Three Perspectives (Aspects) of Looking at the Meaning of Globalisation

(i) Internationalisation
This describes increase in economic transactions across borders which has been taking place
since the turn of the century, but has undergone quantitative leap in the recent decades. For goods
and services including people to be freely allowed across borders, there must be an environment
of liberalisation that supports business, good measure of access, democracy etc. Dubai has
recently emerged as a place of world shopping arena, businesses, tourism, entertainments and
sports. For that reason, Tiger Woods, one of the worlds most celebrated golf players has invested
in golf course to which the royal family in that enclave has substantial stakes. This is at the
auspices of economic and political liberalism, which political institutions of that country have
allowed.
Otherwise, those ideas are usually considered either too notorious or not in line with Islamic
ways of life because it gives too much room to frivolities or unethical religious mode of Islam.
Liberalisation of politics is a fundamental basis for economic liberalisation. Democracy, for
example, has become a political ideology for nations wishing to move forward in their reforms
and development process, precisely because the world seems not only more comfortable with it,
but also sees it as the best among alternatives. It is no longer entirely seen as the capitalist west
agenda, especially since the fall of communism in 1989.
More so, the recent orange revolution that engulfed the Middle East countries from Libya to
Egypt, Algeria to Syria etc. is substantially attributed to the demand for democracy, which
globalisation is carrying in its endless journey from continent to continent, region to region and
country to country.
(ii) Technological revolution and worldwide network
This describes the effect of electronic communication, permitting other actors to operate globally
with less regard for location, distance and borders. These are also opportunities engendered by
the intent and spirit of globalisation. For example, the rate at which information technology is
networking (Cable News Networks (CNN), Al-Jalzeera etc.) and shared among peoples and
nations in the last decade has been unprecedented. Today, there is universality of ethics of work
in organisations, corporations, public institutions in the way information is generated, shared,
stored and utilised all aided by computer internet system. Executives can now do in-depth
research on industries without spending hours reading through tons of materials. Taking the West
as a role model without admiring its values, Malaysia believes it can become a super power by
2020. The only thing Malaysia thinks it can copy from the West is the inputs of ICT to economic
development by building a technologically savvy and knowledge driven society that derives
power from modern economy and transportation systems. Nothing more, nothing less.
Liberalism is what the west thinks it owes the world, and on that basis, it shares knowledge and
technology internationally. This is the positive and interesting thing about
globalisation. There is also the negative side of the revolution in technology.
The September 11, 2001 terrorist attack in Washington, for example, presents a negative side of
globalisation. Today, the Americans feel their lives is affected more and more by events outside

their domain, that terrorist half the world could wreak havoc in Washington or anywhere in the
United States.
If not the philosophies of liberalism, which provides basis for globalisation, perhaps, choice
entry and exit from American states could be a lot more difficult. Of course, it is utterly difficult
to visit the US today. Everybody is a suspect or potentially seen as capable of ricking havoc
against America. Even those who are favourably disposed to American values are treated with
disdain at airports and ports of entry to the USA.
(iii) Liberalisation
Liberalisation describes policies undertaken by national governments (states) to deregulate their
economies, create market for free entries and exits, and thus prevent hostilities among nations
including the provision of information and frameworks within institutions that shapes
expectations. This is because people are now more concerned about the growth of their
economies. What are the environments that promote growth? First prerequisite is an environment
that promotes efficient rules and regulations, including access and opportunities for investment.
It raises another question as to what institution is responsible for the promotion good legal
environment for economic management. Of course, the political institution is responsible for the
promotion and enforcement of responsible legal (political, economic and social) environments.
This is what most investors cherish of countries across the world. Here, a point has been
underscored that liberalisation of political institutions and politics is a defining element of
globalisation. An economy is intensely shaped by it. For example, Simai (2003) wrote that
politics is a domain of activity and a sphere of every society, but also a dimension of the
functioning of all institutions and most facets of human relations. To reiterate the initial point, the
economy is par excellence political and the global economy is no exception. Globalisation
cannot be simply reduced to mere movement of people and goods across borders. What about the
efforts of many non-English speakers who travels annually to learn to speak English Language?
For example, the Japanese, Chinese, Koreans students and many other Asian countries travel to
Europe and America in large numbers to study English Language every summer. The purpose is
to enable students share in the very language that is fast assuming universality of purpose. In
fact, globalisation seems to be railing on English Language. It is the language of global economy,
global politics and international relations (IRs).
Globalisation has truly shaped or introduced similarities in the way states behave across the
world. But it has not truly made the world a global village/community where values and interests
are same and one. Globalisation is a network of interdependence which in reality does not
imply interdependence of universality of purpose, but has to a considerable extent, succeeded in
creating gaps between the rich and the poor (Nye 2003). Globalisation must be seen from the
positive and negative sides. It is truly a network of global interdependence. But it is an
interdependence in which (stronger) advanced states reap the gains in geometrical progression,
while the (weaker) developing states reap the gains in arithmetical progression. We must not
conceive globalisation as economists believe presuming that the world economy are one of
equality and the same for all countries. Globalisation should be conceived as an economic world
market arena in which there is little or no morality and where every actor is struggling to
maximise his gains, where the activities of Britain or America, for example, is capable of
jeopardising the interest of Nigeria as a result of national interest of those countries.

Globalisation is also riding on liberalism, according people the liberty, to enter the world stage,
compete and become successful or remain unsuccessful. You cannot exclude yourself from the
train, and the price of failure as an individual or a country is costly.
States with stronger technology to produce sophisticated goods and services enters weaker
economies that have far less technology to compete. In fact, many have argued that the
resurgence of globalization is to enable advanced economies and their MNCs flood weaker
states market with goods and services realising that citizens in weak states would prefer such
items with sophisticated advertorial entries, quality and conviction. On the contrary, goods and
services from weak states are not allowed to enter markets in advanced countries on grounds of
lack of quality assurance. The E.U. Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), for example, favour
subsidies to European farmers and onward movement of outputs to African markets, but restricts
finish products of African economies into European markets on account that quality cannot be
assured.