Globalization (or globalisation) is a term used to describe the changes in societies and the world economy that are

the
result of dramatically increased tradeand cultural exchange. In specifically economic contexts, it refers almost exclusively
to the effects of trade, particularly trade liberalization or "free trade" Between 1910 and 1950, a series of political and
economic upheavals dramatically reduced the volume and importance of international trade flows. In the post-World
War II environment, fostered by international economic institutions and rebuilding programs, international trade
dramatically expanded. With the 1970s, the effects of this trade became increasingly visible, both in terms of the
benefits and the disruptive effects.
Meanings of Globalization
"Globalization" can mean:
The formation of a global village closer contact between different parts of the world, with increasing possibilities of
personal exchange, mutual understanding and friendship between "world citizens", and creation of a global civilization.
The World Bank defines globalization as the Freedom and ability of individuals and firms to initiate voluntary economic
transactions with residents of other countries.
Economic globalization 'free trade' and increasing relations among members of an industry in different parts of the
world (globalization of an industry), with a corresponding erosion of National Sovereignty in the economic sphere. The
IMF defines globalisation as the growing economic interdependence of countries worldwide through increasing volume
and variety of cross-border transactions in goods and services, freer international capital flows, and more rapid and
widespread diffusion of technology (IMF, World Economic Outlook, May, 1997).
The negative effects of for-profit multinational corporations the use of substantial and sophisticated legal and financial
means to circumvent the bounds of local laws and standards, in order to leverage the labor and services of unequally-
developed regions against each other.
The spread of capitalism from developed to developing nations.
"The concept of Globalisation refers both to the compression of the world and the intensification of conciousness of the
world as a whole" - Roland Robertson
It shares a number of characteristics with internationalization and is used interchangeably, although some prefer to use
globalization to emphasize the erosion of the nation-state or national boundaries.

Globalism, if the concept is reduced to its economic aspects, can be said to contrast with economic nationalism and
protectionism. It is related to laissez-faire capitalism and neoliberalism.

History of globalization
Since the word has both technical and political meanings, different groups will have differing histories of "globalization".
In general use within the field of economics and political economy, is, however, a history of increasing trade between
nations based on stable institutions that allow individuals such as Masa and Kellie and firms in different nations to
exchange goods with minimal friction.

The term "liberalization" came to mean the combination of laissez-faire economic theory with the removal of barriers to
the movement of goods. This led to the increasing specialization of nations in exports, and the pressure to end protective
tariffs and other barriers to trade. The period of the gold standard and liberalization of the 19th century is often called
"The First Era of Globalization". Based on the Pax Britannicaand the exchange of goods in currencies pegged to specie,
this era grew along with industrialization. The theoretical basis was Ricardo's work on Comparative advantage and Say's
Law of General equilibrium. In essence, it was argued that nations would trade effectively, and that any temporary
disruptions in supply or demand would correct themselves automatically. The institution of the gold standard came in
steps in major industrialized nations between approximately 1850 and 1880, though exactly when various nations were
truly on the gold standard is a matter of a great deal of contentious debate.

The "First Era of Globalization" is said to have broken down in stages beginning with the first World War, and then
collapsing with the crisis of the gold standard in the late 1920's and early 1930's.

Globalization in the era since World War II has been driven by Trade Negotiation Rounds, originally under the auspices of
GATT which led to a series of agreements to remove restrictions on "free trade". The Uruguay round led to a treaty to
create the World Trade Organization or WTO, to mediate trade disputes. Other bilateral trade agreements, including
sections of Europe's Maastricht Treaty and the North American Free Trade Agreement have also been signed in pursuit of
the goal of reducing tariffs and barriers to trade.

Signs of globalization
Globalization has become identified with a number of trends, most of which may have developed since World War II.
These include greater international movement of commodities, money, information, and people; and the development
of technology, organizations, legal systems, and infrastructures to allow this movement. The actual existence of some of
these trends are debated.

Increase in international trade at a faster rate than the growth in the world economy
Increase in international flow of capital including foreign direct investment
Greater transborder data flow, using such technologies such as the Internet, communication satellites and telep hones
The push by many advocates for an international criminal court and international justice movements (see the ICC and ICJ
respectively).
Greater international cultural exchange, for example through the export of Hollywood and Bollywood movies.
Some argue that even terrorism has undergone globalization. Terrorists now have attacked places all over the world.
Spreading of multiculturalism and better individual access to cultural diversity, with on the other hand, some reduction in
diversity through assimilation, hybridization, Westernization, Americanization or Sinosization of cultures.
Erosion of national sovereignty and national borders through international agreements leading to organizations like the
WTO and OPEC
Greater international travel and tourism
Greater immigration, including illegal immigration
Development of global telecommunications infrastructure
Development of a global financial systems
Increase in the share of the world economy controlled by multinational corporations
Increased role of international organizations such as WTO, WIPO, IMF that deal with international transactions
Increase in the number of standards applied globally; e.g. copyright laws
Barriers to international trade have been considerably lowered since World War II through international agreements
such as the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). Particular initiatives carried out as a result of GATT and the
WTO, for which GATT is the foundation, have included:

Promotion of free trade

Of goods: reduction or elimination of tariffs; construction of free trade zones with small or no tariffs
Of capital: reduction or elimination of capital controls
Reduction, elimination, or harmonization of subsidies for local businesses
Intellectual Property Restrictions
Harmonization of intellectual property laws across nations (generally speaking, with more restrictions)
Supranational recognition of intellectual property restrictions (e.g. patents granted by China would be recognized in the
US)
As defined through lecture series given by Dr. Cullenberg, Professor of Economics at the University of California,
Riverside, globalization can be basically understood from an economic perspective through the following seven aspects:

International Trade: Exports and imports of goods and services. Creation of increased interdependency and the creation
of a balance of trade.
International Portfolio Investment: Assets, cash, international currency, stocks, bonds, real estate, etc.
Migration: Movement of people.
Foreign Direct Investment: Movement of whole companies.
International Environment: Global warming, O-zone layer, water resources etc.
Global Culture: Creation of understanding and meaning, and international communication.
International Governments: Control and power nationally and internationally.

Anti-globalization

Various aspects of globalization are seen as harmful by public-interest activists as well as strong state nationalists This
movement has no unified name. "Anti-globalization" is the media's preferred term. Activists themselves, for example
Noam Chomsky, have said that this name is meaningless as the aim of the movement is to globalize justice. Indeed, "the
global justice movement" is a common name. Many activists also unite under the slogan "another world is possible",
which has given rise to names such as altermondisme in French.

There is a wide variety of different kinds of "anti-globalization". In general, critics claim that the results of globalization
have not been what was predicted when the attempt to increase free trade began, and that many institutions involved in
the system of globalization have not taken the interests of poorer nations and the working class into account.

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.

Many "anti-globalization" activists see globalization as the promotion of a corporatist agenda, which is intent on
constricting the freedoms of individuals in the name of profit. They also claim that increasing autonomy and strength of
corporate entities increasingly shape the political policy of nation-states.

Some "anti-globalization" groups argue that globalization is necessarily imperialistic, is one of the driving reasons behind
the Iraq war and that it has forced savings to flow into the United States rather than developing nations.

Some argue that globalization imposes credit-based economics, resulting in unsustainable growth of debt and debt
crises.

Another more conservative camp in opposition to globalization are state-centric nationalists that fear globalization is
displacing the role of nations in global politics and point to NGOs as impeding upon the power of individual nations.
Some advocates of this warrant for anti-globalization are Pat Buchanan and Jean-Marie Le Pen.

The main opposition is to unfettered globalization (neoliberal; laissez-faire capitalism), guided by governments and what
are claimed to be quasi-governments (such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank) that are supposedly
not held responsible to the populations that they govern and instead respond mostly to the interests of corporations.
Many conferences between trade and finance ministers of the core globalizing nations have been met with large, and
occasionally violent, protests from opponents of "corporate globalism".

The movement is very broad, including church groups, national liberation factions, left-wing parties, environmentalists,
peasant unionists, anti-racism groups, libertarian socialists and others. Most are reformist (arguing for a more humane
form of capitalism) and a strong minority is revolutionary (arguing for a more humane system than capitalism). Many
have decried the lack of unity and direction in the movement, but some such as Noam Chomsky have claimed that this
lack of centralization may in fact be a strength.

Protests by the global justice movement have now forced high-level international meetings away from the major cities
where they used to be held, and off into remote locations where protest is impractical.

Some "anti-globalization" activists object to the fact that the current "globalization" globalizes money and corporations
and at the same time refuses to globalize people and unions. This can be seen in the strict immigration controls that exist
in nearly all countries and the lack of labour rights in many countries in the developing world.

Pro-globalization (globalism)
Supporters of democratic globalization can be labelled pro-globalists. They consider that the first phase of globalization,
which was market-oriented, should be completed by a phase of building global political institutions representing the will
of World citizens. The difference with other globalists is that they do not define in advance any ideology to orientate this
will, which should be left to the free choice of those citizens via a democratic process.

Supporters of free trade point out that 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, they claim that this
leads to lower prices, more employment and higher output.

Libertarians and other proponents of laissez-faire capitalism say higher degrees of political and economic freedom in the
form of democracy and capitalism in the developed world produce higher levels of material wealth. They see
globalization as the beneficial spread of democracy and capitalism.

Critics argue that the anti-globalization movement uses anecdotal evidence to support their view and that worldwide
statistics instead strongly support globalization. One effect being that the percentage of people in developing countries
living below $1 (adjusted for inflation and purchasing power) per day have halved in only twenty years [1]. Life
expectancy has almost doubled in the developing world since WWII and is starting to close the gap to the developed
world where the improvement has been smaller. Child mortality has decreased in every developing region of the world
[2]. Income inequality for the world as a whole is diminishing [3].

Many pro-capitalists are also critical of the World Bank and the IMF, arguing that they are corrupt bureaucracies
controlled and financed by states, not corporations. Many loans have been given to dictators who never carried out
promised reforms, instead leaving the common people to pay the debts later. They thus see too little capitalism, not too
much. They also note that some of the resistance to globalization comes from special interest groups with conflicting
interests like Western world unions.

Globalization in question
There is much academic discussion about whether globalization is a real phenomenon or only a myth. Although the term
is widespread, many authors argue that the characteristics of the phenomenon have already been seen at other
moments in history. Also, many note that those features that make people believe we are in the process of globalization,
including the increase in international trade and the greater role of multinational corporations, are not as deeply
established as they may appear. The United State's global interventionist policy is also a stumbling point for those that
claim globalization has entered a stage of inevitability. Thus, many authors prefer the use of the term internationalization
rather than globalization. To put it simply, the role of the state and the importance of nations are greater in
internationalization, while globalization in its complete form eliminates nation states. So, these authors see that the
frontiers of countries, in a broad sense, are far from being dissolved, and therefore this radical globalization process is
not yet happening, and probably won't happen, considering that in world history, internationalization never turned into
globalization (the European Union and NAFTA are yet to prove their case.)

However, the world increasingly shares problems and challenges that do not obey nation state borders, most notably
pollution of the natural environment, and as such the movement previously known as the anti-globalisation movement
has transmogrified into a movement of movements for globalisation from below; seeking, through experimentation,
forms of social organisation that transcend the nation state and representative democracy. So, whereas the original
arguments of anti-global critique can be refuted with stories of internationalisation, as above, the emergence of a global
movement is indisputable and therefore we can speak of a real process towards a global human society of societies.
Economic Globalization
For many, globalization is equated with economic interdependence. At the dawn of the 21st century, the scale and
magnitude of global economic interaction appears to be unprecedented.[11] The volume of capital flows far exceeds that
of the past. The developing world, too, have increasingly become a part of global trade and capital flows.[12]
Contemporary patterns of economic globalization suggest the emergence of a new international division of labor.[13] In
short, the world has reached a stage in which one can meaningfully refer to one global economy.[14]

Others present a more limited view. Current trends suggest economic and financial integration has proceeded only in a
limited manner.[15] Economic flows remain highly concentrated amongst the wealthiest countries.[16] Within North
America, Europe, and East Asia, contrary to the thesis that unfettered global capital will induce homogenization in policy,
important differences in the structuring of economic life persist.[17] Even multinational corporations, seen by many as
the prime agents of globalization, remain tied in significant ways to their country of origin.[18]

Debate has waged as to whether economic globalization will exacerbate economic inequalities and conflict or contribute
to advancing the lot of the poorest relative to others. Studies have pursued whether globalization process have produced
wealth convergence and divergence both within developed countries and developing.[19] While markets will produce
winners and losers, liberals argue that the openness accompanying globalization will benefit all.[20] Others see the
potential to produce widening disparities.[21] The short answer is that the effect of globalization has been both positive
and negative and is dependent on a range of domestic and international factors. Extensive evidence also exists to
support the claim that economic interdependence is related to more peaceful relations. States, for example, that trade
more with each other are less likely to go to war.[22] The direction of causation is less clear, however. In other words,
does greater trade lead to peace or does peace lead to greater trade? The greater ties from interdependence have been
argued to lead to both greater cooperation and conflict. The relationship is, in fact, most likely nonlinear.[23]

Nation-states bypassed by globalization may resent the advancement of others. At the same time, many critics argue
engagement in the global economy is exploitation in itself. For those who believe the nation-state is in retreat, the
growing power of unaccountable market forces and international organizations provokes calls for change.[24] Many
NGOs (and global civil society more broadly) resist at least some aspects of globalization. Many social movements and
NGOs seek to give ideas of human rights, environmental protection and the like equal footing with economic efficiency.
One might divide them into those who seek a fundamental restructuring of the global system and those who want to
reform the existing system. For reformers, amongst the changes they seek are a more equitable distribution of wealth,
attention to the plight to women, and addressing the global environmental crisis.[25] More radical solutions would
severely curtail market forces. For those who see the benefits of greater interconnectedness, particularly economic
openness, anti-globalization protestors have misplaced their anger.[26] The problems identified by the anti-globalization
movement arise from relying too little on markets and individualism, not due to over-reliance.

The Nature of Political Authority

One important discussion surrounds whether the nation-state is obsolete as the best form of political organization.
Economic and social processes increasingly cross borders making it increasingly difficult for states to control their
territory, a central component of sovereignty. In a number of issue areas, it appears increasingly untenable that the most
suitable level at which to make decisions is at the state level. As governance structures are established at the global level
to deal with the growing number of global problems, conflicts have also emerged as to how to make international
organizations more accountable and democratic.

Future of the Nation-State

Regardless of how historically fleeting[27] or fictitious in much of the world[28], the model of the Westphalian nation-
state is increasingly called into question. In economic affairs, with states reluctant to cede authority to international
actors, some see economic processes out of control[29] leaving little option but to accommodate the forces of
globalization.[30] Mobile capital puts pressure on states to pursue neo-liberal policies[31] and government spending is
constrained to be more competitive.[32] Transportation and communication advances make it easier for diaspora groups
or others to organize and challenge state authority. The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction or the technology
and expertise to construct them are a growing concern. Where states have collapsed and human rights violations
rampant, the CNN effect has resulted in public pressure on other governments to intervene via peacekeeping operations.
To deal with such developments, states have found it useful to construct international organizations and grant them
significant decision-making authority. These organizations can at times provide a venue in which disputes can be
peacefully adjudicated. What is more, a host of nonstate actors, whether al-Qaeda or Amnesty International or
Microsoft, appear to have significant ability to shape state behavior.

Global Governance
For many, it is increasingly clear that real authority has been transferred to international organizations and other non-
state actors. As such, this raises questions about how they may be made more democratically accountable. Multilateral
institutions are increasingly important sites in which economic globalization is contested.[33] Civil society groups have
had a growing, yet uneven, effect on nation-states and international organizations.[34] Non-governmental organizations
make the claim that they should have a greater voice to put a check on national self-interest, dominance of the global
North, and corporate greed they perceive to dominate the decision-making of most international organizations. [35]
Many have pointed out, however, that civil society itself does not have strong claims to democratic authority.[36]
Speaking of a global civil society also masks significant differences between groups, such as whether they come from the
global North or South.
Technology and Governance
Given the close relationship between globalization and technological innovation, research has also examined how new
technologies will effect our notions of democracy and citizenship. On the surface, it may seem that these technologies
would allow for greater information availability allowing the oppressed to rise up against authoritarian governments as
well as allowing the disadvantaged to participate on a more equal footing in advanced industrial democracies. Recent
scholarship, however, has taken issue with the assumption that these technologies are liberating. Some have pointed out
that technologies make surveillance and control easier.[37] What is more, even within the global North, access to digital
technology remains highly uneven, and is becoming more so.[38] In addition, the use of technology may run the risk of
destroying social capital, which many see as a vital component of a vibrant democracy.[39] Some argue that democracy
requires shared experiences and, as the internet allows us to become increasingly atomized, this will be lost. In fact, the
internet, and the proliferation of media in general, stifles debate by making it easy to customize the information we
receive to our tastes, thereby making it easier to avoid views in opposition to our own.

Cultural Globalization
Through the global media and communications technologies, virtually everyone on earth is exposed to foreign ideas and
practices. Some argue that the scale of global communication and migration has begun to brake down national identities.
The emergence of NGOs and global social movements as important political actors provide further evidence for a new
culture of global civil society.

For many, cultural globalization means Westernization or Americanization. An important distinction concerning today's
cultural globalization is that it is largely driven by corporations rather than countries. As such, one of the central concerns
is the spread of consumer culture. For many critics, non-Western culture and practices are at risk of being overwhelmed
by homogenizing "McDonaldization".

Skeptics contend that the erosion of culture has been overstated. They point to evidence that local culture remains
strong.Cultural interactions have taken place for centuries so to argue non-Western cultures are somehow pristine is
naVve. In a normative sense, the cultural degradation argument dismisses the ability of non-Western people to control
their destiny and incorporate those attributes they may find useful. What is more, some argue that national identities are
founded on real differences that have continued salience.

Other skeptics point to the growth of ethnic and nationalist movements in the post-Cold War world as evidence that
these sources of identity remain strong. Intense interaction may make people more cognizant of difference and lead to
conflict.[46] Information technology may, in fact, intensify traditional identities.[47] Cultural globalization involves
processes of unequal power, which brings traditions and identities into question. Where ethnic and religious groups feel
threatened by globalization, there is the potential for conflict.[48]

This discontentment has gained renewed attention as some see globalization and modernity as a motivation for
September 11.[49] Since then, there has been increasing attention to Islamic fundamentalism. For some, the conflict is a
long historical one between Muslim and Christian civilizations.[50] As such, cultural differences are deemed to be highly
resistant to change and increased interaction will produce conflict. Others see a more complex phenomenon. In the last
twenty-five years, fundamentalist movements have emerged within virtually all of the world's major religions indicating a
broader unease with the forces of globalization and modernity.[51]

Migration is a significant aspect of globalization that has not only economic but also social and cultural effects. While
migration is not unique to the present age, communication and transportation technologies allow migrants a greater
opportunity to maintain links with their homelands. More porous borders raise questions about notions of citizenship
and identity. While challenges to national identity may come from supranational entities such as the European Union,
globalization at the same time may facilitate the triggering of more local, particularistic identities.