The Essentially Contested Concept of Globalization

J. Strand, Tina Mueller, J. A. Mcarthur
{"title":"The Essentially Contested Concept of Globalization","authors":"J. Strand, Tina Mueller, J. A. Mcarthur","doi":"10.1177/1743453X0500100105","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"It is an understatement to say a growth industry has emerged around the concept ‘globalization’. Observers of all political leanings have been focusing attention on the process of globalization and its implications for corporations, states, and labour groups (e.g., Waters, 1995; Rodrik, 1995; Peterson, 1996; Veseth, 1997; Sassen, 1999). At issue are the intended and unintended effects of the globalization of product and financial markets into transnational systems. Some authors view globalization as threatening state sovereignty while others fear that globalization is eroding the gains made by labour in the twentieth century. Several authors see globalization as part of a long-term process whereby the meaningfulness of national borders is vanishing. Still others treat globalization as a new phenomenon. When defining globalization, economic, political, social, and cultural factors are combined and emphasized differently. Most authors provide a multidimensional definition of globalization, but few authors go beyond economic measures, descriptive case studies, and/or anecdotes. Those who do operationalize the concept often use economic measures such as trade density or capital flows as a proxy for what most authors would agree is a more nuanced and multifaceted concept. Moreover, many authors employ a notion of globalization that differs little from the concepts of transnationalization and interdependence. Needless to say, there is no intersubjective definition of globalization. Beyond the definitional morass, there appears to be divergent views in the public discourse regarding what globalization represents and whether the process of globalization has positive or negative effects on the state, business, and labour. If globalization is a distinct and unique socio-economic force, then what are the implications for national governments, labour, and transnational corporations? Is globalization eroding state sovereignty? Are workers disadvantaged vis-a-vis globalizing capital? Can more equitable and/or effective global institutions be constructed in this age of globalization?","PeriodicalId":381236,"journal":{"name":"Politics and Ethics Review","volume":"86 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2005-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Politics and Ethics Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1743453X0500100105","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

It is an understatement to say a growth industry has emerged around the concept ‘globalization’. Observers of all political leanings have been focusing attention on the process of globalization and its implications for corporations, states, and labour groups (e.g., Waters, 1995; Rodrik, 1995; Peterson, 1996; Veseth, 1997; Sassen, 1999). At issue are the intended and unintended effects of the globalization of product and financial markets into transnational systems. Some authors view globalization as threatening state sovereignty while others fear that globalization is eroding the gains made by labour in the twentieth century. Several authors see globalization as part of a long-term process whereby the meaningfulness of national borders is vanishing. Still others treat globalization as a new phenomenon. When defining globalization, economic, political, social, and cultural factors are combined and emphasized differently. Most authors provide a multidimensional definition of globalization, but few authors go beyond economic measures, descriptive case studies, and/or anecdotes. Those who do operationalize the concept often use economic measures such as trade density or capital flows as a proxy for what most authors would agree is a more nuanced and multifaceted concept. Moreover, many authors employ a notion of globalization that differs little from the concepts of transnationalization and interdependence. Needless to say, there is no intersubjective definition of globalization. Beyond the definitional morass, there appears to be divergent views in the public discourse regarding what globalization represents and whether the process of globalization has positive or negative effects on the state, business, and labour. If globalization is a distinct and unique socio-economic force, then what are the implications for national governments, labour, and transnational corporations? Is globalization eroding state sovereignty? Are workers disadvantaged vis-a-vis globalizing capital? Can more equitable and/or effective global institutions be constructed in this age of globalization?
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
有争议的全球化概念
说一个围绕“全球化”概念的成长型行业已经出现,这是保守的说法。所有政治倾向的观察家都把注意力集中在全球化进程及其对公司、国家和劳工团体的影响上(例如,Waters, 1995;罗德里克,1995;彼得森,1996;Veseth, 1997;Sassen认为,1999)。问题在于产品和金融市场全球化对跨国体系的有意和无意的影响。一些作者认为全球化威胁到国家主权,而另一些人则担心全球化正在侵蚀20世纪劳动力取得的成果。一些作者认为全球化是一个长期过程的一部分,在这个过程中,国界的意义正在消失。还有一些人将全球化视为一种新现象。在定义全球化时,经济、政治、社会和文化因素被不同地组合和强调。大多数作者提供了全球化的多维定义,但很少有作者超越了经济指标、描述性案例研究和/或轶事。那些将这一概念付诸实践的人经常使用经济指标,如贸易密度或资本流动,作为大多数作者认为是一个更微妙和多方面的概念的代表。此外,许多作者采用的全球化概念与跨国化和相互依存的概念差别不大。不用说,全球化没有主体间的定义。除了定义上的混乱之外,关于全球化代表什么以及全球化进程对国家、企业和劳工的影响是积极的还是消极的,公共话语中似乎存在着不同的观点。如果全球化是一种独特的社会经济力量,那么它对各国政府、劳工和跨国公司的影响是什么?全球化正在侵蚀国家主权吗?工人在全球化资本面前处于不利地位吗?在这个全球化时代,能否建立更公平和/或有效的全球机构?
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Genetic Profiling: Ethical Constraints upon Criminal Investigation Procedures Considering Reasonableness The Ideological Roots of Right-Wing Ethnoregionalism and the Civic Republican Critique Notes on Contributors Moral Actors and Political Spectators: On Some Virtues and Vices of Rawls's Liberalism
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1