arena. It aroused concerns about the merits of Western-style, free-market globalization to an extent that street protests, stimulated by the economic downturn, forced Indonesia's dictator of thirty-two years from power while politicians jockeyed for control in Thailand, the Philippines, South Korea, and Malaysia.

Over the preceding decade Wall Street, Washington, and international financial institutions had encouraged emerging economies to deregulate capital markets and open to foreign banks and financial institutions, but countries in Latin America and Asia paid for the deregulatory bonanza. By opening their markets, they made themselves susceptible to pressures from abroad and the international economy, and also lost independence over their fiscal policies. Abrupt changes in one country, region, or the world economy reverberated throughout these poorer nations, causing crises. Yet the bankers and U.S. financial officials blamed the catastrophic consequences on crony capitalism, the lack of transparency and inadequate disclosure of financial data, the absence of independent regulatory authorities, and the inadequacy of accounting standards. They stressed the benefits of liberalization under the process of globalization.

Opposition to the pro-globalization agenda emerged among a disparate alliance of activists concerned about the environment, labor standards, and national sovereignty. In 1992 the first Bush administration had refused to accept the entire Rio de Janeiro Treaty that protected biodiversity of plant and animal species. An argument also erupted over the existence of global warming, which many scientists and environmental groups blamed on the emission of carbon-based gases into the atmosphere. A total of 150 nations, including the United States, signed the Kyoto accord of 1997 that pledged to reduce such global emissions to 5.2 percent below the 1990 level. America would cut its release of carbon-based gases by 7 percent. But President Bill Clinton faced staunch opposition from powerful business interests such as the Business Roundtable, the Chamber of Commerce, and the National Association of Manufacturers who thought the agreement flawed. The Senate voted 95 to 0 to oppose the protocol if developing countries like China and India were not also required to cut their emissions. As a result, the administration never sent the agreement to Capitol Hill for ratification. The debate over global warming continued into the 2000 election when Democratic candidate Al Gore insisted that America join the Kyoto pact nations and GOP candidate George W. Bush countered that additional studies were needed to better understand the problem. It was clear that, just as with the economy, globalization of environmental concerns might require international intervention. Environmental concerns indicated that there was not a consensus on globalization.

Many people, especially in the labor and environmental movements and within academia, shunned this new globalization system, and argued that globalization undermined stability and prosperity and was leading to the disintegration of national economies and cultures. According to this view, workers had become pawns in transnational corporate agendas, the environment had been deregulated by the free-market rules of the WTO, and financial markets had been so decontrolled that the joint efforts of a handful of individuals could destabilize entire nations (as in Indonesia in 1997). The anti-globalization protesters took to the streets to voice their objections. The WTO ministerial meetings convened in Seattle in December 1999 to plan a new set of world trade negotiations called the Millennium Round, but huge demonstrations shut down the meetings. Seattle turned out not to be an isolated event; there were later demonstrations at gatherings sponsored by the United Nations, the IMF and World Bank, and Davo's World Economic Forum.

There were also optimists who saw the free market and meteoric advances in technology as a great boon or as an irreversible phenomenon that could not be halted. They announced that the world had entered a period of unity (unlike the divisive forty-five-year Cold War) that rewarded flexibility, high technology, and individualism.

Public opinion polls showed Americans divided on such issues as globalization and free trade. In general, those in the middle class and below voiced protectionist sentiments or questioned the fairness of NAFTA and the WTO. Among those warning of the perils of globalization were Pope John Paul II, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, and former South African president Nelson Mandela.

As the twenty-first century opened, the globalization revolution continued to roll forward. While the global spread of information, the integration of markets, and the erasure of borders had the potential to promote global peace, prosperity, and the convergence of basic values, there was a dark dimension often ignored by corporate boosters. For one, globalization benefited organized criminals as well as corporations. The turnover of the criminal economy was estimated at about $1 trillion annually. Narcotics accounted for about half, but a trade in people was also lucrative. Gangs moved from four to five million people annually and earned some $7 billion in profits. In the health area, globalization presented a number of challenges. Public health officials worried that increased human mobility enhanced opportunities for microbes. The risks ranged from trade in illegal products and contaminated foodstuffs, divergent safety standards, indiscriminate spread of medical technologies and experimentation, and the sale of prescription drugs without approval of national authorities. With some two million people crossing borders daily, industrialized nations faced threats from emerging infectious diseases, exposure to dangerous substances, and violence such as chemical and bioterrorist attack. Furthermore, the spread of information on the Internet empowered individual terrorists like the Unabomber to exact their own revenge on global society.

Globalization was a phenomenon of the twentieth century, although it was often hidden from view. Its effects on diplomacy were enormous. In the age of instantaneous communication, rapid transport, and volatile markets, it was apparent that complexities of international relationships had moved far beyond the expertise of professional diplomats and foreign ministries. Diplomats and governments no longer served as gatekeepers. In the networked world, individuals, nongovernmental organizations, and officials communicated rapidly and regularly. But while technological innovation and information had networked millions of individuals into a system without central control, it is worth emphasizing that governments helped fund the networking revolution. The U.S. government had supported basic research in high-speed computers, telecommunications, networking, and aviation, all essential to the interconnected world of globalization. Moreover, Washington's commitment to market opening, deregulation, and liberalization of trade and finance provided the policy impetus that led to a variety of international agreements and arrangements promoting an open world order. Thus have diplomacy and techno-economic globalization been linked since the post–Civil War era.

Bibliography

Aaronson, Susan Ariel. Taking Trade to the Streets: The Lost History of Public Efforts to Shape Globalization. Ann Arbor, Mich., 2001.

Adler, William M. Mollie's Job: A Story of Life and Work on the Global Assembly Line. New York, 2000. By one of the growing number of critics from the labor side.

Anderson, Sarah, and John Kavanagh. Field Guide to the Global Economy. New York, 1999.

Barber, Benjamin R. Jihad vs. MacWorld: How Globalism and Tribalism Are Reshaping the World. New York, 1996. A classic account of the cultural debate over globalization.

Bauman, Zygmunt. Globalization: The Human Consequences. New York, 1998. Covers the dark side of globalization.

Beck, Ulrich. What Is Globalization? Cambridge, U.K., and Malden, Mass., 2000.

Boli, John, and George M. Thomas. Constructing World Culture: International Nongovernmental Organizations Since 1875. Stanford, Calif., 1999. Explains one of the institutional elements of globalization.

Center for Strategic and International Studies. Reinventing Diplomacy in the Information Age: A Report of the CSIS Advisory Panel on Diplomacy in the Information Age. Washington, D.C., October 9, 1998. Discusses how globalization has changed diplomacy.

Chandler, Alfred D., Jr., and James W. Cortada, eds. A Nation Transformed by Information: How Information Has Shaped the United States from Colonial Times to the Present. New York, 2000.

Dragsback Schmidt, Johannes, and Jacques Hersh, eds. Globalization and Social Change. London, New York, 2000.

Eckes, Alfred E., Jr., "Backlash Against Globalization?" Global Economic Quarterly 1 (June 2000): 117–122.

Everard, Jerry. Virtual States: The Internet and the Boundaries of the Nation State. London and New York, 2000.

Fraser, Jane, and Jeremy Oppenheim. "What's New About Globalization?" The McKinsey Quarterly 2 (1997): 168–179. Accessible and informative account of the velocity and scope of late-twentieth-century globalization compared to other eras.

Friedman, Thomas. The Lexus and the Olive Tree. New York, 1999. A spritely, optimistic analysis.

Giddens, Anthony. Runaway World: How Globalization Is Reshaping Our Lives. New York, 2000.

Gray, John. False Dawn: The Delusions of Global Capitalism. New York, 1998. A leading British conservative intellectual criticizes globalization.

Greider, William. One World, Ready or Not: The Manic Logic of Global Capitalism. New York, 1997. Anecdotal but in-depth criticism of the business globalization process by a leading progressive.

Held, David, et al. Global Transformations: Politics, Economics, and Culture. Cambridge, 1999.

Holton, Robert J. Globalization and the Nation-State. London, 1998. For the role of the state and politics.

Jameson, Fredrick, and Masao Miyashi, eds. The Cultures of Globalization. Durham, N.C., 1998. Excellent starting point for understanding the cultural aspects.

LaFeber, Walter. Michael Jordan and the New Global Capitalism. New York, 1999. A leading diplomatic history revisionist analyzes globalization through the career of a famous sports star.

Lechner, Frank J., and John Boli, eds. The Globalization Reader. Malden, Mass., 2000. Extensive coverage of all aspects of the phenomenon.

Levitt, Theodore. "The Globalization of Markets." Harvard Business Review 61 (May–June 1983): 1–11. The article in which the term "globalization" was coined.

Luttwak, Edward. Turbo-Capitalism: Winners and Losers in the Global Economy. New York, 1999.

Micklethwait, John, and Adrian Wooldridge. A Future Perfect: The Challenge and the Hidden Promise of Globalization. New York, 2000.

Mittelman, James H. The Globalization Syndrome: Transformation and Resistance. Princeton, N.J., 2000.

Oloka-Onyango, J., and Deepika Udagama. The Realization of Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights: Globalization and Its Impact on the Full Enjoyment of Human Rights. New York, 2000. A useful United Nations–based summary, including globalization's noneconomic impact.

O'Rourke, Kevin H., and Jeffrey G. Williamson. Globalization and History: The Evolution of a Nineteenth-Century Atlantic Economy. Cambridge, Mass., 1999. One of a handful of historical treatments.

Prakash, Aseem, and Jeffrey A. Hart, ed. Responding to Globalization. London, New York, 2000.

Rodrik, Dani. Has Globalization Gone Too Far? Washington, D.C., 1997. Articulate and thought-provoking early warning about the negative effects of globalization.

Rupert, Mark. Ideologies of Globalization: Contending Visions of a New World Order. London and New York, 2000.

Sassen, Saskia. Globalization and Its Discontents: Essays on the New Mobility of People and Money. New York, 1998.

Soros, George. The Open Society: Reforming of Global Capitalism. New York, 2000. Warnings of impending collapse from a giant of global finance capital.

Tomlinson, John. Globalization and Culture. Chicago, 1999. Highly theoretical treatment of the complex interaction of culture in international society.

Wallach, Lori, and Michell Sforza. The WTO: Five Years of Reasons to Resist Corporate Globalization. New York, 2000. Criticism of the globalization phenomenon from Wallach, one of the protest organizers.

Went, Robert. Globalization: Neoliberal Challenge, Radical Responses. London, 2000. Concise but balanced assessment.

Zachary, G. Pascal. The Global Me: New Cosmopolitans and the Competitive Edge—Picking Globalism's Winners and Losers. New York, 2000.

Zeiler, Thomas W., and Alfred E. Eckes, Jr. Globalization and the American Century: A New Historical Paradigm. New York, 2002. First history that addresses the synergistic relationship of globalization and U.S. diplomacy since the late nineteenth century.

— Thomas W. Zeiler

The tendency of investment funds and businesses to move beyond domestic and national markets to other markets around the globe, thereby increasing the interconnectedness of different markets. Globalization has had the effect of markedly increasing not only international trade, but also cultural exchange.

Investopedia Says:
The advantages and disadvantages of globalization have been heavily scrutinized and debated in recent years. Proponents of globalization say that it helps developing nations "catch up" to industrialized nations much faster through increased employment and technological advances. Critics of globalization say that it weakens national sovereignty and allows rich nations to ship domestic jobs overseas where labor is much cheaper.

Related Links:
Everyone's talking about globalization, but what is it and why do some oppose it? What Is International Trade?
Going global may help increase your portfolio return but is the unique risk worth it? Why Invest In International Equity Mutual Funds?
Climate-change deniers and believers alike would be wise to prepare for the worst. Five Investment Risks Created By Global Warming
Predicting how the world will evolve can help you build a portfolio that can roll with the punches. Megatrends For Maximum Profits
If you think an exotic locale may be just the place for you, read on to find out how to make it happen. Get A Finance Job Overseas
Emerging markets provide new investment opportunities, but there are risks - both to residents and foreign investors. What Is An Emerging Market Economy?
The WTO sets the global rules of trade. But what exactly does it do and why do so many oppose it? What Is The World Trade Organization?
Learn what both the supporters and critics have to say about this growing global trend. The Globalization Debate
Get the full story on this asset class before you write it off as too risky. Re-evaluating Emerging Markets
Chances are you've heard of the IMF. But what does it do, and why is it so controversial? An Introduction To The International Monetary Fund (IMF)
Investing abroad poses risks, but can also help you diversify. Discover ways to invest in foreign stocks. Investing Beyond Your Borders

The European Central Bank in Frankfurt, Germany, is the central bank for the Eurozone.

Globalization refers to the increasingly global relationships of culture, people and economic activity. Most often, it refers to economics: the global distribution of the production of goods and services, through reduction of barriers to international trade such as tariffs, export fees, and import quotas. Globalization contributes to economic growth in developed and developing countries through increased specialization and the principle of comparative advantage.^[1][2] The term can also refer to the transnational circulation of ideas, languages, and popular culture.

Critics of globalization allege that globalization's benefits have been overstated and its costs underestimated. Among other points, they argued that it decreased inter-cultural contact while increasing the possibility of international and intra-national conflict. However, the assertions of critics of globalization contradict the research in mainstream international trade theory, that, after controlling for relevant factors, globalization reduces conflict between trading nations. Progressive economist Paul Krugman, who won the Nobel Prize in economics in 2008 for his work done in international trade theory, is a staunch supporter of globalization and free trade and has a record of disagreement, going back to the 1990s, with mainstream progressives, who he thinks lack even basic understanding of what comparative advantage is. ^[3]

Contents 1 Definitions 1.1 Trade, investment, migration and expertise 2 History 2.1 Archaic period 2.2 Islamic and Mongol eras 2.3 Maritime Europe 2.4 Industrialization 2.5 Institutionalization 3 Effects 3.1 Economic 3.1.1 Brain drain 3.1.2 Working conditions 3.1.3 Business process outsourcing 3.1.4 Income equality 3.1.5 Consumption 3.1.6 Financial interdependency 3.1.7 Drug and illicit goods trade 3.2 Political 3.3 Cultural 3.3.1 Music 3.4 Environmental 3.4.1 Ecological 3.4.2 Air 3.4.3 Forests 3.4.4 Minerals 3.4.5 Postmaterialism and Materialism 3.4.6 Effects of population growth on food supplies 3.5 Health 4 Public opinion 4.1 United States 4.2 Other developed countries 4.3 Developing world 5 Alternative interpretations 5.1 Neo-Liberal 5.2 Libertarian 5.2.1 Global Village 5.2.2 World government 5.3 Practical approach 5.4 Common ground 6 Media coverage 7 Opposition 8 See also 9 References 10 Further reading 11 External links 11.1 Multimedia

Definitions

The term was first employed in a publication entitled Towards New Education in 1930, to denote a holistic view of human experience in education.^[4] In the 1960s the term began to be used by economists and other social scientists. The term reached the mainstream press in the later half of the 1980s. Since its inception, the concept of globalization has inspired competing definitions and interpretations, with antecedents dating back to the great movements of trade and empire across Asia and the Indian Ocean from the 15th century onwards.^[5]

Charles Taze Russell coined the related term 'corporate giants' in 1897,^[6] to describe the largely national trusts and other large enterprises of the time.

The United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia defines globalization as:

"a widely-used term that can be defined in a number of different ways. When used in an economic context, it refers to the reduction and removal of barriers between national borders in order to facilitate the flow of goods, capital, services and labour... although considerable barriers remain to the flow of labour... Globalization is not a new phenomenon. It began towards the end of the nineteenth century, but it slowed down during the period from the start of the first World War until the third quarter of the twentieth century. This slowdown can be attributed to the inward-looking policies pursued by a number of countries in order to protect their respective industries... however, the pace of globalization picked up rapidly during the fourth quarter of the twentieth century..."^[7]

HSBC, one of the world's largest banks, operates across the globe.^[8][9] Shown here is the HSBC Global Technology Centre in Pune, India which develops software for the entire HSBC group.^[10]

Tom G. Palmer of the Cato Institute defines globalization as "the diminution or elimination of state-enforced restrictions on exchanges across borders and the increasingly integrated and complex global system of production and exchange that has emerged as a result."^[11]

Thomas L. Friedman popularized the term "flat world", arguing that globalized trade, outsourcing, supply-chaining, and political forces had permanently changed the world, for better and worse. He asserted that the pace of globalization was quickening and that its impact on business organization and practice would continue to grow.^[12]

Takis Fotopoulos defined "economic globalization" as the opening and deregulation of commodity, capital and labour markets which led to the present neoliberal globalization. "Political globalization" named the emergence of a transnational elite and the phasing out of the nation-state. "Cultural globalization" was the worldwide homogenization of culture. Other elements included "ideological globalization", "technological globalization" and "social globalization".^[13]

Trade, investment, migration and expertise

In 2000 the IMF identified four basic aspects of globalization:^[14]

• Trade and transactions: Developing countries increased their share of world trade, from 19 percent in 1971 to 29 percent in 1999. But there is great variation among the major regions. For instance, the newly industrialized economies (NIEs) of Asia prospered, while African countries as a whole performed poorly. The makeup of a country's exports are an important indicator for success. Manufactured goods exports soared, dominated by developed countries and NIEs. Commodity exports, such as food and raw materials were often produced by developing countries: commodities' share of total exports declined over the period.

• Capital and investment movements: Private capital flows to developing countries soared during the 1990s, replacing "aid" or development assistance which fell significantly after the early 1980s. Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) became the most important category. Both portfolio investment and bank credit rose but they have been more volatile, falling sharply in the wake of the financial crisis of the late 1990s.

• Migration and movement of people: In the period between 1965–90, the proportion of the labor forces migrating approximately doubled. Most migration occurred between developing countries and Least Developed Countries (LDCs). The flow of migrants to advanced economic countries was claimed to provide a means through which global wages converge. They noted the potential for skills to be transferred back to developing countries as wages in those a countries rise.

• Dissemination of knowledge (and technology): Information and technology exchange is an integral aspect of globalization. Technological innovations (or technological transfer) benefit most the developing and Least Developing countries (LDCs), as for example the advent of mobile phones.^[15]

History

Main article: History of globalization

Extent of the Silk Road and Spice trade routes blocked by the Ottoman Empire in 1453 spurring exploration

The historical origins of globalization remain subject to debate. Though in common usage it refers to the period beginning in the 1970s, some scholars regard it as having an ancient history that encompasses all international activity.^[16]

Archaic period

Perhaps the most extreme proponent of a deep historical origin for globalization was Andre Gunder Frank, an economist associated with dependency theory. Frank argued that a form of globalization began with the rise of trade links between Sumer and the Indus Valley Civilization in the third millennium B.C.^[17]

This archaic globalization existed during the Hellenistic Age, when commercialized urban centers enveloped the axis of Greek culture that reached from India to Spain, including Alexandria and the other Alexandrine cities. Others pointed to the trade links between the Roman Empire, the Parthian Empire, and the Han Dynasty. The increasing commercial links between these powers took form in the Silk Road, which started in western China, reached the boundaries of the Parthian empire, and continued to Rome.^[18] As many as three hundred Greek ships sailed each year between the Greco-Roman world and India. Annual trade volume may have reached 300,000 tons.^[19]

Islamic and Mongol eras

The Islamic Golden Age showed another stage of globalization, when Jewish and Muslim traders and explorers established trade routes, resulting in a globalization of agriculture, trade, knowledge and technology. Crops such as sugar and cotton became widely cultivated across the Muslim world in this period, while widespread knowledge of Arabic and the Hajj created a cosmopolitan culture.^[20]

Portuguese carrack in Nagasaki, 17th century Japanese Nanban art

Native New World crops exchanged globally: Maize, tomato, potato, vanilla,rubber, cacao, tobacco

The advent of the Mongol Empire, though destabilizing to the commercial centers of the Middle East and China, greatly facilitated travel along the Silk Road. The Pax Mongolica of the thirteenth century included the first international postal service, as well as the rapid transmission of epidemic diseases such as bubonic plague across Central Asia.^[21] Up to the sixteenth century, however, the largest systems of international exchange were limited to Eurasia.^{[citation needed]}

Maritime Europe

The next phase, known as proto-globalization, was characterized by the rise of maritime European empires, in the 16th and 17th centuries, first the Portuguese and Spanish Empires, and later the Dutch and British Empires. In the 17th century, globalization became developed greater when chartered companies like British East India Company (founded in 1600), often described as the first multinational corporation, as well as the Dutch East India Company (founded in 1602) were established.^{[citation needed]}

The Age of Discovery added the New World to the phenomenon.^[22] It began in the late 15th century, when Portugal and Castile sent the first exploratory voyages^[23] around the Horn of Africa and to the Americas, reached in 1492 by Christopher Columbus. Global integration continued with the European colonization of the Americas initiating the Columbian Exchange,^[24] the exchange of plants, animals, foods, human populations (including slaves), communicable diseases, and culture between the Eastern and Western hemispheres. New crops that had come from the Americas via the European seafarers in the 16th century significantly contributed to world population growth.^[25]

Animated map showing Colonial empires evolution from 1492 to present

19th century Great Britain become the first global economic superpower, because of superior manufacturing technology and improved global communications such as steamships and railroads.

Industrialization

In the 19th century globalization approached its modern form. Industrialization allowed cheap production of household items using economies of scale,^{[citation needed]} while rapid population growth created sustained demand. Globalization in this period was decisively shaped by nineteenth-century imperialism. After the First and Second Opium Wars and the completion of England's conquest of India, vast populations became ready consumers of European exports. Parts of sub-Saharan Africa and the Pacific islands were incorporated into the world system. Meanwhile, the conquest of new parts of the globe, notably sub-Saharan Africa, by Europeans yielded valuable natural resources such as rubber, diamonds and coal and helped fuel trade and investment between the European imperial powers, their colonies, and the United States.^[26]

The growth of trade was interrupted by World War I and the Great Depression, resurfacing only after World War II. This resurgence was partly the result of planning by politicians to lower borders that hampered trade. Their work led to the Bretton Woods conference, an agreement by major governments to lay down the framework for international monetary policy, commerce and finance, and the founding of several international institutions intended to facilitate economic growth. This facilitated the global expansion of multinational corporations based mostly in the United States and Europe.

Institutionalization

Institutions including the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (the World Bank), International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Trade Organization (WTO) laid the foundations of the explosive growth of the phenomena in the post-Cold War era.

Multiple rounds of trade opening simplified and lowered trade barriers. Initially, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), led to a series of agreements to remove trade restrictions. GATT's successor was the World Trade Organization (WTO), which created an institution to manage the trading system. Exports nearly doubled from 8.5% of total gross world product in 1970 to 16.2% in 2001.^[27] The approach of using global agreements to advance trade stumbled with the failure of the Doha round.^[28] Many countries then shifted to bilateral or smaller multilateral agreements, such as the 2011 South Korea–United States Free Trade Agreement.

In the 1990s, the growth of low cost communication networks allowed work done using a computer to be performed without regard to location. This included accounting, software development, and engineering design. In late 2000s, much of the industrialized world entered into the so-called Great Recession,^[29] which may have slowed the process, at least temporarily.^{[15][30][31][32]}

Effects

As of 2005–2007, the Port of Shanghai holds the title as the World's busiest port.^[33][34][35]

Economic

International trade in manufactured goods increased more than 100 times (from $95 billion to $12 trillion) between 1955 and 2007.^[36] China's trade with Africa rose sevenfold during 2000–07 alone.^[37][38]

By the early part of the 21st century more than $1.5 trillion in national currencies were traded daily to support the expanded levels of trade and investment.^[39]

Survival in the new global business market required companies to upgrade their products and use technology skilfully in order to survive increased competition.^[40]

Shanghai becomes a symbol of the recent economic boom of China. In 2011, China had 960,000 millionaires.^[41]

According to Jagdish Bhagwati, a former adviser to the U.N. on globalization, although there are obvious problems with overly rapid development, globalization is a very positive force that lifts countries out of poverty. According to him, it causes a virtuous economic cycle associated with faster economic growth.^[1]

The costs and benefits of globalization have not been equally distributed across regions and nations. For example, manufacturing employment in the Midwestern section of the United States declined while growing exponentially in developing countries.^[42]

Brain drain

Opportunities in rich countries attract skilled workers from poor countries, leading to brain drains. For example, nurses from poorer countries come to the US to work.^[43] This phenomenon cost Africa over $4.1 billion for the employment of 150,000 expatriate professionals annually.^[44] The Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry estimates costs to India of $10 billion per year.^[45]

A maquila in Mexico

Working conditions

In some developing countries labor policies provide less protection than in developed countries. One example is the use of sweatshops by manufacturers. Clothing makers such as The Gap and Nike were accused of contracting with factories that used child labor in violation of local and US law.^[46]

In the USA, the National Labor Committee proposed the Decent Working Conditions and Fair Competition Act, which would legally require companies to respect human and worker rights by prohibiting the import, sale, or export of sweatshop goods.^[47] Specifically, these core standards include no child labor, no forced labor, freedom of association, right to organize and bargain collectively, as well as the right to safe working conditions.^[48]

Business process outsourcing

Main article: Business process outsourcing

In rich countries, business process outsourcing has been a double-edged sword; it enabled cheaper services but displaced some service-sector jobs. However, in lower-cost locations such as India, the outsourcing industry is the "primary engine of the country’s development over the next few decades, contributing broadly to GDP growth, employment growth, and poverty alleviation".^[49][50]

Income equality

World Bank figures indicate that the number of people living on less than $1 per day-the international standard for extreme poverty-dropped from 1.25 billion (29%) in 1990 to 986 million in 2004 (18% of the larger total population).^[51]

Critics allege globalization increased income inequality, both between and within nations. On 7 out of 8 metrics, income inequality increased in the twenty years ending 2001. Also, "incomes in the lower deciles of world income distribution have probably fallen absolutely since the 1980s". The article was skeptical of the World Bank's claim that the number of people living on less than $1 a day had held steady at 1.2 billion from 1987 to 1998, because of biased methodology.^[52]

A chart that gave the inequality a very visible and comprehensible form, the so-called 'champagne glass' effect,^[53]

was contained in the 1992 United Nations Development Program Report,

This section is outdated. Please update this section to reflect recent events or newly available information. Please see the talk page for more information. (November 2011)

which showed the distribution of global income to be very uneven, with the richest 20% of the world's population controlling 82.7% of the world's income.^[54]

Distribution of world GDP, 1989

Quintile of Population	Income
Richest 20%	82.7%
Second 20%	11.7%
Third 20%	2.3%
Fourth 20%	2.4%
Poorest 20%	0.2%

Source: United Nations Development Program. 1992 Human Development Report^[55]

In December 2007, World Bank economist Branko Milanovic questioned previous empirical research on global poverty and inequality because improved estimates of purchasing power parity indicated that developing countries were worse off than previously believed. Milanovic remarked, "literally hundreds of scholarly papers on convergence or divergence of countries’ incomes have been published in the last decade based on what we know now were faulty numbers." The new data held considerable implications estimates of global inequality and poverty levels. Earlier inequality was estimated at around 65 Gini points, versus 70 using the new numbers.^[56]

The globalization of the job market had positive and negative consequences in developed countries. White-collar workers (engineers, attorneys, scientists, professors, executives, journalists, consultants) were able to compete successfully in the world market and command high wages. For example, Boeing Corp. is the US' largest exporter. In late 2011 the company closed orders worth more than $50 Billion for US aircraft, justifying the 11,000 additional workers it hired that year.^[57] Conversely, production workers and service workers were unable to compete directly with much lower-cost workers in developing countries.^[58] Low-wage countries gained the low-value-added element of work formerly done in rich countries, while higher-value work remained; for instance, the total number of people employed in manufacturing in the US declined, but value added per worker increased.^[59]

This resulted in growing income inequality in rich countries. This trend seems to be greater in the United States,^{[citation needed]} where it started to rise in the late 1970s, accelerating in the 21st century; it has now reached a level comparable with that found in many developing countries.^[60]

Consumption

Consumer goods exports such as televisions, radios, bicycles, and textiles into the United States, Europe, and Japan fueled the economic expansion of Asian tiger economies.^[61] China exports were worth 157.5 Billion USD in October 2011. In that year exports of goods and services constituted 39.7% of China's GDP.^[62] The increasing U.S. trade deficit with China cost 2.4 million American jobs between 2001 and 2008, according to a study by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI).^[63] From 2000 to 2007, the United States lost a total of 3.2 million manufacturing jobs.^[64] Chinese success cost jobs in developing countries as well as well as the West. As of 26 April 2005 "In regional giant South Africa, some 300,000 textile workers have lost their jobs in the past two years due to the influx of Chinese goods".^[65]

A 2007 report by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP predicted that by 2050 the economies of the E7 emerging economies (the BRIC countries: China, India, Brazil, and Russia, plus Mexico, Indonesia and Turkey) would be around 50% larger than the current G7 (US, Japan, Germany, UK, France, Italy and Canada). The report forecast that China would overtake the US as the largest economy around 2025, followed by India in 2050.^[66] A 2010 report issued by Goldman Sachs predicted that China was about to overtake Japan and could become the world's largest economy by 2020.^[67]

Financial interdependency

The collapse of the subprime mortgage market in the U.S. led to a global financial crisis and recession on a scale not seen since the Great Depression.^[68] According to critics, government deregulation and failed regulation of Wall Street's investment banks were important contributors to the subprime mortgage crisis.^[69][70]

Drug and illicit goods trade

In 2010 the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) reported that the global drug trade generated more than $320 billion a year in revenues.^[71] Worldwide, the UN estimates there are more than 50 million regular users of heroin, cocaine and synthetic drugs.^[72] The international trade of endangered species was second only to drug trafficking among smuggling "industries".^[73] Traditional Chinese medicine often incorporates ingredients from all parts of plants, the leaf, stem, flower, root, and also ingredients from animals and minerals. The use of parts of endangered species (such as seahorses, rhinoceros horns, saiga antelope horns, and tiger bones and claws) resulted in a black market of poachers who hunt restricted animals.^[74][75]

Political

The United Nations Headquarters in New York City.

Globalization reduced the importance of nation states. Sub-state and supra-state institutions such as the European Union, the WTO, the G8 or the International Criminal Court, replace national functions with international agreement.^[76] Some observers attribute the relative decline in US power to globalization, particularly due to the country's high trade deficit. This led to a global power shift towards Asian states, particularly China, that unleashed market forces and achieved tremendous growth rates. As of 2011, China was on track to overtake the United States by 2025.^[77]

Cultural

Mandarin is the first language of 845 million speakers, followed by Spanish (329 million speakers) and English (328 million speakers).^[78] However the most popular second language is undoubtedly English, the "lingua franca" of globalization:

• About 35% of the world's mail, telexes, and cables are in English.
• Approximately 40% of the world's radio programs are in English.
• Some 3.5 billion people have some acquaintance of the language.^[79]
• English is the dominant language on the Internet.^[80]

Globalization has influenced the use of language across the world. This street in Hong Kong, a former British colony, shows various signs, a few of which incorporate both Chinese and British English.

Cultural globalisation has increased cross-cultural contacts but may be accompanied by a decrease in the uniqueness of once-isolated communities: sushi is available in Germany as well as Japan, but Euro-Disney outdraws the city of Paris, potentially reducing demand for "authentic" French pastry.^[81][82][83] Globalisation's contribution to the alienation of individuals from their traditions may be modest compared to the impact of modernity itself, as alleged by existentialists such as Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus.

Globalisation expanded recreational opportunities by spreading pop culture, particularly via the Internet and satellite television.

WHO estimates that up to 500,000 people are in flight at any one time.^{[citation needed][84]} In 2010, international tourism reached $919B, growing 6.5% over 2009.^[85]

The IOM found more than 200 million migrants around the world in 2008,^[86] including illegal immigration.^[87][88] Remittance flows to developing countries reached $328 billion in 2008.^[89]

The construction of continental hotels is a major consequence of globalization process in affiliation with tourism and travel industry, Dariush Grand Hotel, Kish, Iran

Non-governmental organizations influence public policy across national boundaries, including humanitarian aid and developmental efforts.^[90]

Religious movements were among the earliest cultural forces to globalize, spread by force, migration, evangelists, imperialists and traders. Christianity, Islam, Buddhism and more recently sects such as Mormonism have taken root and influenced endemic cultures in places far from their origins.^[91]

Japanese McDonald's fast food as evidence of corporate globalization and the integration of the same into different cultures.

Conversi claimed in 2010 that globalization was predominantly driven by the outward flow of culture and economic activity from the United States and was better understood as Americanization.^[92][93] For example, the two most successful global food/beverage outlets are American companies, McDonald's and Starbucks, are often cited as examples of globalization, with over 32,000^[94] and 18,000 locations operating worldwide, respectively as of 2008.^[95]

Music

The term globalization implies transformation. Cultural practices including traditional music can be lost and/or turned into a fusion of traditions. Globalization can trigger a state of emergency for the preservation of musical heritage. Archivists must attempt to collect, record or transcribe repertoire before melodies are assimilated or modified. Local musicians struggle for authenticity and to preserve local musical traditions. Globalization can lead performers to discard traditional instruments. Fusion genres can become interesting fields of analysis.^[96]

Globalization gave support to the World Music phenomenon by allowing locally-recorded to reach western audiences searching for new ideas and sounds. Western musicians adopted many innovations that originated in remote cultures.^{[citation needed]}

Music flowed outward from the west as well. Anglo-American pop music spread across the world through MTV. Dependency Theory explained that the world was an integrated, international system. Musically, this translated into the loss of local musical identity.^[97]

Bourdieu claimed that the perception of consumption can be seen as self-identification and the formation of identity. Musically, this translates into each being having his/her own musical identity based on likes and tastes. These likes and tastes are greatly influenced by culture as this is the most basic cause for a person’s wants and behavior. The concept of one’s own culture is now in a period of change due to globalization. Also, globalization has increased the interdependency of political, personal, cultural and economic factors.^[98]

Environmental

Environmental challenges such as climate change, cross-boundary water and air pollution and over-fishing of the ocean, require trans-national/global solutions. Since factories in developing countries increased global output and experienced less environmental regulation, globalism substantially increased pollution and impact on water resources.^[99]

State of the World 2006 report said India and China's high economic growth was not sustainable. The report stated:

The world's ecological capacity is simply insufficient to satisfy the ambitions of China, India, Japan, Europe and the United States as well as the aspirations of the rest of the world in a sustainable way^[100] In a 2006 news story, BBC reported, "...if China and India were to consume as much resources per capita as United States or Japan in 2030 together they would require a full planet Earth to meet their needs.^[100] In the longterm these effects can lead to increased conflict over dwindling resources^[101] and in the worst case a Malthusian catastrophe.

Ecological

The advent of global environmental challenges that might be solved with international cooperation include climate change, cross-boundary water and air pollution, over-fishing of the ocean, and the spread of invasive species. Since many factories are built in developing countries with less environmental regulation, globalism and free trade may increase pollution and impact on precious fresh water resources.^[99][102]

International foreign investment in developing countries could lead to a “race to the bottom” as countries lower their environmental and resource protection laws to attract foreign capital.^[103][104] The reverse of this theory is true, however, when developed countries maintain positive environmental practices, imparting them to countries they are investing in and creating a “race to the top” phenomenon.^[103]

At the same time, developing countries like Peru and Ethiopia are working to preserve their unique ecosystems by encouraging economic growth through investments like ecotourism, allowing for the economic gain of locals, an educational experience for visitors, and a low impact way to utilize and preserve their natural resources.^[105]

Air

The distances are shrinking between continents and countries due to globalization, causing developing and developed countries to find ways to solve problems on a global rather than regional scale. Agencies like the United Nations now must be the global regulators of pollution, whereas before, regional governance was enough.^[106] Action has been taken by the United Nations to monitor and reduce atmospheric pollutants through the Kyoto Protocol, the Clean Air Initiative, and studies of air pollution and public policy.^[107]

Global traffic, production, and consumption are causing increased global levels of air pollutants. The northern hemisphere is the leading producer of carbon monoxide and sulfur oxides.^[108]

China and India substantially increased their fossil fuel consumption as their economies switched from subsistence farming to industry and urbanization.^[109][110] Chinese oil consumption grew by 8% yearly between 2002 and 2006, doubling from 1996–2006.^[111] In 2007, China surpassed the United States as the top emitter of CO₂.^[112] Only 1 percent of the country’s 560 million city inhabitants (2007) breathe air deemed safe by the European Union. In this way, developed countries outsource some of the pollution associated with consumption in countries where pollution-intensive industries moved.

Forests

Burning forest in Brazil. The removal of forest to make way for cattle ranching was the leading cause of deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon from the mid 1960s. Soybeans have become one of the most important contributors to deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon.^[113]

A major source of deforestation is the logging industry, driven by China and Japan.^[114]

At present rates, tropical rainforests in Indonesia would be fully harvested in 10 years and Papua New Guinea in 13 to 16 years.^[115]

Societies utilize forest resources in order to reach a sustainable level of economic development. Historically, forests in earlier developing nations experience “forest transitions”, a period of deforestation and reforestation as a surrounding society becomes more developed, industrialized and shift their primary resource extraction to other nations via imports. For nations at the periphery of the globalized system however, there are no others to shift their extraction onto, and forest degradation continues unabated. Forest transitions can have an effect on the hydrology, climate change, and biodiversity of an area by impacting water quality and the accumulation of greenhouse gases through the re-growth of new forest into second and third growth forests.^[116]

Minerals

Without more recycling, zinc could be used up by 2037, both indium and hafnium could run out by 2017, and terbium could be gone before 2012.^[117]

Postmaterialism and Materialism

Societies assign environmental conservation to different levels of importance depending on the stage of development and economic security they have reached. Those societies which have transitioned to “postmaterialist” values, whose citizens have been able to take basic material security for granted, value conservation of natural resources more than a “Materialist” society, which has not had the chance to reach heightened levels of economic stability or reliable levels of material security.^[118] However, the ecological footprint of postmaterial nations is nevertheless currently unsustainable, and only possible due to shifting the burden of environmental degradation onto peripheral nations, which in turn cannot shift the burden on to any other nation, since the planet is finite. The challenge for "postmaterialist" societies is thus to reduce their ecological footprint to sustainable levels. There are no such nations that achieve this as yet (as of 2012), but there are a growing number of localized pilot schemes and social movements within postmaterialist nations that try to achieve some degree of sustainable footprint (e.g. Transition Towns, permaculture, cradle-to-cradle design).

Effects of population growth on food supplies

With human consumption of seafood having doubled in the last 30 years, seriously depleting multiple seafood fisheries and destroying the marine ecosystem as a result, awareness is prompting steps to be taken to create a more sustainable seafood supply.^[119]

The head of the International Food Policy Research Institute, stated in 2008 that the gradual change in diet among newly prosperous populations is the most important factor underpinning the rise in global food prices.^[120] From 1950 to 1984, as the Green Revolution transformed agriculture around the world, grain production increased by over 250%.^[121] World population has grown by about 4 billion since the beginning of the Green Revolution and without it, there would be greater famine and malnutrition than the UN presently documents (approximately 850 million people suffering from chronic malnutrition in 2005).^[122][123]

It is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain food security in a world beset by a confluence of "peak" phenomena, namely peak oil, peak water, peak phosphorus, peak grain and peak fish. Growing populations, falling energy sources and food shortages will create the "perfect storm" by 2030, according to UK chief government scientist John Beddington. He noted that food reserves were at a 50-year low and the world would require 50% more energy, food and water by 2030.^[124][125] The world will have to produce 70% more food by 2050 to feed a projected extra 2.3 billion people and as incomes rise according to the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO).^[126] Social scientists have warned of the possibility that global civilization is due for a period of contraction and economic re-localization, due to the decline in fossil fuels and resulting crisis in transportation and food production.^{[127][128][129]} Helga Vierich predicted that a restoration of sustainable local economic activities based on hunting and gathering, shifting horticulture, and pastoralism.^[130]

In 2003, 29% of open sea fisheries were in a state of collapse.^[131] The journal Science published a four-year study in November 2006, which predicted that, at prevailing trends, the world would run out of wild-caught seafood in 2048.^[132] Conversely, globalisation created a global market for farm-raised fish and seafood, which as of 2009 was providing 38% of global output, potentially reducing fishing pressure.^[133]

Health

Further information: Globalization and disease

Globalization helped to spread some of the deadliest infectious diseases.^[134] Starting in Asia, the Black Death killed at least one-third of Europe's population in the 14th century.^[135] Even worse devastation was inflicted on the American supercontinent by European arrivals. 90% of the populations of the civilizations of the "New World" such as the Aztec, Maya, and Inca were killed by small pox brought by European colonization. Modern modes of transportation allow more people and products to travel around the world at a faster pace, but they also open the airways to the transcontinental movement of infectious disease vectors.^[136] One example of this occurring was AIDS/HIV.^[137] Due to immigration, approximately 500,000 people in the United States are believed to be infected with Chagas disease.^[138] In 2006, the tuberculosis (TB) rate among foreign-born persons in the United States was 9.5 times that of U.S.-born persons.^[139]

Public opinion

There is little common ground between proponents and opponents of globalization.^[140]

United States

Fiss, et al., surveyed opinion in 1993. Their survey showed that in 1993 more than 40% of respondents were unfamiliar with the concept 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 began in the financial community before shifting to a heated debate between proponents and disenchanted students and workers. Polarization increased dramatically after the establishment of the WTO in 1995; this event and subsequent protests led to a large-scale anti-globalization movement.^[141]

Initially, college educated workers were likely to support globalization. Less educated workers, who were more likely to compete with immigrants and workers in developing countries, tended to be opponents. The situation changed after the financial crisis of 2007. According to a 1997 poll 58% of college graduates said globalization had been good for the U.S. By 2008 only 33% thought it was good. Respondents with high school education also became more opposed.^[142]

Other developed countries

Philip Gordon stated that “(as of 2004) a clear majority of Europeans believe that globalization can enrich their lives, while believing the European Union can help them take advantage of globalization’s benefits while shielding them from its negative effects.”^[143] The main opposition consisted of socialists, environmental groups, and nationalists.

US workers were more impacted by automation and outsourcing than Europeans. US income inequality is much higher than in the EU.^[60] Gordon points out that EU workers feel less threatened by globalization. The EU job market was more stable and workers were less likely to accept wage/benefit cuts. Social spending was much higher than in the US.^[144]

In Japan, the debate takes a different form. According to Takenaka Heizo and Chida Ryokichi, as of 1998 there was a perception that the economy was “Small and Frail”. However Japan was resource poor and used exports to pay for its raw materials. Anxiety over their position caused terms such as internationalization and globalization to enter everyday language. However, Japanese tradition was to be as self-sufficient as possible, particularly in agriculture.^[145]

The situation may have changed after the 2007 financial crisis. A 2008 BBC World Public Poll as the crisis began suggested that opposition to globalization in developed countries was increasing. The BBC poll asked whether globalization was growing too rapidly. Agreement was strongest in France, Spain, Japan, South Korea, and Germany. The trend in these countries appears to be stronger than in the United States. The poll also correlated the tendency to view globalization as proceeding too rapidly with a perception of growing economic insecurity and social inequality.^[146]

Developing world

A number of international polls have shown that residents of developing countries tend to view globalization more favorably.^[147] The BBC found a growing feeling in developing countries that globalization was proceeding too rapidly. Only a few countries, including Mexico, the countries of Central America, Indonesia, Brazil and Kenya, where a majority felt that globalization is growing too slowly.^[146]

Many in the Third World see globalization as a positive force that lifts countries out of poverty.^[1] The opposition typically combined environmental concerns with nationalism. Opponents consider governments as agents of neo-colonialism that are subservient to multinational corporations.^[148] Much of this criticism comes from the middle class; the Brookings Institute suggested this was because the middle class perceived upwardly mobile low-income groups to threaten their economic security.^[149]

Although many critics blame globalization for a decline of the middle class in industrialized countries, the middle class is growing rapidly in the Third World.^[150] Coupled with growing urbanization, this led to increasing disparities in wealth between urban and rural areas.^[151] In 2002, in India 70% of the population lived in rural areas and depended directly on natural resources for their livelihood.^[148] As a result, mass movements in the countryside at times objected to the process.^[152]

Rapid growth in China resulted in 0.4% of the population possessing 70% of the nation’s wealth.^[153] Increasing unrest in rural China was attributed to the growing gap in wealth between rural and urban areas.^[154] This, plus growing worker discontent in industrialized areas, caused concern among the nation's leadership.^[155]

Alternative interpretations

David Held and Anthony McGrew, in an article in The Oxford Companion to Politics of the World, suggested that discourse can be separated into three frames. 1) Hyperglobalists hold that globalization eclipsed autonomy and national sovereignty; 2) Sceptics hold that global economic interdependence was considerably exaggerated; while 3) Transformationalists emphasized globalization spatially redistributed economic, political, military and cultural power.^[156]

Neo-Liberal

Further information: Neoliberalism

The majority of books, newspaper articles and press releases in this frame^[vague] represent the neo-liberal view of globalization. Supporters claim that free trade increases economic prosperity as well as opportunity, especially among developing nations, enhances civil liberties and leads to a more efficient allocation of resources. Economic theories of comparative advantage suggest that free trade leads to a more efficient allocation of resources, with all countries involved in the trade benefiting. In general, this leads to lower prices, more employment, higher output and a higher standard of living.^[157][158]

Libertarian

Libertarians claim that higher degrees of political and economic freedom in the form of democracy and capitalism in the developed world are ends in themselves and also produce higher levels of material wealth. They see globalization as the beneficial spread of liberty and capitalism.^[157]

Global Village

Marshall McLuhan popularized the term Global Village beginning in 1962.^[159] His view suggested that globalization would lead to a world where people from all countries will become more integrated and aware of common interests and shared humanity.^[160]

World government

Supporters of democratic globalization believe that the economic development was the first phase of globalization, and should be followed by a phase of building global political institutions.

Dr. Francesco Stipo, Director of the United States Association of the Club of Rome, advocated for unifying nations under a world government, suggesting that it "should reflect the political and economic balances of world nations. A world confederation would not supersede the authority of the State governments but rather complement it, as both the States and the world authority would have power within their sphere of competence".^[161]

Former Canadian Senator Douglas Roche, O.C., viewed globalization as inevitable and advocated creating institutions such as a directly elected United Nations Parliamentary Assembly to exercise oversight over unelected international bodies.^{[citation needed]}

Practical approach

This involves a form of discourse that portrays globalization as a natural, evolutionary, and largely inevitable development. This type of discourse became less prominent as the issue of globalization became increasingly politicized. The percentage of articles exhibiting neutral framing decreased from nearly 90% in 1986 to around 25% in 1998,^[141] while the number of newspaper articles dealing with globalization increased almost tenfold.^{[141]:Table 2} Therefore, the total number of neutral articles has probably increased.

Common ground

This discourse synthesized elements of the above forms. It accepted the reality of international integration. It asserted that international cooperation could solve important problems. At the same time, it acknowledged globalization's negative effects and proposed mitigating responses. A movement began in 2001 at the World Social Forum (WSF) to bring about this synthesis. It adopted the term alter-globalization (or altermondialization).^{[citation needed]}

Media coverage

Peer Fiss and Paul Hirsch, in an article on the discourse of globalization, suggested using the notion of framing as a way to study this polarization. By framing, they mean the way “interested actors and entrepreneurs articulate particular versions of reality to potential supporters…”^[141] They identified three main frames:

1. The positive frame points to the potential gains and benefits of globalization.
2. The neutral frame portrays globalization as a natural, evolutionary, and largely inevitable development.
3. The negative frame points out the increasing potential for economic crisis, the threat to the livelihoods of workers, and the growing income inequality caused by globalization.

The Hiss study claimed that newspaper articles and corporate press releases prior to 1989 employed neutral frame of reference. In 1986, for example, nearly 90% of newspaper articles exhibited neutral framing. After the collapse of the stock market in Oct.19, 1987 and the subsequent recession, newspapers began to voice concerns about globalization and the interconnectedness of international markets. By 1998, neutrally framed articles had been reduced to 25% of the total.

The study also showed a large increase in negative articles. Prior to 1995, positive articles were more common. By 1998, negative articles outpaced positive articles by two to one.^[141] In 2008 Greg Ip claimed this rise in opposition to globalization can be explained, at least in part, by economic self-interest.^[142]

The number of newspaper articles showing negative framing rose from about 10% of the total in 1991 to 55% of the total in 1999. This increase occurred during a period when the total number of articles concerning globalization nearly doubled.^[141] This discourse takes two very different forms:

In industrialized countries discourse about globalization centered on economic self-interest. Newspaper articles about globalization typically expressed concerns involve the interconnectedness of international financial markets and the potential for economic crisis, as well as threats to the worker livelihoods.^[141]

Opposition

Main article: Anti-globalization movement

See also: Alter-globalization, Participatory economics, and Global Justice Movement

The establishment of the WTO in 1995 led to an anti-globalization movement that was primarily concerned with the negative impact of globalization in developing countries. Their concerns ranged from environmental issues to issues like democracy, national sovereignty and the worker exploitation.^{[citation needed]}

Opponents in developed countries were disproportionately middle-class and college-educated. This contrasted sharply with the situation in developing countries, where the anti-globalization movement was more successful in enlisting a broader group, including millions of workers and farmers.^[162]

"Anti-globalization" activities include attempts to demonstrate sovereignty, practice democratic decision-making, restrict the international transfer of people, goods and disfavored beliefs, particularly free market deregulation. Naomi Klein argued that the term could denote either a single social movement or encompass multiple social movements such as nationalism and socialism.^[163]

Hirst and Thompson reject the term as too vague.^{[164][165][166]} Podobnik states that "the vast majority of groups that participate in these protests draw on international networks of support, and they generally call for forms of globalization that enhance democratic representation, human rights, and egalitarianism."^{[citation needed]}

Other terms include Global Justice Movement, the Anti-Corporate-Globalization , the Movement of Movements (Italy), the Alter-globalization (France) and Counter-Globalization.

Joseph Stiglitz and Andrew Charlton write:

The anti-globalization movement developed in opposition to the perceived negative aspects of globalization. The term 'anti-globalization' is in many ways a misnomer, since the group represents a wide range of interests and issues and many of the people involved in the anti-globalization movement do support closer ties between the various peoples and cultures of the world through, for example, aid, assistance for refugees, and global environmental issues.^[167]

Critiques of economic globalization typically look at both the damage to the planet as well as the human costs. They challenge directly traditional metrics, such as GDP, and look to other measures, such as the Happy Planet Index.^[168][169] They point to a "multitude of interconnected fatal consequences–social disintegration, a breakdown of democracy, more rapid and extensive deterioration of the environment, the spread of new diseases, increasing poverty and alienation"^[170] which they claim are the unintended consequences of globalization.

The terms globalization and anti-globalization are used in various ways. Noam Chomsky stated:

The term "globalization" has been appropriated by the powerful to refer to a specific form of international economic integration, one based on investor rights, with the interests of people incidental. That is why the business press, in its more honest moments, refers to the "free trade agreements" as "free investment agreements" (Wall St. Journal). Accordingly, advocates of other forms of globalization are described as "anti-globalization"; and some, unfortunately, even accept this term, though it is a term of propaganda that should be dismissed with ridicule. No sane person is opposed to globalization, that is, international integration. Surely not the left and the workers movements, which were founded on the principle of international solidarity — that is, globalization in a form that attends to the rights of people, not private power systems.

The dominant propaganda systems have appropriated the term "globalization" to refer to the specific version of international economic integration that they favor, which privileges the rights of investors and lenders, those of people being incidental. In accord with this usage, those who favor a different form of international integration, which privileges the rights of human beings, become "anti-globalist." This is simply vulgar propaganda, like the term "anti-Soviet" used by the most disgusting commissars to refer to dissidents. It is not only vulgar, but idiotic. Take the World Social Forum, called "anti-globalization" in the propaganda system – which happens to include the media, the educated classes, etc., with rare exceptions. The WSF is a paradigm example of globalization. It is a gathering of huge numbers of people from all over the world, from just about every corner of life one can think of, apart from the extremely narrow highly privileged elites who meet at the competing World Economic Forum, and are called "pro-globalization" by the propaganda system. An observer watching this farce from Mars would collapse in hysterical laughter at the antics of the educated classes.^[171]

Critics argue that globalization results in:

• Poorer countries suffering disadvantages: While it is true that free trade encourages globalization among countries, some countries try to protect their domestic suppliers. The main export of poorer countries is usually agricultural goods. Larger countries often subsidise their farmers (e.g., the EU's Common Agricultural Policy), which lowers the market price for foreign crops.^[172]
• The shift to outsourcing: Globalization allowed corporations to move manufacturing and service jobs from high cost locations, creating economic opportunities with the most competitive wages and worker benefits.^[49]
• Weak labor unions: The surplus in cheap labor coupled with an ever growing number of companies in transition weakened labor unions in high-cost areas. Unions lose their effectiveness and workers their enthusiasm for unions when membership begins to decline.^[172]
• An increase in exploitation of child labor: Countries with weak protections for children are vulnerable to infestation by rogue companies and criminal gangs who exploit them. Examples include quarrying, salvage, and farm work as well as trafficking, bondage, forced labor, prostitution and pornography.^[173]

Critics charged that globalization developed according to corporate interests. They advocated global institutions and policies that they believe better addressed the moral claims of poor and working classes as well as environmental concerns.^[174]

Critics included church groups, national liberation factions, peasant unionists, intellectuals, artists, protectionists, anarchists, those in support of relocalization (e.g., consumption of nearby production) and others. Some were reformist, (arguing for a more moderate form of capitalism) while others were revolutionary (power shift from private to public control) or reactionary (public to private).^{[citation needed]}

Economic arguments by fair trade theorists claim that unrestricted free trade benefits those with more financial leverage (i.e. the rich) at the expense of the poor.^[175]

Americanization related to a period of high political American clout and of significant growth of America's shops, markets and object being brought into other countries. So globalization, a much more diversified phenomenon, relates to a multilateral political world and to the increase of objects, markets and so on into each others countries.

Critics of globalization talk of Westernization. A 2005 UNESCO report^[176] showed that cultural exchange is becoming more frequent from Eastern Asia but Western countries are still the main exporters of cultural goods. In 2002, China was the third largest exporter of cultural goods, after the UK and US. Between 1994 and 2002, both North America's and the European Union's shares of cultural exports declined, while Asia's cultural exports grew to surpass North America. Related factors are the fact that Asia's population and area are several times that of North America.

Some opponents of globalization see the phenomenon as the promotion of corporatist interests.^[177] They also claim that the increasing autonomy and strength of corporate entities shapes the political policy of countries.^[178][179]

See also

• Alter-globalization
• American Imperialism
• Archaic globalization
• Civilizing mission
• Columbian Exchange
• Cultural assimilation
• Deglobalization
• Development criticism
• Faith and Globalisation initiative
• Global civics
• Global information system
• Global Trade Watch (Australia)
• Globalism
• Globality
• Great Transition
• Impact of globalization on women in China
• Interdependence
• Jet Age
• Lisbon Strategy
• Middle East and globalization
• New world order (politics)
• Postmodernism
• Squeezed (film)
• Transnational cinema
• Transnational citizenship
• Triadization
• Vermeer's Hat: The Seventeenth Century and the Dawn of the Global World
• World economy
• World Englishes
• World-systems theory
• YaleGlobal Online

References

1. ^ ^{a b c} Bhagwati, Jagdish (2004). In Defense of Globalization. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. 
2. ^ Sheila L. Croucher. Globalization and Belonging: The Politics of Identity in a Changing World. Rowman & L ittlefield. (2004). p.10
3. ^ Conversi, Daniele (2009) 'Globalization, ethnic conflict and nationalism', in B. Turner (ed.) Handbook of Globalization Studies. London: Routledge/ Taylor & Francis; Barkawi, Tarak (2005) Globalization and War. Rowman & Littlefield; Smith, Dennis (2006) Gobalization: The Hidden Agenda. Cambridge: Polity Press. See also Barber, Benjamin R., vs. McWorld. Ballantine Books, 1996
4. ^ "Globalization". Oxford English Dictionary Online. September 2009. http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50297775?single=1&query_type=word&queryword=Globalization&first=1&max_to_show=10. Retrieved 5 November 2010. 
5. ^ A.G. Hopkins, ed. "Globalization in World History". Norton. (2004). pp. 4–8
6. ^ "''The Battle of Armageddon'', October, 1897 pages 365–370". Pastor-russell.com. http://www.pastor-russell.com/volumes/V4/Study_07.html. Retrieved 31 July 2010. 
7. ^ Summary of the Annual Review of Developments in Globalization and Regional Integration in the Countries of the ESCWA Region by the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia
8. ^ "Special Report – The Global 2000," Forbes, 2 April 2008.
9. ^ "HSBC tops Forbes 2000 list of world's largest companies," HSBC website, 4 April 2008
10. ^ "HSBC GLT frontpage". http://www.hsbcglt.com/. Retrieved 22 August 2008. 
11. ^ Globalization Is Great! by Tom G. Palmer, Senior Fellow, Cato Institute
12. ^ Friedman, Thomas L. "The Dell Theory of Conflict Prevention". Emerging: A Reader. Ed. Barclay Barrios. Boston: Bedford, St. Martins, 2008. 49
13. ^ “Globalization, the reformist Left and the Anti-Globalization ‘Movement’”, Takis Fotopoulos, Democracy & Nature: The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy, Vol.7, No.2, (July 2001),
14. ^ IMF Team. (2000). ‘Globalization: Threats or Opportunity.’ 12th April 2000, IMF Publications. http://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/ib/2000/041200.htm ; Also see, Catarina Kinnvall & Kristina Jonsson (edited). (2002). Globalization & Democratization in Asia: The Construction of Identity. London: Routledge. P.249-263.
15. ^ ^{a b} Jeong Chun Hai @Ibrahim. (2007). Fundamental of Development Administration. Selangor: Scholar Press. P.156-158. ISBN 978-967-504-5080
16. ^ See Conversi, Daniele (2010) 'The limits of cultural globalisation?', Journal of Critical Globalisation Studies, 3, pp. 36–59.
17. ^ Andre Gunder Frank, "Reorient: Global economy in the Asian age" U.C. Berkeley Press, 1998.
18. ^ Silkroad Foundation, Adela C.Y. Lee. "Ancient Silk Road Travellers". Silk-road.com. http://www.silk-road.com/artl/srtravelmain.shtml. Retrieved 31 July 2010. 
19. ^ "The Origins of Globalization", Ivey Business Journal.
20. ^ John M. Hobson (2004), The Eastern Origins of Western Civilisation, p. 29-30, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-54724-5.
21. ^ Jack Weatherford, Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World, Crown, 2004
22. ^ "The Age of Exploration"^{[dead link]}, Microsoft Encarta Online Encyclopedia 2009. Archived 31 October 2009.
23. ^ "Portuguese Empire"^{[dead link]}, Microsoft Encarta Online Encyclopedia 2009. Archived 31 October 2009.
24. ^ Crosby, Alfred W., "The Columbian exchange: biological and cultural consequences of 1492", Greenwood Publishing Group, ISBN 0-275-98073-1
25. ^ "The Columbian Exchange". The University of North Carolina.
26. ^ "PBS.org". PBS.org. 24 October 1929. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/shared/minitext/tr_show01.html. Retrieved 31 July 2010. 
27. ^ "World Exports as Percentage of Gross World Product". Global Policy Forum. Archived from the original on 12 July 2008. http://web.archive.org/web/20080712023541/http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/trade/tables/exports2.htm. Retrieved 11 November 2009. 
28. ^ Doaha round
29. ^ Nouriel Roubini (15 January 2009). "A Global Breakdown Of The Recession In 2009". Forbes. http://www.forbes.com/2009/01/14/global-recession-2009-oped-cx_nr_0115roubini.html. 
30. ^ A Global Retreat As Economies Dry Up. The Washington Post. 5 March 2009.
31. ^ Economic Crisis Poses Threat To Global Stability. NPR. 18 February 2009.
32. ^ George C. Lodge. (1995). Managing Globalization in the Age of Interdependence. Gloden Books Center: Kuala Lumpur. P.2. Also see, Leo Suryadinata (edited), (2000). Nationalism and Globalization: East & West. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. P.344-355.
33. ^ "World Port Rankings 2005". American Association of Port Authorities. 2005. http://www.infoplease.com/business/world-port-ranking-2005.html. Retrieved 15 September 2009. 
34. ^ "World Port Rankings 2006". American Association of Port Authorities. 2006. http://www.infoplease.com/business/world-port-ranking.html. Retrieved 15 September 2009. 
35. ^ http://aapa.files.cms-plus.com/Statistics/WORLD%20PORT%20RANKINGS%2020081.pdf
36. ^ "Globalisation shakes the world". BBC News. 21 January 2007.
37. ^ "China and Africa: Stronger Economic Ties Mean More Migration". By Malia Politzer, Migration Information Source. August 2008.
38. ^ "Africa, China's new frontier". Times Online. 10 February 2008.
39. ^ "Globalization^{[dead link]}". Microsoft Encarta Online Encyclopedia 2009. Archived 31 October 2009.
40. ^ "Workinfonet.bc.ca". Workinfonet.bc.ca. 6 March 1998. http://workinfonet.bc.ca/lmisi/Making/CHAPTER2/TANDG1.HTM. Retrieved 31 July 2010. ^{[dead link]}
41. ^ "China close to have $1 million millionaires". The Economic Times. Apr 13, 2011.
42. ^ Longworth, Richard, C. Caught in the Middle: America's the Age of Globalism. New York: Bloomsbury, 2007.
43. ^ Culture and Globalization: Center for Global Studies at the University of Illinois
44. ^ "Brain drain in Africa^{[dead link]}"
45. ^ "Students’ exodus costs India forex outflow of $10 bn: Assocham". Thaindian News. 26 January 2009.
46. ^ McDougall, Dan (27 October 2007). "Child sweatshop shame threatens Gap's ethical image". The Observer. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2007/oct/28/ethicalbusiness.india#article_continue. Retrieved November 2011. 
47. ^ GovTrack, S. 3485
48. ^ "Educatingforjustrice.org". Educatingforjustice.org. http://www.educatingforjustice.org/stopnikesweatshops.htm. Retrieved 31 July 2010. 
49. ^ ^{a b} Kuruvilla; Ranganathan (October 2008). "ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES AND MACRO- AND MICRO-LEVEL HUMAN RESOURCE POLICIES: THE CASE OF INDIA'S "OUTSOURCING" INDUSTRY". Industrial & Labor Relations Review 62 (1): 39–72. 
50. ^ "Outsourcing to Africa: The world economy calls | The Economist". 16 April 2011. http://www.economist.com/node/15777592?story_id=E1_TVSSSVJN. Retrieved 16 April 2011. 
51. ^ World Resources Institute (July 24, 2008). "Population Living on Less Than $1 Per Day, 1981-2004". World Resources Institute. http://www.wri.org/chart/population-living-less-than-1-per-day-1981-2004. Retrieved November 2011. 
52. ^ Wade, Robert Hunter. 'The Rising Inequality of World Income Distribution', Finance & Development, Vol 38, No 4 December 2001
53. ^ "Xabier Gorostiaga,''"World has become a 'champagne glass' globalization will fill it fuller for a wealthy few' National Catholic Reporter, Jan 27, 1995 '". Findarticles.com. 1995. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_n13_v31/ai_16531823. Retrieved 31 July 2010. 
54. ^ United Nations Development Program. 1992 Human Development Report, 1992 (New York, Oxford University Press)
55. ^ "Human Development Report 1992". http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/1992/en/. Retrieved 8 July 2007. 
56. ^ Branko Milanovic (2 November 2006). "Developing Countries Worse Off Than Once Thought – Carnegie Endowment for International Peace". Carnegieendowment.org. http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=19907&prog=zch,zgp&proj=zsa,zted. Retrieved 31 July 2010. 
57. ^ "Full throttle". Economist. 26 November 2011. http://www.economist.com/node/21540264. Retrieved November 2011. 
58. ^ Reich, Robert. The Work of the Nations, Preparing Ourselves for 21st century Capitalism. Toronto: Alfred A. Knopf, 1992
59. ^ "Economics focus: Cash machines | The Economist". 16 April 2011. http://www.economist.com/node/18484080. Retrieved 16 April 2011. 
60. ^ ^{a b} Noah, Timothy (September 3, 2010). "The great Divergence". Slate. http://img.slate.com/media/3/100914_NoahT_GreatDivergence.pdf. Retrieved November 2011. 
61. ^ Vogel, Ezra F. 1991. The Four Little Dragons: The Spread of Industrialization in East Asia. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
62. ^ Mcdonald, Joe (Nov 9, 2011). "China's exports weaken, import growth rises". Associated Press. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Chinas-exports-weaken-import-apf-1244532961.html?x=0. Retrieved 29 November 2011. 
63. ^ "China trade blamed for 2.4 mln lost US jobs-report". Reuters. 23 March 2010.
64. ^ "Factory jobs: 3 million lost since 2000". USATODAY.com. 20 April 2007.
65. ^ Asia strips Africa's textile industry
66. ^ Hanksworth John and Cookson, Gordon. The World in 2050, Beyond the BRICs: a broader look at emerging market growth prospects. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/world-2050/pdf/world_2050_brics.pdf
67. ^ "EM Equity in Two Decades, A Changing Landscape. Global Economics Paper No: 204". [Goldman Sachs Global Economics, Comodities and Strategy Research]. 8 September 2010. http://www.dasinvestment.com/fileadmin/images/pictures/0809_Global_Econ_Paper_No__204_Final.pdf. Retrieved November 2011. 
68. ^ "Economic Crisis in a Globalized World". Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). 21 November 2008
69. ^ "The fruit of hypocrisy". The Guardian. 16 September 2008
70. ^ "Banks Taking Same Risks That Led to Crisis: ECB's Noyer". CNBC.com. 26 October 2009.
71. ^ "UN.org". United Nations. http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2009/gashc3947.doc.htm. Retrieved 31 July 2010. 
72. ^ "Drug Trade". BBC News.
73. ^ "Will traditional Chinese medicine mean the end of the wild tiger?". San Francisco Chronicle. 11 November 2007.
74. ^ "India says Chinese medicine fuels tiger poaching". Reuters. 17 September 2009.
75. ^ "Rhino rescue plan decimates Asian antelopes". New Scientist. 12 February 2003.
76. ^ Scholte, Jan-Aart (2005). Globalization: A Critical Introduction (Chapter 6: Globalization and Governance)). Palgrave. 
77. ^ PriceWaterhouseCoopers. "Beyond the BRICs". http://www.pwc.co.uk/eng/publications/beyond_the_brics.html. 
78. ^ Colls, Tom (19 October 2009). "The death of language?". BBC News. http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8311000/8311069.stm. Retrieved 3 May 2010. 
79. ^ McCrum, Robert (26 November 2011). "From the Bible to the latest Swedish thriller: 2011 is the year of the translator". The Observer. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/nov/27/translation-creating-global-language. Retrieved November 2011. 
80. ^ "Anthro.palomar.edu". Anthro.palomar.edu. 27 July 2009. http://anthro.palomar.edu/language/language_1.htm. Retrieved 31 July 2010. 
81. ^ Cowen, Tyler; Barber, Benjamin (May/June 2003). "Globalization and Culture". Cato Policy Report. http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v25n3/globalization.pdf. Retrieved November 2011. 
82. ^ Nadeem, S (2009) Macaulay’s (Cyber) Children: The Cultural Politics of Outsourcing in India. Cultural Sociology
83. ^ Hacker, Violaine (2011), “Building Medias Industry while promoting a community of values in the globalization: from quixotic choices to pragmatic boon for EU Citizens”, Politické Védy-Journal of Political Science, Slovakia
84. ^ Swine flu prompts EU warning on travel to US. The Guardian. 28 April 2009.
85. ^ "UNWTO World Tourism Barometer June 2009". UNWTO World Tourism Barometer (World Tourism Organization) 7 (2). June 2011. http://mkt.unwto.org/sites/all/files/pdf/unwto_pisa_2011_1.pdf. Retrieved 3 August 2009. 
86. ^ "Migration in the Asia-Pacific Region". Stephen Castles, University of Oxford. Mark J. Miller, University of Delaware. July 2009.
87. ^ "Guinea: Unstoppable exodus", BBC News, 18 May 2004.
88. ^ "Rich world needs more foreign workers: report". FOXNews.com, 2 December 2008
89. ^ "Migration and Remittances". The World Bank.
90. ^ Pawel Zaleski Global Non-governmental Administrative System: Geosociology of the Third Sector, [in:] Gawin, Dariusz & Glinski, Piotr [ed.]: "Civil Society in the Making", IFiS Publishers, Warszawa 2006
91. ^ McAlister, Elizabeth. 2005. "Globalization and the Religious Production of Space." Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Vol. 44, No 3, September 2005, 249–255.
92. ^ Americanization
93. ^ http://criticalglobalisation.com/Issue3/36_59_LIMITS_CULTURAL_GLOBALISATION_JCGS3.pdf
94. ^ "2010 Form 10-K, McDonald's Corporation". United States Securities and Exchange Commission. http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/63908/000119312511046701/d10k.htm. Retrieved 2011-03-03. 
95. ^ Steger, Manfred.Globalization. New York: Sterling Publishing, 2009.
96. ^ Clayton, Thomas. 2004. “Competing Conceptions of Globalization” Revisited: Relocating the Tension between World-Systems Analysis and Globalization Analysis. In: Comparative Education Review, vol. 48, no.3, 274-294.
97. ^ Wallerstein, Immanuel. 2004. World-Systems Analysis. An Introduction. London: Duke University Press, pp.23-59.
98. ^ Beard, David and Keneth Gloag. 2005. Musicology: The Key Concepts. London and New York: Routledge.
99. ^ ^{a b} Globalization of Water: Sharing the Planet's Freshwater resources|url=http://eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-1405163356.html
100. ^ ^{a b} "Booming nations 'threaten Earth'". BBC News. 12 January 2006.
101. ^ "Effects of Over-Consumption and Increasing Populations". 26 September 2001. Retrieved on 19 June 2007
102. ^ Hoekstra, A.Y (2008). The Globalization of water. Sharing the Planet's Freshwater Resources.. United Kingdom: Blackwell Publishing. 
103. ^ ^{a b} Bridges, G. (2002). "Grounding Globalization: The Prospects and Perils of Linking Economic Processes of Globalization to Environmental Outcomes". Economic Geography 78 (3): 361–386.. doi:10.2307/4140814. 
104. ^ Revesz, R.L (1997). Federalism and Environmental Regulation: A Normative Critique. The New Federalism: Can the States Be Trusted?. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press. pp. 97–127. 
105. ^ Nepal, S.K. (2002). "Mountain Ecotourism and Sustainable Development: Ecology, Economics, and Ethics". Mountain Research and Development 22 (2): 104–109.. doi:10.1659/0276-4741(2002)022[0104:MEASD]2.0.CO;2. 
106. ^ "Global Environmental Governance". Discovery Guides. ProQuest. http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/ern/05aug/overview.php. Retrieved 11/05/11. 
107. ^ "United Nations Air Pollution and Public Policy". United Nations Techniqal Cooperation. United Nations. http://esa.un.org/techcoop/flagship.asp?Code=CPR97008. Retrieved 11/02/11. 
108. ^ Almqvist, E. (2002). Ambio. 3. pp. 161–176.. 
109. ^ Oil price 'may hit $200 a barrel', BBC News
110. ^ "Running Out of Planet to Exploit". The New York Times. 21 April 2008.
111. ^ "International Petroleum (Oil) Consumption Data". U.S. Energy Information Administration. http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/oilconsumption.html. Retrieved 20 December 2007. 
112. ^ "China overtakes US as world's biggest CO₂ emitter". Guardian.co.uk. 19 June 2007.
113. ^ "Brazil Amazon deforestation soars". BBC News. 24 January 2008.
114. ^ "Japan depletes Borneo's rainforests; China remains largest log importer"
115. ^ "China is black hole of Asia's deforestation." Asia News. 24 March 2008.
116. ^ Rudel,R.L. & Coomes, O.T (2005). Forest transitions: towards a global understanding of land use change. 15. pp. 23–31.. 
117. ^ Earth's natural wealth: an audit. New Scientist. 23 May 2007.
118. ^ Inglehart, R. (1995). "Public Support for Environmental Protection: Objective Problems and Subjective Values in 43 Societies". Political Science and Politics 28 (1): 57–72.. doi:10.2307/420583. 
119. ^ Jacquet J. L & D. Pauly (2007). "The rise of seafood awareness campaigns in an era of collapsing fisheries". Marine Policy 31: 308–313.. 
120. ^ von Braun, "High and Rising Food Prices", 2008, p 5, slide 14
121. ^ Kindall, Henery W & Pimentel, David (May 1994). "Constraints on the Expansion of the Global Food Supply". Ambio. 23 (3). http://dieoff.org/page36.htm. 
122. ^ "The limits of a Green Revolution?". BBC News. 29 March 2007.
123. ^ "Feed the world? We are fighting a losing battle, UN admits". The Guardian. 26 February 2008.
124. ^ "World faces 'perfect storm' of problems by 2030, chief scientist to warn". The Guardian. 18 March 2009.
125. ^ "Global crisis 'to strike by 2030'". BBC News. 19 March 2009.
126. ^ "Global food production will have to increase 70% for additional 2.3 billion people by 2050". Finfacts.com. 24 September 2009.
127. ^ Tainter, JA 1996. Complexity, Problem Solving, and Sustainable Societies. In Costanza, R, Segura,O & Martinez-Alier, J (eds) Getting Down to Earth: Practical Applications of Ecological Economics. Washington, D.C.: Island Press:61–76.
128. ^ Pimentel, D & Pimentel, M 2008. Food, Energy, and Society. 3rd edition. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press:137–159.
129. ^ Catton, WR Jr 1980. Overshoot: The Ecological Basis of Revolutionary Change. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
130. ^ Helga Vierich "Before farming and after globalization: the future of hunter- gatherers may be brighter than you think", In Before Farming 2008/4 article 4(1). See also discussion at: Waspress.co.uk
131. ^ "'Only 50 years left' for sea fish", BBC News. 2 November 2006.
132. ^ Juliet Eilperin (2 November 2006). "Seafood Population Depleted by 2048, Study Finds". The Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/02/AR2006110200913.html. 
133. ^ FAO. "The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture". FAO. http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/i1820e/i1820e.pdf. Retrieved November 2011. 
134. ^ Dr. Daulaire. Globalization and Health. Retrieved 11 October 2006 from http://www.globalhealth.org/assets/html/drmed3.html
135. ^ Stéphane Barry and Norbert Gualde, in L'Histoire n° 310, June 2006, pp.45–46, say "between one-third and two-thirds"; Robert Gottfried (1983). "Black Death" in Dictionary of the Middle Ages, volume 2, pp.257–67, says "between 25 and 45 percent".
136. ^ "The Impact of Globalization on Infectious Disease Emergence and Control: Exploring the Consequences and Opportunities, Workshop Summary – Forum on Microbial Threats". Nap.edu. 1 June 2003. http://www.nap.edu/books/0309100984/html/22.html. Retrieved 31 July 2010. 
137. ^ "The virus from Africa reached the U.S. by way of Haiti, a genetic study shows". Los Angeles Times. 30 October 2007.
138. ^ "Chagas disease", HealthCentral.com.
139. ^ "Trends in Tuberculosis Incidence --- United States, 2006". CDC.gov. 23 March 2007 / 56(11);245–250.
140. ^ Chapman, Roger. Culture wars: an encyclopedia of issues, viewpoints, and voices, Volume 1. 2009: M.E.Sharp
141. ^ ^{a b c d e f g} Fiss, Peer and Hirsch, Pal: “The Discourse of Globalization: Framing and Sensemaking of an Emerging Concept. American Sociological Review, February 2005. vol. 70 no 1: 29–52.
142. ^ ^{a b} Greg Ip: “The Declining Value Of Your College Degree”, Wall Street Journal. 17 July 2008.
143. ^ Gordon, Philip. 2004. "Globalization: Europe's Wary Embrace". Yale Global, 1 November 2004. http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/globalization-europes-wary-embrace
144. ^ Gordon, Philip. 2004. "Globalization: Europe's Wary Embrace". Yale Global, 1 November 2004. http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/globalization-europes-wary-embrace
145. ^ Takenaka Heizo and Chida Ryokichi. 1998. “Japan,” Domestic Adjustments to Globalization; (ed, Charles E. Morrison and Hadi Soesastro), Tokyo: Japan center for International Exchange, 1998, pp. 76–102.
146. ^ ^{a b} "Widespread Unease about Economy and Globalization". BBC World Service Poll. http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/feb08/BBCEcon_Feb08_rpt.pdf
147. ^ ”Africans and Asians Tend to View Globalization Favorably. Europeans and Americans are More Skeptical”. World Public Opinion.org. 7 November 2006.
148. ^ ^{a b} Shoa S. Rajgopal. 2002. Reclaiming Democracy, the Anti-globalization Movement in South Asia”. Feminist review 70, 2002. http://visuality.org/globalization/wmst250_readings/the_antiglobalization_mvmnt.pdf
149. ^ Carol Graham "Winners and Losers: Perspectives on Globalization from the Emerging Market Economies" Brookings. Saturday 1 January 2011 http://www.brookings.edu/articles/2001/fall_globaleconomics_graham.aspx
150. ^ John Parker, Burgeoning bourgeoisie, A special report on the new middle classes in emerging markets. The Economist .12 Feb 2009. http://www.economist.com/node/13063298?story_id=13063298&source=hptextfeature
151. ^ "Globalization and the Rural-Urban Divide". IATRC Summer Symposium, 30 June – 2 July 2008.http://aede.osu.edu/programs/anderson/trade/Seoul_Symposium_Report.pdf
152. ^ Shoa S. Rajgopal. 2002. Reclaiming Democracy, the Anti-globalization Movement in South Asia”. Feminist review 70, 2002. http://visuality.org/globalization/wmst250_readings/the_antiglobalization_mvmnt.pdf
153. ^ Antoaneta Becker (8 October 2010). "CHINA: Resentment Rises With Widening Wealth Gaps". Global Geopolitics & Political Economy / IPS. http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=53103. Retrieved 31 December 2010. 
154. ^ "Rural unrest in China Worries about poverty and instability in central China". The Economist. 15 Mar 2007
155. ^ Kine Phelim. "China's Summer Of Labor Unrest"July, 23, 2010. Forbes.com
156. ^ Held, David. McGrew Anthony. “Globalization”, in The Oxford Companion to Politics of the World by Joel Krieger (2 Aug 2001) Oxford University Press.
157. ^ ^{a b} Sachs, Jeffrey (2005). The End of Poverty. New York, New York: The Penguin Press. ISBN 1-59420-045-9. 
158. ^ "World Bank, Poverty Rates, 1981–2002" (PDF). http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DATASTATISTICS/Resources/table2-7.pdf. Retrieved 4 June 2007. 
159. ^ Marshall McLuhan and Bruce R. Powers (17 Sep 1992) The Global Village: Transformations in World Life and Media in the 21st century . Oxford University Press: 17 Sep 1992
160. ^ Chapman, Roger. Culture wars: an encyclopedia of issues, viewpoints, and voices, Volume 1. 2009: M.E.Sharp
161. ^ "USACOR.org". USACOR.org. 28 July 2009. http://www.usacor.org/archive/index.html. Retrieved 31 July 2010. 
162. ^ Marable, Manning, “Globalization and Racialization” Synthesis/Regeneration 39 (Winter 2006)http://www.greens.org/s-r/39/39-06.html
163. ^ Klein, Naomi (April 6, 2002). No Logo: No Space, No Choice, No Jobs. Picador. ISBN 0312421435. 
164. ^ Hirst and Thompson "The Future of Globalisation" Published: Cooperation and Conflict, Vol. 37, No. 3, 247–265 (2002)DOI: 10.1177/0010836702037003671 CAC.sagepub.com
165. ^ Morris, Douglas "Globalization and Media Democracy: The Case of Indymedia", Shaping the Network Society, MIT Press 2003. Courtesy link to(pre-publication version) FIS.utoronto.ca
166. ^ Convention.allacademic.com Podobnik, Bruce, Resistance to Globalization: Cycles and Evolutions in the Globalization Protest Movement, p. 2.
167. ^ Stiglitz, Joseph & Charlton Fair Trade for All: How Trade Can Promote Development. 2005 p. 54 n. 23
168. ^ "The Happy Planet Index". Neweconomics.org. http://www.neweconomics.org/gen/uploads/dl44k145g5scuy453044gqbu11072006194758.pdf. Retrieved 31 July 2010. ^{[dead link]}
169. ^ The New Economics Foundation^{[dead link]}
170. ^ Capra, Fritjof (2002). The Hidden Connections. New York, New York: Random House. ISBN 0-385-49471-8. 
171. ^ Noam Chomsky Znet 7 May 2002 / The Croatian Feral Tribune 27 April 2002 ZMAG.org
172. ^ ^{a b} Hurst E. Charles. Social Inequality: Forms, Causes, and consequences, 6th ed. P.41
173. ^ Pavcnik, Nina; Pavcnik, Nina (September 2005). "Child Labor in the Global Economy". Journal of Economic Perspectives 19 (1): 199–220. doi:10.1257/0895330053147895. 
174. ^ "Fórum Social Mundial". Forumsocialmundial.org.br. http://www.forumsocialmundial.org.br/index.php?cd_language=2&id_menu=. Retrieved 31 July 2010. 
175. ^ NAFTA at 10, Jeff Faux, Economic Policy Institute, D.C.
176. ^ "International Flows of Selected Goods and Services" (PDF). http://www.uis.unesco.org/template/pdf/cscl/IntlFlows_EN.pdf. Retrieved 31 July 2010. 
177. ^ Lee, Laurence (17 May 2007). "WTO blamed for India grain suicides". Al Jazeera. http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/2ED53A8B-1058-49CF-B9FF-3D96639456D1.htm. Retrieved 17 May 2007. 
178. ^ Bakan, Joel (2004). The Corporation. New York, New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0-7432-4744-2. 
179. ^ Perkins, John (2004). Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. San Francisco, California: Berrett-Koehler. ISBN 1-57675-301-8. 

Further reading

• Fernando, Salvetti (ed.) (2010). "Glocal" Working. Living and Working across the World with Cultural Intelligence. Milan: Franco Angeli. ISBN 9788856827330. http://www.cultural-intelligence.info. 
• Barbara, Christopher (2008). International legal personality: Panacea or pandemonium? Theorizing about the individual and the state in the era of globalization. Saarbrücken: Verlag Dr. Müller. ISBN 3639115147. http://www.amazon.com/International-legal-personality-pandemonium-globalization/dp/3639115147/. 
• Barzilai, Gad (2008). Beyond Relativism: Where is Political Power in Legal Pluralism. The Berkeley Electronic Press. pp. 395–416. ISSN 15651509. http://www.bepress.com/til/default/vol9/iss2/art4/. 
• Bastardas-Boada, Albert (2002), "World Language Policy in the Era of Globalization: Diversity and Intercommunication from the Perspective of 'Complexity'", Noves SL, Revista de Sociolingüística (Barcelona), http://www6.gencat.net/llengcat/noves/hm02estiu/metodologia/a_bastardas1_9.htm.
• von Braun, Joachim; Eugenio Diaz-Bonilla (2007). Globalization of Food and Agriculture and the Poor. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780195695281. http://www.ifpri.org/PUBS/otherpubs/globalpoor.asp. 
• Peter Berger, Four Faces of Global Culture^{[dead link]} (The National Interest, Fall 1997).
• Chanda, Nayan (2007). Bound Together: How Traders, Preachers, Warriors and Adventurers Shaped Globalization. Yale University Press, New Haven. ISBN 00300112017. 
• Friedman, Thomas L. (2005). The World Is Flat. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. ISBN 0-374-29288-4. 
• Glyn, Andrew (2006). Capitalism Unleashed: Finance, Globalization, and Welfare. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0199226792. http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Economics/International/?view=usa&ci=9780199226795. 
• Gowan, Peter (1999). The Global Gamble: Washington's Faustian Bid for World Dominance. London: Verso. ISBN 1859842712. http://www.versobooks.com/books/ghij/g-titles/gowan_global.shtml. 
• Grinin, Leonid. Globalization and Sovereignty: Why do States Abandon their Sovereign Prerogatives?. http://www.socionauki.ru/journal/articles/127716/. 
• Haggblade, Steven; et al. (2007). Transforming the Rural Nonfarm Economy: Opportunities and Threats in the Developing World. Johns Hopkins University Press. p. 512. ISBN 978-0-8018-8663-8. http://www.ifpri.org/pubs/jhu/transformrural.asp. 
• Kitching, Gavin (2001). Seeking Social Justice through Globalization. Escaping a Nationalist Perspective. Penn State Press. ISBN 0271021624. http://www.gavinkitching.com/africa_3.htm. 
• Gernot Kohler and Emilio José Chaves (Editors) "Globalization: Critical Perspectives" Hauppauge, New York: Nova Science Publishers <http://www.novapublishers.com/> ISBN 1-59033-346-2. With contributions by Samir Amin, Christopher Chase Dunn, Andre Gunder Frank, Immanuel Wallerstein
• Mander, Jerry; Edward Goldsmith (1996). The case against the global economy : and for a turn toward the local. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books. ISBN 0-87156-865-9. 
• Moore, Karl; David Lewis (2009). Origins of Globalization. New York: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-80598-8. http://www.routledgehistory.com/books/The-Origins-of-Globalization-isbn9780415805988. 
• Murray, Warwick E. (2006). Geographies of Globalization. New York: Routledge. ISBN 0415317991. 
• Neumann, Iver B.; Ole Jacob Sending (2010). Governing the Global Polity: Practice, Mentality, Rationality. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. ISBN 9780472070930. http://www.press.umich.edu/titleDetailDesc.do?id=371804. 
• Osterhammel, Jurgen; Niels P. Petersson (2005). Globalization: A Short History. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-12165-6. http://www.amazon.com/Globalization-Short-History-Jurgen-Osterhammel/dp/0691121656/. 
• Raffaele Feola, La Globalizzazione dell'Arte. L'UTOPIA DEL GLOBALE, Napoli 2009.
• Reinsdorf, Marshall and Matthew J. Slaughter (2009). International Trade in Services and Intangibles in the Era of Globalization. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. ISBN 9780226709598. 
• Sen, Amartya (1999). Development as Freedom. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 019289330. 
• Sirkin, Harold L; James W. Hemerling and Arindam K. Bhattacharya (2008). Globality: Competing with Everyone from Everywhere for Everything. New York: Business Plus. p. 292. ISBN 0446178292. http://www.bcg.com/globality. 
• Smith, Charles (2007). International Trade and Globalisation, 3rd edition. Stocksfield: Anforme. ISBN 1905504101. 
• Steger, Manfred (2002). Globalism: the new market ideology. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. ISBN 0742500721. 
• Steger, Manfred (2003). Globalization: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-280359-X. 
• Stiglitz, Joseph E. (2002). Globalization and Its Discontents. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-32439-7. 
• Stiglitz, Joseph E. (2006). Making Globalization Work. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-06122-1. 
• Tausch, Arno (2008). Multicultural Europe: Effects of the Global Lisbon Process. Hauppauge, New York: Nova Science Publishers. ISBN 978-1-60456-806-6. https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=7489. 
• Tausch, Arno (2009). Titanic 2010? The European Union and its failed "Lisbon strategy. Hauppauge, New York: Nova Science Publishers. ISBN 978-1-60741-826-9. https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=8314. 
• Rafael Domingo Osle, The New Global Law (Cambridge University Press, 2010)
• Wolf, Martin (2004). Why Globalization Works. New Haven: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300102529. 
• Behrens, Henning (2010). Globalization Vibrates the 21st century. Lithaus, Berlin: Lithaus Uni-Edition. ISBN 978-3-942171-11-3. http://www.amazon.de/Globalization-vibrates-century-Henning-Behrens/dp/3942171112/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1292411310&sr=8-4. 

External links

• Comprehensive discussion of the term at the Site Global Transformations

Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: Globalization

Look up globalisation or globalization in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Globalization

• Globalization Website (Emory University) Links, Debates, Glossary etc.
• BBC News Special Report – Globalisation
• Globalization collected news and commentary at The Guardian
  • Guardian article on the possibilities for a new kind of globalisation
• Inequality Project from University of Texas
• Resilience, Panarchy, and World-Systems Analysis from the Ecology and Society Journal
• OECD Globalization statistics
• Globalization theories
• The Sociology of Globalization
• Mapping Globalization — globalization project with a collection of maps
• Globalization from the Canadian Encyclopedia
• Globalization: An Innovation Imperative (Keynote Presentation by Mr. Pari Natarajan, CEO, Zinnov)
• YaleGlobal Online

Multimedia

• CBC Archives CBC Television reports on the opening of Moscow McDonald's (1990) – sample of Western business expanding into former communist countries.

v d e International trade Terminology Absolute advantage Balance of payments Balance of trade Capital account Comparative advantage Current account Export-oriented industrialization Fair trade Foreign exchange reserves Globalization Import substitution industrialization Net capital outflow Outsourcing Trade justice Trading nation Organizations and policies International Monetary Fund International Trade Centre United Nations Conference on Trade and Development World Bank Group World Trade Organization Economic integration Free trade zone Trade barrier Trade bloc Trade pact Schools of thought Economic nationalism Free trade Mercantilism Protectionism Customs unions ACU ASEAN CACM CAN CARICOM CEMAC CUBKR EAC EAEC EU GCC Mercosur SACU WAEMU Trading partners Argentina Canada China European Union India Japan Pakistan United States

This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)