Hemant Pankaj Pandit

1205222

What is globalisation, and why is it important to our understanding of world politics?

Globalisation is generally conceived as a process, of increasing interconnected-ness between societies around the world. This essay explores what globalisation exactly is, analyses whether the above conception of globalisation encompasses its true meaning by differentiating it from terms such as regionalisation and internationalization, it further considers and compares the general conception of globalisation as a process, to the conception of globalisation as western imperialism in a new guise. Once a clearer conception of the term is established, the essay explains how globalisation affects the worlds political scene. The essay addresses the key question of the importance of sovereign states in this new global era taking into account different perspectives. Further discusses the question of where power lies in this globalised world, and whether power has shifted to transnational actors. The poor complain, they always do, but thats just idle chatter. Our system brings rewards to all, at least to all who matter.(Helleiner, quoted by Noam)1 The quote clearly represents the elitist position that the essay takes, on the topic of how power is distributed in the world. Coherent with the elitist view the essay argues for the realist approach to understanding the importance of the state in the globalised world, comparing it with other key IR theories approach. The essay takes realist ideas and moulds it with an overall transformationalist perspective to globalisation. Establishing a clear conception of globalisation The term globalisation is used very frequently, usually referring to in a broad sense; rapidly expanding trade, investments, financial flows, travel, information and other forms of worldwide

Chomsky, Noam. What Is Globalization? YouTube. 26 Mar. 2007. Web.

Hemant Pankaj Pandit

1205222

communication. (Tonneson 2004, 1). This conception of globalisation does encompass how different societies connect, however it does not clearly distinguish the term globalisation from terms such as internationalisation or regionalisation. McGrew argues that they are different concepts Internationalisation refers to growing interdependence between states; the very idea of internationalisation presumes that they remain discrete national units with clearly demarcated borders. By contrast, globalisation refers to a process in which the very distinction between the domestic and the external breaks down. Distance and time are collapsed; Global events have local effects. To summarise: globalisation is a process which involves much more than simply growing connections or interdependence between states, it can be defined as: A historical process involving a fundamental shift or transformation in the spatial scale of human social organization that links distant communities and expands the reach of power relations across regions and continents. (McGrew, 2008, 18). Cultural interconnected-ness also differentiates globalisation from internationalisation; hence globalisation is seen as a carrier of values. Scholte further explains how globalisation is different from , Indeed, most accounts of globalizationas-internationalization stress that contemporary trends are replaying earlier historical scenarios. In particular, these analyses frequently note that, in proportional terms, levels of cross-border trade, direct investment and permanent migration were as great or greater in the late nineteenth century as they were a hundred years later. The suggestion is that globalization (read international interdependence) is a feature of the modern states-system that ebbs and flows over time. So social researchers can relax and carry on enquiries as before. Yet these very claims of familiarity and historical repetition constitute strong grounds for rejecting the definition of globalization-asinternationalization.(scholte)

The term interconnected-ness would imply an equal exchange of culture from all states, however it can be argued that rather than connectivity, globalisation is simply the latest stage of western imperialism. And that globalisation is and has only been a carrier of western cultures and values.

Hemant Pankaj Pandit

1205222

Globalization understood in this way is often interpreted as colonization and Americanization, as westoxification and an imperialism of McDonalds and CNN(Cf. B.R. Barber, Jihad vs. McWorld (New York: Ballantine, 1996). Scholte argues it is one thing to assert that globalization and

westernization have had interconnections and quite another to equate the two developments. After all, modernity and western civilization have appeared in many other guises besides contemporary globalization. Moreover, globalization could in principle take non-western directions (e.g. Buddhist globalisation, Islamic globalization, or possible future post-modern globalizations). Also, it is by no means clear that globalization is intrinsically imperialist, given that there are emancipatory transworld social movements as well as exploitative transworld actors and processes. In any case, westernization, modernization and colonization have a much longer history than contemporary globalization. Perhaps currently prevailing forms of globality could be analysed as a particular aspect, phase and type of modernity. On this reading, a definition of globalization would need to specify what makes global modernity distinctive. Yet in this approach, too, westernization and globalization are not coterminous. ( Scholte) Scholtes approach identifies globalization as the spread of transplanetary and in recent times more particularly supraterritorial connections between people. From this perspective, globalization involves reductions in barriers to transworld contacts. People become more able physically, legally, culturally, and psychologically to engage with each other in one world. This conception engages all key elements of the characteristics of globalisation, and does not fall victim to cul de sacs2

Scholte in his essay explains conceptions of globalisation as internationalisation, liberalisation, universalization and westernisation, and how they are dead ends (cul-de-sacs), unjustified.

Hemant Pankaj Pandit

1205222

Now that a clearer conception of globalisation has been established the essay explores how a globalised world alters the way we interpret world politics. But before that, we must establish whether we are in fact in a globalised world. Sceptics reject the idea of globalisation so much as to globalony and argue that states and geopolitics remain the principal forces shaping world order. (McGrew, 2008; 16) The sceptics refer to the period 1870 to 1914, and argue that the world now is much less globalised economically, politically and culturally and that rather than globalisation the contemporary world is marked by intensifying geopolitics, regionalisation and internationalisation. (Hirst, Thompson 1999, 2003) The hyperglobalists on the other hand argue that globalisation is very real. They argue globalisation signals a profound shift away from established political practices and eventually a single economy will emerge bringing about the demise of the nation state as global forces undermine the ability of governments to control their own economies and societies. (McGrew 2008, 16) This essay supports a transformationalist perspective to globalisation arguing that both other perspectives exaggerate their arguments and thereby misconstrue contemporary world order. The transformationalist perspective takes globalisation seriously, it acknowledges that it is leading not so much to the demise of the sovereign state but to a globalisation of politics in which the traditional distinction between domestic and international affairs is not terribly meaningful. The following section will explore effects globalisation using IR theories and compare with real events on the global stage, further justifying the transformationalist perspective.

Hemant Pankaj Pandit

1205222

Understanding the effects of globalisation from different perspectives and theories: Since there are many views of how world politics functions, one must consider the effects of globalisation on the world from all these perspectives. On comparing the various theoretical positions of the effects of globalisation, to real examples, the most fitting approach can be verified. The various approaches taken are Realism, Liberalism and Constructivism.

The realist paradigm considers the state as the self-interested central actor in world politics. Realists believe that the primary objective of all states is to survive; this is the supreme national interest. It acknowledges that the global system is anarchic hence states struggle for power and want to be regional, or even more so, global hegemons. Realists have consistently held that the continuities in international relations are more important than the changes, but many find this to be problematic in the age of globalisation. The importance of realism has not been diminished by the dynamics of globalisation. Globalisation does not alter the most significant feature of world politics, the territorial division of the world into nation states. Increased connectedness can make societies more dependent on each other, however not states. States are still in control, and are still self-interested. A key feature of a globalised world is economic connectedness between states; however it is not clear that this interdependence has made war less likely. There is still an obsolete struggle for political power between states. (Dunne, Schmidt 2008, 105) There are endless past examples portraying the innate drive for more power and territory confirming the realist iron law, for example, Nazi Germany and Czechoslovakia in 1939, and the Soviet Union and Hungary in 1956(Dunne, Schmidt 2008, 105). There is no shortage of examples to show that states act self-interestedly and try to attain power. Whats interesting is that there are good reasons to believe that the contemporary world scenario will be a realist one , a united Europe of

Hemant Pankaj Pandit

1205222

states is much more likely than a united states of Europe as all states are still divided by different national interests (Chirac, 2000), the current debate of the UKs negotiation with Europe, for a better deal, or referendum to stay in or out of the EU represents this realist perspective. (Packard 2013)3 Objections are raised with the Statist aspect of realism. For realists, states are the only actors that really count. Transnational corporations, international organisations, and ideologically driven terrorist networks such as the Al Qaeda, rise and fall but the state is the one permanent feature in the landscape of modern global politics. Liberalists argue that International organisations are independent important actors in world politics. For example the World Trade Organisation, created with the objective to promote free trade, move towards a more global world. However realists argue that international organisations are instruments used by the powerful states to fulfil their self-interest, states only participated as they saw self-interest. Realists do not have to situate their theory of world politics in opposition to globalisation; rather what they offer is a very different conceptualisation of the process. What is key to a realist view of globalisation is the claim that rudimentary transnational governance is possible but at the same time it is entirely dependent on the distribution of power. Given the preponderance of the power the United States holds, it should not be a surprise that it has been one of the foremost proponents of globalisation. The core values of globalisation are those espoused by the United States. At a deeper level though, realists argue that modernity is not, as liberals hope dissolving the boundaries of difference among people, instead interdependence is as likely to breed mutual vulnerability as peace and prosperity. Further, the state is not going to be eclipsed by global

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/cb2057fc-7917-11e2-b4df-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2NHcK4P1l

Hemant Pankaj Pandit

1205222

forces operating either below or above the nation state. Nationalism is still a potent force in world politics. Liberalism: Globalisation is seen as an end product of a long running transformation of world politics. For them states are no longer the central actors, in their place there are a number of actors of differing importance. Liberals are particularly interested in the revolution in technology and communications. States are no longer sealed units, the world is a cobweb of relations, not like the state or class models posed by realist and Marxist paradigms. Marxism: Globalisation is a sham, nothing new. It is the latest stage of international capitalism. Does not mark a quantitative shift in world politics nor does it render our existing theories and concepts redundant. Western led phenomenon furthers international capitalism. Globalisation deepens existing divide between the core the semi periphery and periphery. Constructivism: Globalisations as an external force acting state. Political leaders often believe thats a fact that cannot be challenged. Hence allows leaders to duck responsibility by blaming the way the world is. Constructivists think globalisation can be moulded in a variety of ways, it offers a real chance to create cross national social movements aided by modern technological forms of communication

The impact of globalisation on world politics: Addressing key issues using all theories, and working out which explains globalisation best Importance of state Non state actors
Does it make states more or less democratic

Hemant Pankaj Pandit Is globalisation a force Transnational, global problems- terrorism, climate change, territorial trap. Join positions and theories, draw parallels

1205222

Resources Cores saved in folder COCEPTUAL GLOBALISM and GLOBALISATION http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/csgr/research/workingpapers/2011/27511.pdf

Hemant Pankaj Pandit

What Is Globalization? The Definitional Issue Again: http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/2010/1/WRAP_Scholte_wp10902.pdf

1205222

Globalisation and sites of conflict: towards definition and taxonomy

http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/2124/1/WRAP_Higgott_wp0198.pdf

Globaisation is there anything to fear http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/2102/1/WRAP_Drache_wp2399.pdf

"Justice Unbound? Globalisation, States and the Transformation of the Social Bond" http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/2096/1/WRAP_Devetak_wp2999.pdf If you need more then
http://0-onlinelibrary.wiley.com.pugwash.lib.warwick.ac.uk/doi/10.1111/dech.2004.35.issue-3/issuetoc