Globalisation - Lecture 11
Globalisation: cliché or reality?
• Globalisation is in danger of becoming the cliché of our times: the big idea which encompasses everything
from global financial markets to the internet, but which delivers little substantive insight into the
contemporary human condition - scholars critique for globalisation
• Nevertheless, globalisations reflects a widespread perception that the world is rapidly being molded into a
shared social space by economic and technological forces (Held et al., 1999)
• It is possible to hold the meaning of globalisation but still be a realist
What is globalisation?
• A contested concept - no consensus on its definition. It is a cluster of ideas around something, we can
debate it but very difficult to define
• “The intensification of worldwide social relations which link distant localities in such a way that local
happenings are shaped by events occurring many miles away and vice versa” Giddens, 1990
• “The integration of the world-economy” Gilpin, 2001 - he is a realist so doesn’t put much emphasis on the
social side
• “De - territorialisation, or the growth of super territorial relations between people” Scholte, 2000
• “Time-space compression” Harvey, 1989 - due to the speed of communications, the world is getting
smaller compared to other points in history, we are becoming more global in terms of issues and crisis and
problems … world politics as opposed to international relations anymore
Historical perspective: waves of globalisation
• Various views on origins and phases. Some trace it as a process back to the third century BCE.. This
depends on the focus
• Others, Early Modern period (16th and 17th century) with the development of modern state, growing
international trade, formation of “new worlds”
• Depends on focus (trade, people, technology, ideas) and discipline (economics, history, sociology, IR) and
on what you are interested in
• Popular approach is to talk about two or three waves since 1870 - Modern and Late Modern period
• Three markers for those waves of democratisation: rate of immigration, exports and world GDP, and
foreign investment
• 1870-1914 First Wave:
- Early trade deals, innovations in transport and communications, trade in primary commodities,
international financial investment - capital crossing boarders, high economic growth rates, increased
migration (particularly from Europe to the US)
• 1914-1945 Period of Retreat:
- War (WWI and WWII), protectionism and fall-off in international trade, reduced foreign investment,
reduced migration flows, slower economic growth - maybe as a result of all those factors
• 1945-1980 Second Wave:
- Period of internationalism, strong international institutions being born, trade negotiations, high growth
rates, good for developed countries who are driving ahead but developing countries entering the trap
• 1980-Present Third Wave:
- Developing countries breaking into international manufacturing trade, radical change in
communications technologies, increased foreign direct investment, liberalised capital markets, and
also increasingly high rates of migration
• Not the only framework to look at globalisation, this doesn’t draw so much on transition of ideas
perhaps, or the notion of transactional and non-state actors
,Dynamics of globalisation - another framework “extensity”
• Thinking about globalisation in terms of its dynamic direction: extensity, intensity and velocity. Not
everything that is increasing but how it is increasing
• Extensity = social political and economic activities extending across political frontiers and boarders,
crossing them easterly
• Activities in one region of the world have implications for individuals in faraway regions and created great
political challenges e.g. armed conflict in poor regions and illegal migrations and asylum seekers into rich
countries (North Africa and Middle East)
• Intensity = level of interconnectedness is getting more and more intense. There has been a reverse with the
global economic crisis but much smaller than the reverse wave after the first wave of democratisation, this
has a lot to do with the level of governance we have today compared to the level of governance we had in
the early 20th century.
• Examples:
- Global trade and foreign direct investment
- Migration levels
- Global pandemic risks
- The internet and communications: Facebook has over 2 billion users, 1.1 billion check their account
every day. This kind of goes beyond anything that a nation state has in terms of communications
• Velocity = increasing speed of information, ideas, goods and capital
• Evolution of worldwide transport and communication systems
• Examples:
- Transactions in the UK dealt with by call centres in India in real time
- Ideas being spread around the Internet through social media in real-time e.g. role in Arab Spring in
2010-2011
Globalisation and IR theory
• The debate is partly ontological i.e what is it and what do we include in our definition
• Raises the vital importance issue of the state: is the sovereign state the most important actor in world
politics? reminder, sovereign state = tendency of being independent (economically, politically…),
countries like the US or the UK. The more you state tends towards liberalism, the less sovereign. This
question is simply raising a factor that a sovereign state is an important actor in world politics, i.e. the
sovereignty of states is important and influential in world politics
• State is more many scholars the building block of IR theory and of the international system: what does
globalisation mean for the state? Does globalisation require transitional governance?
• How might globalisation be interpret by a realist, liberal or constructivist, particularly?
Globalisation and complex interdependence
• Globalisation has something in common with what is referred to as complex interdependence - because it
implies greater interdependence.
• Complex interdependence is still focused on inter-state and transactional relations = relations between
states not exclusively between state governance, but also between non-state actors.
• Globalisation : increasing awareness of the world as a social in itself, and not just that states are interacting
with each other in other levels than state diplomacy, globalisations undermines the state as an actor
• The very distinction between domestic and external breaks down with globalisation
,Globalisation and future of the state : three perspectives
• The hyperglobalist perspective: globalisation is causing the demise of the sovereign state, such a radical
transformation that the state becomes something else because these forces are so powerful that can change
the dynamics of the political organisations that we have known and studied since the emergence of the
modern state
• The sceptical perspective: sovereign states remain the most important actor in world politics - realist
critique to the hyperglobalist perspective. E.g. Sovereign states regulate media (controversy of US
elections and social media)
• The transformationalist perspective: more modern and lies between the first two perspectives, notion
that globalisation transforms the sovereign state and world politics but it wont necessarily rip apart the
world of sovereign states
Hyperglobalist and transformationalist
• State sovereignty - key organising principle of international relations since the Early Modern period
• For some, globalisation constitutes a challenge for the state system that emerged in the Early Modern
period i.e. the state cannot handle the phenomena of globalisation
• Distinction between the domestic and international is becoming meaningless, a global politics is emerging
• The globalisation of world politics means that world politics is more than inter-state politics
• This state is only one actor among many and subject to new forces and must change in response
Will globalisation lead to global order?
• For liberals, globalisation requires a response: ‘global governance’ . Synonym of development off
international institutions and global governance
• National government, international organisations, transactional civil society, global policy networks and
informal forums = natural response to globalisation
• This global governance complex makes global public policy that addresses cross-border problems - EU
could be a role model for some
• For some, sovereignty is no longer conceived as the exclusive exercise of public power, but as the joint
exercise of public policy = issues for legitimacy and how a global institution can be legitimised
• Achieving government goals requires participating in global governance
• Echoes of a familiar realist-liberal debate over role of institutions
Critiques of globalisation
• Some challenge the empirical assumptions that underlie globalisation
• Other interpretations of economic and societal change
- Regionalisation and “triadisation” as a more powerful force
- Asymmetrical/uneven globalisation
- Globalisation backlash? Prevailing liberal view that we often get with liberal perspective: thinking as a
globalisation as a good thing for international law and international institutions but others don’t think it
is
Regionalisation and triadisation
• Globalisation refers to transcontinental or trans-regional patterns of interconnectedness, emphasising “the
global”
• however, the empirical evidence shows increasing intra-regional interconnectedness or regionalisation
• Beyond regionalisation, there is evidence that certain regions are becoming more integrated. A triad that
compromises North America, Europe and South-East Asia
• Undermines claims for globalisation, at least in some respects
, Asymmetrical / Uneven globalisation (Marx influence)
• Globalisation masks the asymmetry and unevenness of these factors
• Asymmetrical = implies universality and that all regions or countries must be similarly enmeshed in
worldwide processes, but what about sub-Saharan countries? Western globalisation?
• Uneven = globalisation as a new form of Western imperialism. Capitalism’s insatiable need for new
markets and profits has led to the globalisation of economic activity in Western countries. Big gaps
between countries. Critique perhaps that globalisation is masking this not-so-good forces, winners and
losers not just among countries but also within countries (asymmetrical and uneven within states too)
Globalisation backlash?
• Term used particularly since the 2008 financial crisis
• Globalism has emerged from the liberal tradition, embraces cosmopolitanism and international institutions
• Trump, aspects of the Brexit debate and some populist movements rail against international institutions, as
being undemocratic, citing sovereignty and challenging levels of migration
• Central piece of critique - migration levels huge levels of emphasise on the high levels of arriving
migration
• How important is the nation in nation-state? And what does it mean to people?
Summary
• Globalisation is controversial: there is no consensus on its definition or its implications. Politically
controversial because of the visible impact of what globalisation is doing to state, including developing
states
• But… Seems to be an empirical core to the phenomenon: process of transformation of the spatial
organisation of human relations
• While it is multi-dimensional, some argue it is a primarily economic phenomenon
• It raises familiar questions in IR over the centrality of the state and the potential for institutions and other
actors
• It is becoming an increasingly politicised concept - as opposed to 20 or even 10 years ago
Globalisation: cliché or reality?
• Globalisation is in danger of becoming the cliché of our times: the big idea which encompasses everything
from global financial markets to the internet, but which delivers little substantive insight into the
contemporary human condition - scholars critique for globalisation
• Nevertheless, globalisations reflects a widespread perception that the world is rapidly being molded into a
shared social space by economic and technological forces (Held et al., 1999)
• It is possible to hold the meaning of globalisation but still be a realist
What is globalisation?
• A contested concept - no consensus on its definition. It is a cluster of ideas around something, we can
debate it but very difficult to define
• “The intensification of worldwide social relations which link distant localities in such a way that local
happenings are shaped by events occurring many miles away and vice versa” Giddens, 1990
• “The integration of the world-economy” Gilpin, 2001 - he is a realist so doesn’t put much emphasis on the
social side
• “De - territorialisation, or the growth of super territorial relations between people” Scholte, 2000
• “Time-space compression” Harvey, 1989 - due to the speed of communications, the world is getting
smaller compared to other points in history, we are becoming more global in terms of issues and crisis and
problems … world politics as opposed to international relations anymore
Historical perspective: waves of globalisation
• Various views on origins and phases. Some trace it as a process back to the third century BCE.. This
depends on the focus
• Others, Early Modern period (16th and 17th century) with the development of modern state, growing
international trade, formation of “new worlds”
• Depends on focus (trade, people, technology, ideas) and discipline (economics, history, sociology, IR) and
on what you are interested in
• Popular approach is to talk about two or three waves since 1870 - Modern and Late Modern period
• Three markers for those waves of democratisation: rate of immigration, exports and world GDP, and
foreign investment
• 1870-1914 First Wave:
- Early trade deals, innovations in transport and communications, trade in primary commodities,
international financial investment - capital crossing boarders, high economic growth rates, increased
migration (particularly from Europe to the US)
• 1914-1945 Period of Retreat:
- War (WWI and WWII), protectionism and fall-off in international trade, reduced foreign investment,
reduced migration flows, slower economic growth - maybe as a result of all those factors
• 1945-1980 Second Wave:
- Period of internationalism, strong international institutions being born, trade negotiations, high growth
rates, good for developed countries who are driving ahead but developing countries entering the trap
• 1980-Present Third Wave:
- Developing countries breaking into international manufacturing trade, radical change in
communications technologies, increased foreign direct investment, liberalised capital markets, and
also increasingly high rates of migration
• Not the only framework to look at globalisation, this doesn’t draw so much on transition of ideas
perhaps, or the notion of transactional and non-state actors
,Dynamics of globalisation - another framework “extensity”
• Thinking about globalisation in terms of its dynamic direction: extensity, intensity and velocity. Not
everything that is increasing but how it is increasing
• Extensity = social political and economic activities extending across political frontiers and boarders,
crossing them easterly
• Activities in one region of the world have implications for individuals in faraway regions and created great
political challenges e.g. armed conflict in poor regions and illegal migrations and asylum seekers into rich
countries (North Africa and Middle East)
• Intensity = level of interconnectedness is getting more and more intense. There has been a reverse with the
global economic crisis but much smaller than the reverse wave after the first wave of democratisation, this
has a lot to do with the level of governance we have today compared to the level of governance we had in
the early 20th century.
• Examples:
- Global trade and foreign direct investment
- Migration levels
- Global pandemic risks
- The internet and communications: Facebook has over 2 billion users, 1.1 billion check their account
every day. This kind of goes beyond anything that a nation state has in terms of communications
• Velocity = increasing speed of information, ideas, goods and capital
• Evolution of worldwide transport and communication systems
• Examples:
- Transactions in the UK dealt with by call centres in India in real time
- Ideas being spread around the Internet through social media in real-time e.g. role in Arab Spring in
2010-2011
Globalisation and IR theory
• The debate is partly ontological i.e what is it and what do we include in our definition
• Raises the vital importance issue of the state: is the sovereign state the most important actor in world
politics? reminder, sovereign state = tendency of being independent (economically, politically…),
countries like the US or the UK. The more you state tends towards liberalism, the less sovereign. This
question is simply raising a factor that a sovereign state is an important actor in world politics, i.e. the
sovereignty of states is important and influential in world politics
• State is more many scholars the building block of IR theory and of the international system: what does
globalisation mean for the state? Does globalisation require transitional governance?
• How might globalisation be interpret by a realist, liberal or constructivist, particularly?
Globalisation and complex interdependence
• Globalisation has something in common with what is referred to as complex interdependence - because it
implies greater interdependence.
• Complex interdependence is still focused on inter-state and transactional relations = relations between
states not exclusively between state governance, but also between non-state actors.
• Globalisation : increasing awareness of the world as a social in itself, and not just that states are interacting
with each other in other levels than state diplomacy, globalisations undermines the state as an actor
• The very distinction between domestic and external breaks down with globalisation
,Globalisation and future of the state : three perspectives
• The hyperglobalist perspective: globalisation is causing the demise of the sovereign state, such a radical
transformation that the state becomes something else because these forces are so powerful that can change
the dynamics of the political organisations that we have known and studied since the emergence of the
modern state
• The sceptical perspective: sovereign states remain the most important actor in world politics - realist
critique to the hyperglobalist perspective. E.g. Sovereign states regulate media (controversy of US
elections and social media)
• The transformationalist perspective: more modern and lies between the first two perspectives, notion
that globalisation transforms the sovereign state and world politics but it wont necessarily rip apart the
world of sovereign states
Hyperglobalist and transformationalist
• State sovereignty - key organising principle of international relations since the Early Modern period
• For some, globalisation constitutes a challenge for the state system that emerged in the Early Modern
period i.e. the state cannot handle the phenomena of globalisation
• Distinction between the domestic and international is becoming meaningless, a global politics is emerging
• The globalisation of world politics means that world politics is more than inter-state politics
• This state is only one actor among many and subject to new forces and must change in response
Will globalisation lead to global order?
• For liberals, globalisation requires a response: ‘global governance’ . Synonym of development off
international institutions and global governance
• National government, international organisations, transactional civil society, global policy networks and
informal forums = natural response to globalisation
• This global governance complex makes global public policy that addresses cross-border problems - EU
could be a role model for some
• For some, sovereignty is no longer conceived as the exclusive exercise of public power, but as the joint
exercise of public policy = issues for legitimacy and how a global institution can be legitimised
• Achieving government goals requires participating in global governance
• Echoes of a familiar realist-liberal debate over role of institutions
Critiques of globalisation
• Some challenge the empirical assumptions that underlie globalisation
• Other interpretations of economic and societal change
- Regionalisation and “triadisation” as a more powerful force
- Asymmetrical/uneven globalisation
- Globalisation backlash? Prevailing liberal view that we often get with liberal perspective: thinking as a
globalisation as a good thing for international law and international institutions but others don’t think it
is
Regionalisation and triadisation
• Globalisation refers to transcontinental or trans-regional patterns of interconnectedness, emphasising “the
global”
• however, the empirical evidence shows increasing intra-regional interconnectedness or regionalisation
• Beyond regionalisation, there is evidence that certain regions are becoming more integrated. A triad that
compromises North America, Europe and South-East Asia
• Undermines claims for globalisation, at least in some respects
, Asymmetrical / Uneven globalisation (Marx influence)
• Globalisation masks the asymmetry and unevenness of these factors
• Asymmetrical = implies universality and that all regions or countries must be similarly enmeshed in
worldwide processes, but what about sub-Saharan countries? Western globalisation?
• Uneven = globalisation as a new form of Western imperialism. Capitalism’s insatiable need for new
markets and profits has led to the globalisation of economic activity in Western countries. Big gaps
between countries. Critique perhaps that globalisation is masking this not-so-good forces, winners and
losers not just among countries but also within countries (asymmetrical and uneven within states too)
Globalisation backlash?
• Term used particularly since the 2008 financial crisis
• Globalism has emerged from the liberal tradition, embraces cosmopolitanism and international institutions
• Trump, aspects of the Brexit debate and some populist movements rail against international institutions, as
being undemocratic, citing sovereignty and challenging levels of migration
• Central piece of critique - migration levels huge levels of emphasise on the high levels of arriving
migration
• How important is the nation in nation-state? And what does it mean to people?
Summary
• Globalisation is controversial: there is no consensus on its definition or its implications. Politically
controversial because of the visible impact of what globalisation is doing to state, including developing
states
• But… Seems to be an empirical core to the phenomenon: process of transformation of the spatial
organisation of human relations
• While it is multi-dimensional, some argue it is a primarily economic phenomenon
• It raises familiar questions in IR over the centrality of the state and the potential for institutions and other
actors
• It is becoming an increasingly politicised concept - as opposed to 20 or even 10 years ago
