In Lieu of MIL (Political Science) Politics of Globalization Study Material : Unit I-V

Home , Trade creation, Trade diversion, Trade facilitation

B.Com. (Prog.) Semester-III/IV

SCHOOL OF OPEN LEARNING UNIVERSITY OF DELHI

Department of Political Science Editor : Prof. Tapal Biswal Dr. Mangal Deo

Graduate Course In Lieu of MIL B.Com Semester III/IV POLITICS OF GLOBALIZATION

CONTENTS

Unit-I : The Concept of Globalization and its Debate Dr. Rukmani

Unit-II : Approaches to Understanding Globalization Lesson-1 : Liberal Approach Anwita Lesson-2 : Radical Approach Anwita

Unit-III : Issues in Globalization : Alternative Perspectives on Globalization: Nature and Character Inder Sekhar Yadav

Unit-IV : Globalization and Politics in Developing Countries Lesson-1 : Globalization and the Social Movements Dr. Abhishek Nath Lesson-2 : Globalization and the Demise of Nation-State Nishant Yadav Lesson-3 : Globalization and Human Migration Nishant Yadav

Unit-V : The Inevitability of Globalization: Domestic and Deepika Global Responses

Edited by: Prof. Tapan Biswal Dr. Mangal Deo

SCHOOL OF OPEN LEARNING UNIVERSITY OF DELHI 5, Cavalry Lane, Delhi-110007 Unit-I The Concept of Globalization and its Debate

Outline

 Student Learning Outcomes  Introduction  Understanding of Globalization- Globalists, Sceptics, and Transformationalists  Dimensions of Globalization – Economic, Political, Cultural  The Globalization Debate – Argument in Favor and Against  Conclusion  Summary  Probable Questions  Suggested Readings

Student Learning Outcomes  Student will be able to define the Concept of Globalization  Student will be able to differentiate between the Globalist, Sceptics and Transformationalist understanding of the notion of Globalization.  Student will be able to comprehend the various aspects of globalization debate.  Student will be able to analyze the challenges posed by the notion of globalization Introduction The word ‘Globalization’ has become the buzzword befitted to describe the growth of modern economy and is often heard in the business world, corporate meetings, trade markets, at international conferences, in schools, colleges and many other places. Many among us refer to the current period that we live in as ‘The Era of Globalization’ and consider that the process of globalization has started only recently. But the fact is that globalization is not a new phenomenon. Though the public references to the term ‘globalization’ have become increasingly common in the last two decades but the concept of globalization can be traced back to much earlier period. According to scholars like Held and McGrew, the basis of the concept lies in the work of various political thinkers of 19th and early 20th century such as Saint Simon and Karl Marx to the scholars like Mackinder, who observed how world is getting integrated due to modernity. Though the term ‘globalization’ was not actually used until late 20th century but it became a buzz word due to the advancements in technology and communication. Harmonizing with the quick spread of the information revolution, the breakdown of state socialism and the consolidation of capitalism worldwide affirmed the conviction that the world was quickly turning into a space, which is shared both socially and economically.

However, regardless of whether the thought of globalization in the long run underpins or blocks the comprehension of contemporary human conditions and methodologies to improve it, it involves discussion. In order to understand the globalization debate and answer the questions such as what does globalization symbolize? Is it a new concept or did it exist earlier? What are the various dimensions of the concept of globalization? This essay is divided into four sections. The first section tries to make sense of the concept of Globalization. It describes the understanding of the notion by various scholars classified such as Globalists, Sceptics and Transformationalists. The second section of the essay focuses on different dimensions of globalization such as economic globalization, cultural globalization and political globalization. The third section deals with the debate between the globalists and sceptics. It focuses on four aspects – power, economy, culture and order. The fourth and the final section of the essay deals with the challenges faced by the concept of globalization. 1.1 Understanding the Concept of Globalization The term ‘Globalization’, though a buzzword of late twentieth and early twenty first century, do not have a certain definition. It is a tricky term to explain due to its elusiveness, however, Modelski believes that “globalization is a historical process which is characterized by a growing engagement between peoples on all corners of the globe” (1972). It has been comprehended as an activity resulting into a contracting world or a world in which interregional power relations are restructured in such a way that interconnectedness among regional powers have magnified like anything (Harvey: 1989, Giddens: 1990, Scholte: 1993, Kofman and Youngs: 1996, Held et al: 1999). What differentiates these definitions is the differential importance given to the physical, spatial-temporal and cognitive aspects of globalization. Globalization has a colossal physical perspective, which is effectively recognizable in flows of trade, capital and individuals over the globe. These are empowered by various types of framework – physical, (transport or banking framework), regulating, (exchange rules) or representative, (English as a most widely used language) – which set up the preconditions for regularized and moderate types of worldwide interconnectedness. The idea of globalization implies considerably more than an enlarging of social relations and exercises across locales and countries. It exemplifies a substantial shift in the spatial reach of social relations and organization concerning the interregional scale. As an outcome, far off events and advancement can come to have genuine local effects while local happenings can incite critical worldwide repercussions. Globalization along these lines causes a subjective move communicated both in a growing public awareness to the manners by which distant events influence local fortunes and the other way around (Held and McGrew: 2003). In short, globalization is defined in terms of escalating scale, rising extent, speeding up and deepening influence of interregional flows and patterns of social interaction. It denotes to a

2 transformation in the degree of human social organization that associates distant communities and expands the reach of power relations across the world’s major region and continents. There are three main viewpoints on Globalization, which are classified as Globalist, Sceptic and Transformationalist. The Globalists viewed globalization as a process, which is unavoidable and believed that globalization as a process is taking place and local cultures is being affected by it due to the increase of international capitalism. They regarded globalization as an action, which is constructive in nature as it is characterized by economic uplift, high prosperity and the spread of democracy. The set of scholars, for example, Thomas Friedman, Ohmae, Ritzer, Dicken, Frank, Modelski and others who fall under this school of thought accepts that the capitalist system has conquered all corners of the globe to spread its impact and therefore, created a world without borders. Mass media platforms like the internet and television gives individuals from one side of the world quick availability of substance from the opposite side of the world, in this manner, certainly obscuring the lines between cultures and societies spread over the world. Thomas Friedman (2000) contends, “Globalization has occurred because of the global adoption of neoliberal economic policies. Neoliberalism asserts that in order to develop, it is necessary for governments in developing countries to remove obstacles to free trade and free market capitalism”. Globalization is described by an expanding network of nation-states and furthermore a move in the area of administrative capacity to transnational institutions like World Trade Organization (WTO) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The widening of social relations has additionally brought about an escalated trade between societies through migration, tourism, and media and an expansion of flows of global cultural products and practices, for instance, McDonalds, Disney, Woodland, Samsung, Ford, etc. On the other hand, there is another school of thought known as Sceptics or traditionalists comprises of scholars such as Paul Hirst, Thompson, Sterling, Perlmutter, Dore, Boyer and others who accepted that Globalization is merely an escalation and magnification of historical processes of internationalization as have occurred in the past during colonial and imperialist periods. The sceptics question the very idea of globalization and ask, what is ‘global’ in globalization in the event that it needs explicitness or cannot be deciphered as an all-inclusive marvel. They argue that with no recognizable territorial referent how one will separate between the international or transnational and global. They believe that a progressively legitimate conceptualization of current trends is captured by the term ‘internationalization’, which is developing connections between national economies or social orders. They consider the interdependence as an impermanent and subjective condition. This is an argument for the persistent importance of land, borders, habitation and national government in the present-day world structure. Lastly, are the scholars like Held, Castells, Randeria and others who are known as Transformationalists. These scholars accept the fact that globalization represents a critical

3 shift however questions the certainty of its effect. They assert that the national and local institutions still play a substantial role. They believe that in this idea of globalization, though the global institutions would be democratized and empowered but nation-states hold a fundamental role as territorially specific, legitimate and accountable structure of approach or policy. The transformationalists contend that globalization is creating new economic, political and social circumstances which are serving to change state powers and the setting in which state works. In short, Globalization has implied various things to various individuals. The thoughts are diverse, compatible and wide, to such an extent that it is anything but difficult to fall into a definitional trap. For example, Globalists consider globalization as an advance step toward an integrated world market; Sceptics defined it as an escalation of internationalization and Transformationalists consider globalization to be a rise of supranational and worldwide administering bodies under a new world order. 1.2 Dimensions of Globalization Economic Globalization: At an individual level, economic matters and economic differences help structure our identities and position in society, while at an international level, trading strength and investment power are important in establishing political power. If American or any other culture is seen to be dominating the world, it is partly because the investments and products of McDonald’s, Microsoft, Disney, etc. are so visible and significant in other parts of the globe. Most of the scholars believe that globalization in its present form actually mean economic globalization. It is defined as a process in which through trade, foreign direct investments, worldwide exchange of workers and technology, the economies of nations get assimilated with the international economy (Bhagwati:2007). Economic globalists understand-globalization as a phenomenon concerning the growing integration of the national economies of most states in the world, based on five interrelated drivers of change: lower trade barriers, increasing financial flows, improved communications, technological advances, and increased labor mobility (Held: 2004).In the conceptual construction of economic globalization, ‘liberalization’ is a powerful component which is mainly sought to bring down the tariff barriers. The other major constituent of economic globalization is privatization, which is defined as “an act of reducing the role of government or increasing the role of the private sector in an activity or in the ownership of assets” (Savas: 1987). What is foremost in economic globalization is the changing role of the state, which, while readjusting its policy priorities, tends to be receptive to the flow of trade and investments. This is a unique development that had no parallel in the past. Being proactive, the state seems to be welcoming the global agencies since their contribution is significant for development and growth.

Political Globalization: Political globalization is defined as reconfiguration of the political order. It has been argued that politically, globalization has ushered in an era of “geo-centric global politics” instead of “state-centric geopolitics” born at the treaty of Westphalia. The globalists believed that in a globalized world, national governments are increasingly becoming powerless and irrelevant. While they are too small to deal with the global problems that affect their citizens—such as global warming or the illegal drugs trade—they are too big to deal with local matters such as refuse recycling. The scholars who believe in the process of political globalization argue that power is no longer principally structured and implemented on a national scale but, gradually, has acquired a transnational, regional or even global dimension. For them, it is about Global governance – “a process of political co-ordination in which the tasks of making and implementing global or transnational rules, or managing trans-border issues, are shared among governments and international and transnational agencies (both public and private), with the object of realizing a common purpose or collectively agreed goals” (Held: 2004). Cultural Globalization: Cultural exchanges between individuals have taken place since time immemorial but in the last few decades, it has taken place rapidly. With technological innovations such as printing press, electricity and cinema during first and second industrial revolutions, societies began to have access to machines, which allowed them to create cultural products and export them across borders. These increased interconnections between countries and cultures advances the possibility that local cultures can be shaped by other more powerful cultures and form a more homogenous world (Ritzer: 2010; Liebes:2003). This process of homogenization or convergence is reflected in several concepts and models such as the Global culture, Americanization or McDonaldization. Across different regions and countries in the world, people wish to listen to the same music, wear the similar clothes or purchase the same brand products. These developments in cultural practices are known as Global culture or cultural globalization. In other words, globalization has contributed in the creation of a new and identifiable class of individuals who belong to a homogenize culture. 1.3 The Great Globalization Debate: For and Against In the times, when the country is witnessing a biggest debate about the citizenship, about the politics of identity over the Citizenship Amendment Act 2019, National Register of Citizens, it become interesting to study and know about the Great Globalization Debate. As mentioned before, globalization is the most contested concept. There is no certain definition of the concept. There are few scholars who believe in the existence of the concept and there are few who disagree to the fact that there is any process known as globalization, which is taking place/ has begun, who considered globalization as a myth. In this section, we will discuss this great debate between the globalists and the sceptics under three heads- political power, economy and culture.

Arguments in favor of Globalization The globalists who believe in the concept of globalization, defines it as a process of extremely far-reaching, focused and speedy flows, movements and networks across regions. Their argument in favor of globalization runs as follows: Political Power: As a Global Politics The globalists believe that Globalization as a procedure is dissolving the ability of nation- states to perform autonomously in the expression and quest for local and global policy objectives. They consider that the nation state’s power and role is declining and political power is being reconfigured. The contemporary politics is Global politics. The globalists contend that the development of international and transnational institutions after the Second World War, the structure and elements of both state and civil society has changed due to the establishment of international organizations like UN and its specialized agencies to international pressure groups and social movements. They consider that the state has become an uneven field of policymaking, imbued by transnational networks just as by domestic agencies and forces. Multiple layers of governance have been seen among and across the political boundaries. The concept of sovereignty has been changed into the concept of shared power due to the emergence of new international and transnational institutions. This change can be represented by various advancements, including the rise of international organizations and regimes. In 1909, there were 37 Inter- Governmental Organizations (IGOs) and 176 International Non- Governmental Organizations (INGOs), while in 2000 there were 6,743 IGOs and 47,098 INGOs. In addition, large number of international policymaking forum such as UN, G7, IMF, EU, or WTO has been established. Major changes have also taken place in the military orders. These days' global and regional security institutions have become more vital. In order to enrich their security, most states in contemporary times have decided to join to a large number of multilateral arrangements and institutions. Be that as it may, it is not only the organizations of protection, which have gotten global. The manner in which military equipment is fabricated has likewise changed. The time of ‘national heroes’ has been supplanted by a sharp increment in licensing, co-production arrangements, joint ventures, corporate alliances and subcontracting. The development of transnational powers has diminished the control of individual governments over the actions of their citizens and other people. The independence of states is undermined as governments discover it progressively hard to seek after their domestic agendas without cooperating with other agencies - political and economic. There is no territorial referent for the pedophiles, terrorists or illegal immigrants, they do not distinguish between territories, thus, neither can the policies for their effective administration and resolution can be differentiated. Many of the traditional domains of state activity and

6 responsibility (defense, economy, health, law and order) can never again be served without standardizing multilateral forms of collaborations. These contentions indicate that the modern state is increasingly rooted in the networks of regional and global interconnectedness transformed by supranational, intergovernmental and transnational powers. Such developments challenge both the sovereignty and legitimacy of states. Sovereignty is challenged on the ground that the political authority of states is displaced and undermined by regional and worldwide frameworks- political, economic and cultural. State legitimacy is challenged because states cannot deliver fundamental goods and services to their citizens on their own, without international cooperation. Culture: Global / Popular Culture As discussed earlier, Globalization is all about the growing worldwide interconnections between societies, and Culture is in many senses the most direct, obvious and visible way in which we experience these interconnections in our daily lives. It is a crucial component of globalization because it is through culture that common understandings are developed. Our everyday activities suggest that our cultural traits, practices and goods are increasingly becoming global. The scholars who believe in these phenomena of globalization known as Globalists fall into two categories. On the one hand are those who argue that with new communication technologies, we are moving towards a ‘global village1’ in which communication and community can be freed from their physical or geographical constraints and a greater diversity of voices can be heard. On the other hand, are those scholars who, while focusing on structures, point to the profound and growing inequalities, which characterize patterns of ownership of information and communication devices, infrastructure and flows. They point also to the homogenizing consequences of global communication networks and cultural flows. The globalists claim that in contemporary times, the extent, concentration, promptness and dimensions of global cultural communications is unmatched. In ongoing decades, there has been a remarkable development in the worldwide flow of cultural goods like printed matter, music, visual arts, cinema and photography, radio and television - in terms of both distance and volume. For example, people everywhere are exposed to the values of other cultures as never before. Indeed, even the way that we as a whole communicate in various dialects cannot stop the progression of thoughts and societies. The English language is turning out to be prevailing to the point that it gives a phonetic foundation as powerful as any technological framework for transmitting ideas and cultures.

1The ‘global village’ is a notion which was developed by the media theorist Marshall McLuhan in the 1960s. It refers to the transcendence of constraints of physical place enabled by new communications technologies that allow instant, inexpensive, global communication. It has been put forward vociferously by those who extol the democratic and participatory possibilities afforded by the Internet.

They also argue that beyond the scale of transcendence, the fascinating fact about the cultural globalization is that it is driven by organizations rather than nations. The globalists express that Corporations have supplanted the states and theocracies as the focal makers and merchants of culture. Private international institutions are not new but their mass effect is. For example, regardless of whether one is in India or in London or Canada, he/she look forward for the brands like Woodland, Samsung, Marks and Spencer, McDonald and so forth. For the globalists, the presence of new worldwide communication framework is changing relations between physical areas and social conditions, and adjusting the ‘situational geology’ of political and social life (Meyrowitz:1985). New understandings, shared traits and edges of significance are expounded without direct contact between individuals. The new global communication system can serve to segregate, dissembled, identities from particular times, places and traditions, and can have a ‘pluralizing impact’ on identity formation, creating a range of hyphenated identities which are ‘less fixed or unified’ (Hall: 1992). Economy: As a Global Economy In today’s world, everyone is habituated of buying goods from other countries—electronics from Taiwan, vegetables from Mexico, clothes from China, cars from Korea, and handicrafts from India. Most modern shoppers take the “Made in [a foreign country]” stickers on their products for granted. Long-distance commerce was not always this common, although foreign trade—the movement of goods from one geographic region to another—has been a key factor in human affairs since prehistoric times. According to the globalist interpretation, the outcome of growing integration is that a single worldwide economy is emerging and functioning. Globalists consider that in the single global economy in the making, economic processes are increasingly ‘stretched’ so that events and decisions taken in a particular state or region have a significant impact in other distant parts of the world. It has been suggested, for instance, that the 1997/98 East Asian financial crisis, which resulted in widespread bankruptcies in countries such as Thailand, Malaysia and Korea, and consequent devaluation of shares in Europe and North America, was originally caused by the decisions of a small number of financial traders in New York (DeLong: 1999). Certainly, the threat of economic disruption in one continent can have an immediate impact on share prices and economic transactions in others. Associated with this, they argue, there has been an ‘intensification’ of flows and networks of economic interaction, with communication systems spreading throughout the world and negating the significance of physical distance. Developments in information technology are seen as central here, enabling the co-ordination of operations of multinational corporations (MNCs) and their subsidiaries and independent suppliers across international borders and oceans. Individuals and enterprises can now use the Internet to buy products of their choice without moving from their homes and offices, with the potential of avoiding the scrutiny, restrictions, and perhaps even the tax-raising powers of the state.

The scholars suggest that the current period of economic globalization is different from the earlier phases by the presence of a single global economy surpassing and incorporating the world’s major economic regions. In contrast with the period of significant levels of trade protectionism and imperial economic zones, the present global economy is substantially more open and its operations influence upon all countries, even those ostensibly ‘pariah’ states such as Cuba and North Korea. In this global economy, no single place can direct the standards of worldwide exchange and business; nonetheless, it stays an exceptionally stratified order. The scholars also suggest that the global economic expansion which is driven by ascension of multinational corporations was advanced by the convergence of three more powerful forces: (1) new software and increased public familiarity with the Internet, (2) the incorporation of that knowledge into business and personal communication, and (3) the market influx of billions of people from Asia and the former Soviet Union who want to become more prosperous—fast. Converging, these factors generated their own critical mass. The benefits of each event became greater as it merged with another event. Increased global collaboration by talented people without regard to geographic boundaries, language, or time zones created opportunity for billions of people. Arguments against the Globalization The scholars who do not believe in the concept of globalization and consider it as deep- rooted procedure or an age-old process of social and economic transformation are known as Sceptics. They characterize the idea of globalization as an augmentation of the phenomena of regionalization and internationalization. They argue, if the ‘global’ cannot be construed truly, as a universal phenomenon; at that point the idea of globalization needs explicitness. With no identifiable territorial referents, it is not possible to differentiate between the international or the transnational and the global. Their argument against the concept of globalization runs as follows: Political Power: Sovereignty and Territoriality Surveying the political scene of the twenty-first century, the sceptics argue that though the geopolitical roles of individual states may have changed yet these transformations have been suited within the predominant structures of world order – the modern nation-state system. It is true that decolonization did not create a world of equally free states. The influence of western commerce, trade and political organization outlived direct rule. Powerful national economic interests have often had the option to continue domineering situations over former colonial territories through the substitution of ‘a visible presence of rule’ with the ‘invisible government’ of corporations, banks, and international organizations. However, constrained the genuine control most states have over their domains, they for the most part fiercely protect their sovereignty and their autonomy. The choices, benefits and welfare policies of states change drastically as per their area in the chain of importance of states, but in the age

9 of nation-states, the independence granted by sovereignty, in principle, still matters significantly to all states. Against the set of globalist scholars who contend that state sovereignty is declining in the era of globalization, there is another set of sceptic scholars led by Michael Mann, Paul Hirst, Grahame Thompson, Peter Evans, Stephen Krasner and others who accept that state is strengthening in the time of globalization. These scholars believe that the process of globalization do not possess anything new. According to the sceptics, national political traditions are quiet dynamic, distinctive political bargains can still be struck between governments and electorates, and states continue to rule. The business of national politics is as significant as it was during the period where present day states were first framed. For states, in many places have progressively asserted a monopoly of the legitimate use of force and judicial regulation, established permanent military forces as a symbol of statehood just as a means of guaranteeing national security, consolidated tax raising and redistributive mechanisms, established nation-wide communication infrastructures, a national or official language etc. Michael Mann (2008) argued that depending upon the socio-spatial networks of social interaction there are four kinds of threats (global capitalism, environmental danger, identity politics and post-nuclear geopolitics) which have various impact on nation states in different regions. Further, he states that though global interaction networks are indeed strengthening but the state institutions (both domestic and international) have causal efficacy as they provide necessary conditions for social existence. Therefore, they cannot be the sheer result of other sources of social power. For him, state is the independent source of power. Similarly, Peter Evans (1995) argues that in contemporary economy the role or influence of a nation state has expanded. He calls it embedded autonomy and suggests that the state gives a hierarchical structure, unsurprising principles and collective goods or infrastructure and promotes economic growth and capital accumulation in peripheral countries. He contends that the involvement of state in economy in different roles becomes crucial for the development of national economies. For him, the association between nation state and the global context is a shared one, because a country's position in the international division of labor is determined by the state policies. In short, the sceptics believe that the role of state is strengthening in the era of globalization in contrast to the globalist who states that the power of nation-state is declining. Global Culture: A Fable In contrast to the globalist thesis of global culture, the sceptics believe that national cultures are not obsolete in the contemporary era, which is defined as an era of globalization. They argue that despite globalization, one does not see the evidences of cultural assimilation, rather stereotypes of national cultures are used for providing orientation. They state that it is not an era of globalization but an era of localization and regionalization.

The sceptic scholars while agree to the fact that the process of globalization emerged from the Western cultures but they disagree to the idea that the phenomenon of globalization comprises homogenization of world cultures ensuing from one way exchanges among the latter. This set of scholars believe that globalization rather creates a state of heterogeneity which refers to a network structure in which nodes tend to connect with each other in regard to certain cultural dimensions (Matei: 2006). They argue that though the national cultures do not remain unaffected by the global flows or rapid interconnectedness but the actual crux or the soul of the national culture remain intact and unaffected, as has always been; only peripheral surfaces gets directly impacted (Appadurai: 1996; Ritzer: 2010). Scholars like Robertson (2001) and Wiley (2004) who are critical of the processes like Americanization and McDonaldization advocates the notion of heterogeneity and argues that these global flows do not eradicate local cultures; they only change some of their traits and reinforces others. They contend that national cultures are fluid constructs, which have become part of a heterogeneous transnational field of culture. Scholars who belong to this school of thought believes that the rapid and deepened interconnectedness has actually played a pivotal role in the creation of national cultures instead of global cultures. For example, scholar like Benedict Anderson argues that the development of print capitalism in the late eighteenth century has helped in the emergence of nationalism as it led to different types of literature being disseminated throughout a country, enabling people to ‘imagine’ themselves as a part of national community despite they were never ever being likely to meet a larger number of people. The sceptics propose that the global culture can never dissolve the idea of nationhood as the struggle for national identity and nationhood has been so extensive. National cultures will remain the formidable source of ethical and political direction, as they are concerned about consolidating the linkages between political identity, self-determination and the powers of the state. Similarly, in the postmodern era, though the electronic dissemination and proliferation of images and information are accepting more implications and national governments are no longer able to monopolize the flow of information but they are able to control any outside cultural influences. In addition, the new electronic networks of communication and information technology aids in rekindling the traditional methods and bases of national life, strengthening their impact and effect. These networks “make possible a denser, more intense interaction between members of communities who share common cultural characteristics, notably language”; and this gives a restored driving force to the reappearance of “ethnic communities and their nationalisms” (Smith: 1990). Furthermore, the sceptics contend, while new communication systems can generate access to distant others, they additionally produce a consciousness of distinction; that is, of the

11 incredible diversity in lifestyles and value orientations (see Gilroy 1987; Robins 1991; Massey and Jess 1995). In spite of the fact that this awareness may upgrade social comprehension, it frequently prompts an emphasis of what is unmistakable and eccentric, further dividing social life. Global Economy: A Myth The sceptics who suspects the very idea of globalization contends that the claim of the uniqueness of the present level of economic interdependence is false, or, at the very least, completely exaggerated. They express that an increasingly substantial conceptualization for current patterns with respect to economy is caught by the terms ‘internationalization’- that is developing associations among the fundamentally distinct national economies – and ‘regionalization’ or ‘triadization’- the geographical grouping of cross-border economic and social exchanges (G. Thompson: 1998, Hirst and Thompson: 1999). They argue that the present world economy is not closely integrated. According to them, the evidences fail to confirm that there exists or is emerging a single global economy whether in regards of finance, technology, labor or production (Hirst and Thompson 1999). In contrast to the ‘belle époque’ of 1890-1914 the scale of flows of trade, capital and migrants are as of now of a considerable lower order (Gordon1988; Weiss 1998; Hirst and Thompson 1999). Although today gross flows of capital between the world's major economies are to a great extent remarkable, the real net flows between them are not as impressive as they use to be at the start of the twentieth century (Zevin1992). For example, even among the OECD states (the most interconnected of any economies), the contemporary trends propose just a restricted level of economic and financial integration (Feldstein and Horioka :1980; Neal: 1985; Zevin: 1992; Jones: 1995;Garrett: 1998). In contrast to the globalists, the sceptics interpret current trends as evidence of a significant internationalization of economic activity. They argue that the analysis of current trends confirms to the ‘triadization’, instead of an integrated global economy. The economic activities are contained among the three core blocs, each with its own center and periphery; namely, Europe, Asia-Pacific and the Americas. This triadization of the world economy is associated with a developing inclination towards economic and financial interdependence among each of these three zones at the cost of integration between them (Lloyd: 1992; Hirst and Thompson: 1999). This growing regionalization of economic activity become more obvious with the emergence of the formal structures of APEC, NAFTA, MERCOSUR, SAARC, ASEAN and the EU and in the regional production and marketing strategies of multinational corporations and national firms (G. Thompson: 1998). The sceptics are also critical of the suggestion that the contemporary time is characterized by the presence of an emerging global capitalism. While not denying that capitalism is the ‘only economic game in town’ succeeding the breakdown of state socialism, they contend that such advancements ought not be considered as sign of another globalized (‘turbo’) capitalism, rising above and subsuming national capitalisms (Callinicos et al.: 1994; Ruigrok and Tulder:

1995; Boyerand Drache: 1996; Hirst and Thompson: 1999). These scholars despite what might be expected accept that distinct capitalist social formations keep on prospering on the prototypes of the European social-democratic mixed economy, the American neoliberal project and the developmental state of East Asia(Wade: 1990). For sceptics, discussions about the ‘end of geography’ is an overstatement about globalization as place and space remain central determining factors of the global distribution of wealth and economic power. In a world of almost real-time communication and corporate capital, the destiny of firms - big or small - is still essentially dictated by local and national competitive advantages and economic conditions (Porter: 1990; Ruigrok and Tulder: 1995; G. Thompson: 1998). Therefore, one can state that, multinationals are little more than ‘national corporations with international operations’ since their command post or the home base is such an essential element of their continued success and identity(Hu 1992). As opposed to the globalists, the sceptics contend that however most states today depend, to changing degrees, on universal progressions of exchange and finance to ensure national economic growth be that as it may, national governments remain central to the governance of the world economy, since only they have the formal political authority to regulate economic activity. In this way, contemporary conditions represent no genuine risk to national sovereignty or autonomy and calling the trends as ‘global’ is a myth. Conclusion To sum up this globalization debate one can say that this debate is all about the interpretation. The same half -filled glass can be seen by two different people in two different ways – half filled or half empty. Similarly, the process of rapid interconnectedness is also interpreted in three different ways by scholars. The clash involves the conceptualization and interpretation of the absolute most basic proofs. For instance, the sceptics put essential accentuation on the organization of production and trade (focusing on the geographical rootedness of MNCs and the minimal changes in trade-GDP ratios over the twentieth century), while globalists emphasis on financial deregulation and the explosive growth of global financial markets in the course of the last a quarter century. Sceptics focuses on the unending prevalence of the national interest and the cultural traditions of national communities which upkeep their distinct identity, while globalists emphasize on the growing importance of global political problems - such as worldwide pollution, global warming and financial crises - which give rise to a growing sense of the common fate of human kind. Before coming to a settled view, one has to consider the various responses to the debate. Summary The Great Globalisation Debate: In Sum Arguments in Favour of Globalization Arguments Against Globalization (Globalists) (Sceptics)

Concepts One world, shaped by highly Internationalization not Globalization extensive, intensive, and rapid flows, It is regionalization. movements and networks across regions and continents. Power Erosion of state sovereignty, The nation –state rules Inter- autonomy and legitimacy. governmentalism Decline of Nation-state. Rise of multilateralism. Culture Emergence of Global Popular Culture. Resurgence of nationalism and national Erosion of Fixed political identities. identity Hybridization. Economy Global Informational Capitalism. Development of regional blocs. The Transnational economy. Triadization. A new global division of labour. New Imperialism Order Multilayered global governance. International society of states. Global civil society. Political conflicts between states Global Polity. inevitably persists. Cosmopolitan orientations. International Governance and Geopolitics. Source: Held and McGrew (2002)

Probable Questions: 1. What is the meaning of the term ‘Globalization’? What are its various perspectives? 2. Write an essay on the various dimensions of globalization. 3. Discuss the major debates on Globalization. 4. How does Globalization affect the sovereignty of the nation-state? 5. Write short notes on:  Political Globalization  Globalists views on Globalization  Cultural Homogenization  Global Economy 6. How the understanding of globalists is different from the understanding of sceptics of the concept of globalization?

References  Bhagwati, J. (2007) In Defense of Globalization, Oxford University Press.  Boyer, R and Drache, D, (eds) (1996) States against Markets, London: Routledge  Friedman, T.L. (2005) “It’s a Flat World, After All,” New York Times Magazine, April 3  Garrett, G. (1998) Global markets and national politics. International Organization 52.  Gordon, D. (1988) The global economy: new edifice or crumbling foundations? New Left Review168.  Hall, S. (1992) The Question of Cultural Identity. In S. Hall, D. Held and A. McGrew (eds), Modernity and its Futures, Cambridge: Polity Press.  Held, D and A. McGrew (eds.), (2002) Global Transformations Reader: Politics, Economics and Culture, Cambridge: Polity Press  Held, D (ed) (2004) A Globalizing World? Culture, Economics, Politics, London: Routledge.  Hirst, P. and Thompson, G. (1999) Globalization in Question, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Polity Press.  Hu, W. (1992) Global corporations are national firms with international operations. California Management Review 34.  Kofman, E. and Youngs, G. (eds) (1996) Globalization: Theory and Practice. London: Pinter  Ritzer, G. (2010) Globalization: A Basic Text, Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 33-62  Scholte, J. A. (1993) International Relations of Social Change. Buckingham: Open University Press.  Smith, A.D. (1990), Towards a Global Culture, Theory, Culture and Society, Vol.7, Pp.171-91.  Thompson, G. (1998) Globalization versus Regionalism? Journal of North African Studies. Suggested Reading  Bhagwati, J. (2007) In Defense of Globalization, Oxford University Press.  Held, D and A. McGrew (eds.), (2002) Global Transformations Reader: Politics, Economics and Culture, Cambridge: Polity Press  Held, D (ed) (2004) A Globalizing World? Culture, Economics, Politics, London: Routledge.  Hirst, P. and Thompson, G. (1999) Globalization in Question, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Unit-II : Approaches to Understanding Globalization Lesson-1 Liberal Approach

Chapter outline Introduction Liberal approach of globalization Early Thoughts of Liberals Modern Thoughts of Liberals Role of Politics in Liberal Approach

Introduction Globalization is a word that comes from the term “globe” and means the world coming together. It can be defined as the process where goods, services, businesses, technology, culture and people have freedom and opportunity of movement across the countries. Today we have access to so many amenities including advances in technology, mobile phones and telecommunication, transportation, education, health and hospitality, innovation, research development in the field of science and technology and internet which are the result of globalization. But as it is said that where there is a light there is a shadow, therefore, there are different approaches on globalization by the different academician, researcher, socialist, economist, politicians and people of the society. Different individuals have a different mindset about globalization, there some believe that globalization is beneficial for all which will provide new job opportunities to the developing and underdeveloped nations, on the other hand, some believe that globalization will have a negative impact on developed nations by destroying their job opportunities. Primarily there are two major approaches on globalization which we are going to discuss in this chapter as given below: As a business term globalization refers to the tendency of international trade, investments, information technology exchange and outsources manufacturing to weave the economies of diverse countries together. But in terms of political science, globalization refers to a situation where two or more countries come together and join hands for the betterment and development of each other by providing convenient trade opportunities and building strong political relations at the global level.

Liberal Approach of Globalization The liberal approach of globalization has emerged from western countries which talk about looking at global relations with a liberal approach or with an open-minded view. This approach has several authors and thinkers such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Adam Smith, Bentham, J.S. Mill, T.H. Green, Laski, Barker, Maclver and Bernard Crick. The liberal approach of globalization believes that there should be liberty at the global level to establish relations and promote free trade without any hard rules or restrictions. From the economic point of view, the phenomenon of globalization is itself liberal which provides free trade and free movement of goods, services and labour. The liberal approach of globalization can also be understood by understanding the concept that it promotes a practice of cooperation between two or more nations to achieve mutually beneficial outcomes for all. In contrast to the radical approach, the liberal approach more focuses on absolute gains rather than relative gains. For liberals, international politics has never been a zero-sum game and they believe in a win-win situation rather than establishing an international reputation of the nation. Early Thoughts of Liberals The thinkers of the early liberal approaches had a belief that human is selfish and self- interested being and has nothing to do with the others. If so many selfish and self-oriented people will come together at a platform, then it will lead to a conflicting situation because of the clash of interest. The thinkers of the early liberal approach took the human being as an entity rather than a nation or society as a whole and they concluded that our society and nation is run by such kind of individuals who are self-interested. Such kind of individual comes together and form a society for their own benefit. These individuals in future become the business persons and entrepreneurs who run the society for their interest and provide other members of the society an opportunity to be associated with them in the form of stakeholders. Authors like Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Adam Smith have taken individual human beings to form the political theory of globalization. The thinkers further believe that when everybody tries to promote interest, utility, wellbeing and happiness of their own, then the whole is maximized and it will automatically increase the happiness to all because everyone in that society is having the same mindset and habits. Modern Thoughts of Liberals In the 20th century of modernization or what today is known as globalization, the birth of the Marxist approach had taken place. Marxism approach talked about the division of society on the basis of class. This approach brought a phenomenal transformation in the views of earlier liberal approaches and the modern thinkers claimed that the society is made not only with the

17 self-interested and self-oriented individuals but it is made of self-interested groups also. Thinkers like Bentley, Truman, GDH Cole, Laski and Maclver explored with their thoughts that society is not just a composition of the self-interested human beings but also self- interested groups. These self-interested groups can be in different forms such as social groups, political groups, religious groups, communities etc. This modern theory of liberalization concludes that similar mindset of people come together and form their own group based on their need, thinking, ritual and future demand. The emergence of racism, castes system and categorization of rich & poor are some example of such thoughts. This theory is true and applicable in the present scenario of society as well where the rich community has a mindset of earning more money and dominating the society, whereas the poor have the thinking of earning bread and living a sustainable life. This approach also explores that these groups also have a conflict because of competition, clash of interest and struggles that they are going through. Authors like Hobbes have termed these kinds of society as a “Sack of Corn”. He says that individuals are the corn with different interest and society is the sack. All the corns are sticking with the sack due to self-interest. These corns have formed a sack to get the maximum benefit. Whereas Bentham called society as the creation of a social contract between individuals. He believed that the individuals of the society have agreed on a contract with each other to form a society of self-interest which will be beneficial for all. Mac Perhson has considered the society as a free-market society where the self-interested people with similar needs together to exchange the goods and services to fulfil their demands. Inside the society with an open competition and wilful contract of working with and for each other. Authors like Green introduced a new term in liberalization approach that is cooperation. He claimed that the natural behaviour of a human being has always been conflicting and competitive since the beginning of civilization. And this conflict and competitive environment will not be beneficial for any of the individual or society or nation in the long run. And therefore he proposed the idea of cooperation the individuals and Society mutually agreeing on understanding and exchanging the need and ideas for better action. Further, this theory got strong support from others like Max Weber and Karl Manheim. Role of Politics in Liberal Approach After going through the above-mentioned theories and facts and then understanding the concepts of running the society, these thinkers and philosophers claimed that a society without the political process in the meeting place would be in an invertible situation and will break down of law and order. In simple words, it states that a political process, proper discipline, law and order and a justified process are necessary to govern the society peacefully. Without a proper political process, the free marketplace will lead to a conflict ground where everybody will be fighting for their rights. There will be no harmony in society without a political process. Therefore, there is a strong need for institutions of politics which

18 can maintain a balance and establish rules and regulations to govern and operate a society in the long run. Liberal approach believes that politics is the solution to this problem. Politics is a process to manage and provide conciliation in conflict. The approach concludes that politics is the right tool to tackle the problem of self-oriented society and individuals as well. It is also claimed that the use of politics in this matter benefits all the stakeholders of the society and nations only if the politics is applied in a disciplined and non-violent manner. Let us understand it through an example, suppose few individuals are playing a game, but if there are no rules and regulations to play that game, then everybody will be taking their steps according to their need and their wish which will ultimately not allow anyone to win or even sustain in the game. Therefore rules and regulations are necessary, whether it is a society or a game. Conflicts in Liberal Approach There are primarily three kinds of conflicts in this liberal approach which are mentioned below:

Conflict Explanation

Individual to Individual A situation where an individual has a conflict of idea or action Conflict with another individual

Individual to Group A situation where an individual has a conflict of idea or action Conflict with a particular group

Group to Group A situation where a group has a conflict of idea or action with Conflict another group.

The liberal approach to globalisation make the states Dependency dependent on each other and reduce the practice of self-help

References  Held, D., McGrew, A., Goldblatt, D., &Perraton, J. (1999). Globalization. Global Governance,5(4), 483-496.  J. Baylis, Smith and Owens, eds. (2017) The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations, New York: Oxford University Press.  Joseph E. Stiglitz (2018), Globalization and Its Discontents Revisited: Anti Globalization in the Era of Trump, New York: W.W. Norton & Company.  JagdishBhagwati (2007), In Defense of Globalization, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

 Manfred B. Steger (2017) Globalization: A Very Short Introduction, New York: Oxford University Press.  Paul Hirst, G. Thompson and S. Bromley (2009), Globalization in Question, Malden, Polity Press.  John Clark (ed.), (2003) Globalizing Civic Engagement: Civil Society and Transnational Action, London, Earthscan.  Sanjeev Khagram, James Riker and Korthrxu Sikkink (ed.) (2002) Restructuring World Politics: Transnational Social Movements, MN, University of Minnesota Press.  Bernard Hoelkman and Michel Kostecki, the Political Economy of the World Trading System: From GATT to WTO, New York, OUP  Arjun Appadurai, (1996), Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalisation, University of Minnesota Press.  Deepak Nayyar (ed.) (2002), Governing Globalization: Issues and Institutions, Oxford University Press.  Held, David and Anthony Mc grew (ed.), (2003), The Global Transformation Reader: An introduction to the Globalization Debate, 2nd Cambridge, Polity Press, Blackwell Publishing.  Joseph E Stiglitz, (2002), Globalisation and its Discontents, US, W.W. Norton and Company.  Noreena Hertz, (2000), The silent take over: Global Capitalism and the death of Democracy, Praeger.  Nye Joseph S and John D. Donanu (ed.) (2000) Governance in a Globalizing World, Washington dc, Brooking Institution Press.  Tyler Cowen, (2000) Creative Destruction: How Globalization is changing the world’s culture, New Jersey, Princeton University Press. Additional Resources:  Classic Readings David Held and Anthony McGrew, et.al (1999) Global Transformation: Politics, Economy and Culture, Stanford, Stanford University Press.  David Held and Anthony McGrew (2003), eds., the Global Transformations Reader: An Introduction to the Globalization Debate, Malden, Polity Press.  Additional Readings 155 Keohane Robert and Joseph S. Nye Jr. (Spring 2002), “Globalization: What is new, what is not”, Foreign Policy, No.118. pp. 104-119, Washington.  Newsweek Interactive, LLC. Marc Lindenberg and Coralie Bryant, Going Global: Transforming Relief and Development NGOs, Bloomfield, Kumarian Press.  Sen, A. (2006) Identity and Violence: Illusion and Destiny. London: Penguin/Allen Lane, ch.7, pp.130-148.

Lesson-2 Radical Approach

Introduction Meaning of Radical Approach to Globalization Beginning of anti-globalization Why anti- globalization? Debates on anti- globalization Overall Anti-Globalization Governments and Regimes Social Anti-Globalization Movements Ethnical/Cultural Anti-Globalization Movements Religious Anti-Globalization Networks Environmentalist Anti-Globalization NGOs Centre periphery debate Radical and Liberalism Approach – A Comparative Study Learning outcome Questions References

Introduction As globalization affects each and every part of human life and it is a complex term, so if we want to understand globalization in the twenty-first century, we have to go through the various approach and theory of globalization. In the last chapter, you go through the liberal approach of globalization, in this chapter, you will get introduced with a new approach of understanding globalization which Known as Radical Approach. We can examine globalization in a variety of perspectives along with a sliding scale, a continuum of failures, accomplishment expectations, beliefs and aspirations touching fundamental political, economic, sociological and cultural values. Towards the end of the 20th century, a period of change began in the economic and political sphere on the international level. The disintegration of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War led to the arrival of a polar system in the world which pushed the world towards new world order. Many changes were felt in the economy due to the new system. At that

21 time, the demand of globalization, economic liberalization, open economy and privatization started throughout the globe. The term globalization remains a topic of discussion in the international and national markets today and it extended to the developed - underdeveloped countries of the world. It mainly internationalizes the activities related to business activities and especially marketing, due to this phenomenon the whole world is seen as a single market. Because of globalization, the whole world can be seen as a village, in which any person and nation, they can do free trade with any country. Under globalization, interdependence arises between different markets of the world and the trade of goods produced in any country is not limited to that country’s border only. According to Vimal Jalan, the world has become very small and any country can separate itself from the rest of the world only by doing its own damage. The meaning of globalization is reversed today, according to which it is seen as a change in policy for saving its own interests. Multinational banks and companies started their move and broke the state controls on capital and raised the slogan of open trade, they believed that the main business would increase the rate of growth, and it will reduce poverty. A decrease in poverty will lead to the development of democracy and will strengthen it. The World Trade Organization was created, which was an attempt to made change in the role of the IMF and the World Bank to promote a market- oriented front economy. Globalization is a multi-dimensional process, which involves dimensions like economics or culture. It is also a chorological process which took place with the diffusion of science, knowledge and technological applications and innovations over time throughout the world. We could easily experience different social indicators of globalism: one might be based primarily on values of individualism and competition, based on an economic system of private property, while another might represent more communal and cooperative social arrangements, including less capitalistic or socialist economic relations. These conceivable alternatives point can be seen as the fundamentally indeterminate character of globalism. On the other hand, the term globalization should be used to refer to a set of social processes that are thought to transform our present social condition into one of globalism. Globalization is about shifting forms of human contact toward the new condition of (postmodern). So we can conceptualize globalization as an ongoing process rather than as a static condition. The process of globalization is not the same all over the world, which means that people residing in various parts of the world are affected very differently by this massive change of social structures and cultural zones. Therefore, the social processes that make up globalization have been analysed and explained by various authors in different, often contradictory ways. Scholars who work within the field of globalisation, not only hold different views with regard to proper definitions of globalization, they also disagree on its scale, causation, chronology, impact, trajectories, and policy outcomes. Globalisation is define by the deferent thinkers as

22 they observe and according to their own understanding. It characterizes the continuation and extension of complex processes that began with the occurrence of modernity and the capitalist world system some five centuries ago. After the end of the Second World War, we can see a major shift in the world order. The fall of the axis powers in 1945 and the process of decolonization slowly change global progress and international exchanges. A new political order of nation-states anchored in the charter of the United Nations established the prospect of global democratic governance. In the 1950s, however, such cosmopolitan beliefs soon faded as the Cold War divided the world for four long decades into two antagonistic spheres: a liberal capitalist camp dominated by the United States, and an authoritarian-socialist realm controlled by the Soviet Union. For the first time in human history, the spectre of a global conflict capable of destroying virtually all life on our planet had been raised. Economic globalization introduces to the intensification and growing of economic interrelations across the globe. Massive flows of capital and technology have stimulated trade in goods and services. Markets have extended their reach around the world, in the process of creating new linkages among national economies. Large transnational organizations, powerful international economic systems, and large regional trading systems have arisen as the major building blocs of the 21st century’s global economic order. As a result of globalization, the world entered into a new phase of an international social, political and economic system, due to that the development of means of communication and transport resulted in reduced geographical distance. E-media established a global culture, which given the facility to a person sitting in one corner of the world can enjoy the culture of the other corner of the world sitting at home. The labour market expanded widely, causing 70 million people to move from one country to other countries for employment in 1965, the number increased to 120 million in 1999 and has continued to expand since then. There has been a significant increase in the exchange of education, technology and goods. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in his millennium report that if globalization is to succeed, the public should feel that they are also involved in it. If globalization is used to bridge the gap between the developed and the developing, the results may be better, but developed countries are not willing to do that. Developing countries constantly accuse developed countries that their interests have been neglected and due to globalization poor and underdeveloped countries are becoming very poor and developed countries are becoming more developed. There is also evidence that in the last decades, globalization has created a deep gap between the income of people and the level of nations and this inequality can go to every region. There is poverty in third world countries especially Africa, Latin America and former socialist countries.

Meaning of Radical Approach to Globalization The radical approach of globalization is also known as realism approach and is opposite of the liberal approach. Radical approach says that globalization is an irreversible process which leaves no option to rectify the mistakes emerging out of globalization. It is a process where if one mistake has been made and loss has occurred, then we cannot go back and rectify that loss and therefore globalization is not good for all. Globalization gives birth to competition rather than cooperation in the society because globalization promotes the race of development between developed, developing and underdeveloped nations where rich become richer and poor become a poorest. Also, the globalization does not promote harmony and equality rather it promotes the politics of power. Globalization makes the nation weak and dependent on other nations in exchange of goods, services labours, technology, transportation, education, communication, healthcare and many other. This approach believes that the state should focus more on self-dependency and not depend on a global platform. Globalization creates differentiation and categorization in the society and rich and poor, winner and loser, developed and underdeveloped are some of the examples which have emerged due to globalization only because it is obvious as someone’s profit is someone’s loss. Also, globalization leads to openness which further compromises with the security of the state. If we will open our economy and nation for the global countries and allowed them to enter into our country in the name of doing business, then we are compromising with our security and this might again lead to colonization. Poor nations will not be able to defend themselves against the well-developed nations which may result in future dominance and acquire their land and country as well. This approach further claims that when everyone tries to promote his or her own interest, utility and happiness, then the whole is maximized and the weaker section of the society will suffer and will not be able to secure and safeguard their interests and rights against the one who is in power. Beginning of Anti-Globalization Authors Robert keohane and joseph nyeobserved that globalization is not a unilineal process, suggesting, rather, that just as globalization move forward linking many process together. It can also stop and result in DE globalization. Term Anti-globalization is referring to the international social movement network which gained extensive media attention after protests against the World Trade Organization (WTO) in Seattle, in late 1999. Varied communities organizing against the local and national consequences of neoliberal policies, especially in the global South, connect their actions with this wider effort. Movement constituents include trade unionists, environmentalists, anarchists, land rights and indigenous rights activists, organizations promoting human rights and sustainable development, opponents of privatization, and anti-sweatshop campaigners.

These groups charge that the policies of corporate globalization have exacerbated global poverty and increased inequality. While mainstream media belief it start with the protests against the WTO’s Third Ministerial Meeting in 1999, but other theorist see the anti-globalization movement as continuous with the anti-Vietnam war mobilizations of the 1960s and 1970s, with worldwide uprisings in 1968, and with protests against structural adjustment in Africa, Asia, and Latin America in the 1980s and 1990s. Why Anti-Globalization? The process of globalization expanded with the removal of restrictions on international economic transactions but gradually reaction started against globalization. It was also clear from the MDG report presented in 2000 by Kofi Annan. According to that report, the benefits of globalization are very unevenly distributed. The global market was not even considered subject to rules based on participatory social goals. The institutional structure of globalization was based on discrimination. On the one hand, the borders of the nation were not considered an obstacle in trade, on the other hand, they are hindering the flow of labour and technology. Developing countries were expected to open up their markets to the rich and developed countries and allow them to invest in capital, as well as they expect from developing countries that in return they do not ask even for the flow of technology and smooth labour. Today, developed countries can be seen adopting the attitude of discrimination towards underdeveloped countries, this attitude is deeply rooted in their social and political thinking. People of developed countries think that if the people of underdeveloped countries remain their migrants, then they will infringe the rights of the native people there and will attack the cultural and social unity of the place, as well as take away their employment opportunities. Developed countries will have to suffer from this because they will have to share in the welfare schemes there. The laws there are discriminatory for expatriates. Most of the critics who critics globalization they target the economical form of globalization. It is different from the other aspects of globalization like cultural, environmental and communications and technology. Here is a question that why the anti-globalization movement started around the world? What is the concern which bother critics? There are two types of critics who critics globalization as they understand the threat of the globalization and we will try to understand about them thoroughly here. First, there is a number of hard-core protesters who have a deep-seated aversion to globalization. They come from different intellectual and ideological backgrounds and do not all share the same ideas and sentiments. But they all are into a linked trilogy of dissatisfaction that takes the form successively of an ethos made of an anti-capitalist, anti- globalization, and acute anti-corporation mind-set. All these views which advocate the radical approach of globalization are interlinked because globalization is seen as the expansion of capitalism all over the world, whereas multinational corporations are seen as the B-52s of capitalism and its global influence.

Second, there are the critics of globalization whose dissatisfactions are well defined within the parameters of mainstream disagreement and discussion. In their nature, these dissatisfactions interpret into the arguments that economic globalization is the agent of several social evils today, such as poverty in poor and underdeveloped countries and comprehensive Demolition of the environment. These critiques are of a very different from the hard-core criticisms, which reflect inflexible enmity to globalization. Due to fewer employment opportunities in the organized sector, workers are forced to work in unorganized sectors, where they get lower wages, which has resulted in most countries falling from poor to poorest. The income of the developed countries which was more than 20 times from the beginning is now more than 37 times. Special provisions have been made in the GATT agreement for developed countries. Due to globalization, only a few nations and people have benefited which was not imagined before. Small workers who did not take much risk and took the help of rented technology, even they were not able to make any profit. Only developed and rich countries could be in this competition. Along with this, highly educated and who had technically knowledgeable also became rich and managed to go to different countries. America, Japan, Western Europe, East-South Asia and East Asia benefited in this period while Latin America, East and South Asia and Africa lagged behind in it. Financial turmoil led to its results in East Asian countries and these countries posed more insecurity and danger. The economy began to stagger due to the slight turmoil in the world capital market. The economic downturn in September 2008 pushed the world towards non- globalization, and at that time Barack Obama advised to not give any concession in tax to those companies who outsourcing abroad. Many expatriates earning abroad returned to their country due to lack of employment. Visa regulations were tightened by developed countries. The WTO’s agenda results were also favorable to the developed countries and did not get any appreciation and help to the underdeveloped state. These countries were looking at global organizations with hopeful eyes, however, they did not get any appreciation and help. Developed countries were disregarding the developing or third world countries by their strict rules, they did not want to see any environmental damage in front of their development, nor the problems of developing countries. Therefore, the rights countries were forced to adopt an anti-globalization policy. Developed countries only focused on their development, even by imposing high tariffs on the goods of developing countries, they destroyed their trade and production. Debates on Anti-Globalization Overall Anti-Globalization Governments and Regimes Within this category one may find some governments and regimes which more or less openly admit their anti-globalization views informal or especially in informal manners. Governments such as the Libyan, the North Korean, the Belarusian, the Syrian, the Nepalese, former regimes in power like the ones in Zaire, in Ethiopia, in Mongolia or in Afghanistan repeatedly declared themselves ‘preserving the borders against globalization’ and put into action various measures of protection against the effects of that phenomenon. The common

26 feature of these governments was or are the authoritarian nature of the regimes, whereas the anti-globalization attitudes find their real justification in the protection of the undemocratic status quo against national popular emancipation or international ‘smooth’ interventions. In acting against globalization, these governments restricted the international participation of their countries to the free trade areas, isolated their citizens by imposing limitations on their free movement and generally made important efforts to impose overall autarchic regimes from economic, cultural and political perspectives. The most ‘moderate’ among those states was partially encouraged by the United Nations, which showed some willingness to understand their concerns and which sometimes adopted a protective attitude towards them (Stiglitz, 2002, pp. 140–144). Social Anti-Globalization Movements Labour unions, workers’ organizations within transnational corporations, international unions of trade unions, socially-oriented non-governmental organizations are only a few examples of structures and movements belonging to this category. Their fight against globalization is due to the ‘devastating effects upon employment’ and the shaking effects of international deregulation upon the stability of the social and economic future of the ‘poor’ (Korten, 2001, p. 23). Impressive international congresses, massive demonstrations, concerted strikes, more or less violent boycotts of the G7 summits are the means employed by the social anti- globalization militants in their efforts to restrain the social influence of globalization. As the social dimension of globalization has been perceived as being one of the less addressed issues until the middle of the 1990s, one may appreciate that the social anti-globalization movements earned a particular legitimacy within the international concert. Ethnical/Cultural Anti-Globalization Movements Resistance against globalization has been one of the main reasons of the existence of what Mary Kaldor (1999) calls ‘the identity groups’, based upon the revival of the traditional communities and the building of minority groups out of their traditional territories. The fight against globalization was seen as being the only way of preserving their identities and, in an important number of cases, of lasting in the future. This is the case of the Tamil rebels, of the Sikh fighters, of the Nepalese Marxist rebels, of the Fijian nationalists, of the Zapatists from Chiapas, if I am to give only some isolated examples. Mingling the anti-globalization orientation with some more legitimate purposes, such as the achievement by self- determination of their own nation statehood, was a strategy employed in order to justify the use of violence and, in some cases, the terrorist activities. Religious Anti-Globalization Networks If globalization requirements could be interpreted as including the enforcement of lay public societies, religious anti-globalization movements may pretend a strong legitimacy in their The Helsinki Process 275 theory and practice. Since the middle of the 1980s, these movements gathered in several networks, which progressively gained power until 11 September 2001. These networks are not specific to the Muslim world, albeit their presence

27 in that area is the best known. Specific targets of globalization are the delocalization and dis- entrenchment of the religious communities, as well as the moral deprivation effect upon traditional beliefs (Defence Science Board Report, 2001). The loss of the international legitimacy of the most radical religious movements by the recourse to terrorist activities was compensated by the gain of the legitimacy of the ones that did not use terror as a mean for achieving their goals. Environmentalist Anti-Globalization NGOs Greenpeace is the successful model of an anti-globalization non-governmental organization with a high international profile. For this kind of NGO, globalization was the synonym of the generalization of pollution and of the careless homogenization of the planet. Fighting for the ‘physical and psychical diversity’ was the main purpose of these emerging movements since the beginning of the 1980s.5 The use of violence was sometimes accepted, especially when the ‘establishment’ was deliberately ignoring their demands. An important degree of unity around their objectives was the most prominent feature of the environmentalist movements, as they could very clearly establish their goals worldwide. As the national civil societies were involved in a process of increasing merger, constituting the global civil society, the ‘protesting and anti-stream governments’ were shaping coalitions with the so-called ‘rogue states’ in order to counter the impact of globalization worldwide. The fivefold classification was meant to illustrate the fact that, despite its heterogeneity concerning the nature, the reasons, and the culture of its components, the anti-globalization movement was consistent only with regard to its major goal: ending with the diffuse reality of globalization, perceived as a result of the American capitalist-imperialist hegemony (Revel, 2003). Centre Periphery Debate If globalization is used to bridge the gap between the developed and the developing, the results may be better, but developed countries are not willing to do that. Developing countries constantly accuse developed countries that their interests have been neglected and due to globalization poor and underdeveloped countries are becoming very poor and developed countries are becoming more developed. There is also evidence that in the last decades, globalization has created a deep gap between the income of people and the level of nations and this inequality can go to every region. There is poverty in third world countries especially Africa, Latin America and former socialist countries. Radical and Liberalism Approach – A Comparative Study The radical and liberal approaches are two major paradigms of global relation. When we discuss radical and liberal approach, then again we are going to focus on the international system level of analysis. So what’s really important is the external factor, focusing on what happens outside of the nation. The below-mentioned diagram explains these theories in a better way.

Multinational International Nations with Nations with Corporates Governmental More Power More Power Organization

International Terrorist Governmental Nations with Nations with Groups Less Power Organization Less Power

After going through the above figure, it appears that nations represented in the big blocks have more power vs nations represented in smaller blocks with less power. And all-around those blocks, there are other factors which play an influential role in the international system of globalization. These external factors are international governmental organizations like the United Nation, there are International NGOs like Amnesty International, there are terrorist group, there are multinational corporations and there are international personalities & individuals too. These are the factors that we are talking about in an international system. So what we are focusing on globalization is that external factors do affect the globalization whether there is the radical approach of command or liberal approach of freedom. We can think of two major phenomena occurring that is conflict on one hand and corporation on the other hand. These two things are indicative of the dominant theme of the radical and the dominant theme of liberalism. We see so many nations which are going through the cold war of technology, equipment, weapons and arms. In a situation where a nation with more power starts building a missile for the defence of its nation, at the same time it will stress the foreign nations too. In response to this, the foreign nations will also start jumping into the arms and weapon development because every nation’s primary objective is to stay safer and provide safety to its citizen. Now, this situation leads to a security dilemma and this is occurring because the international system is characterized by anarchy. So anarchy and the security dilemma are two key concepts to get a hold of anarchy. It is obvious that both the approaches have different laws and regulations to operate the economy and run the nation, but what differs is that we need to understand that we are under the rules and obligations of the laws governing our nation and what we as a citizen are supposed to do and not do. But that doesn't exist at the international system level instead we have anarchy that is it’s a self-help system. Ultimately, nations have to rely upon themselves for security and so in order to feel secure they arm themselves and this activity is going to lead other nations, particularly their

29 traditional rivals to feel unsafe so they are also going to start building weapons as well. This is the traditional arms race and the radicals look at the international system and say because of anarchy and security dilemma, the conflict is inevitable and we have to protect our nation and its national interest. Whereas liberals, on the other hand, argue that this security dilemma can be overcome through cooperative activities, international organizations and international institutions by providing an open platform of exchange of goods, services, labour, culture and ideas. Learning Outcomes After reading this chapter reader will be able to understand about the globalization, how globalization work and radical approach to understand globalization. He can define the radical approach and will know about the origin and how it impact to the people around the world. Reader will also come to know about the different debate of radical globalization and why supporters of these debates raise their voice against the global phenomenon of business and marketing which is in the center point of globalization. They can understand that how globalization and anti-globalization work and its effect their life and living standard of the people of any country. How developing country exploited by the developed country. They will know the major concern of supporters of radical approach and weather it’s relevant or not. Questions for Practice 1. What do you understand by the radical approach to understand globalization? 2. Write a brief note on different debate of anti-globalization? 3. How globalization effect developing and under developing country? 4. What are the main reason to raise radical approach to globalization? References

 Dollar, David. 2001. Globalization, Inequality and Poverty since 1980. Mimeo. World Bank, Washington, DC.  Dollar, David and Aart Kraay. 2000. Growth is Good for the Poor: The Importance of Favouring the  Growth-Enhancing Polices of Good Rule of Law, Fiscal Discipline, and Openness to International Trade. Economic Growth Project. World Bank, Washington, DC.  Easterly, William. 2002. Inequality Does Cause Underdevelopment: New Evidence. Working Paper No. 1(revised June). Center for Global Development, Washington, DC.  nternational Labour Organization (ILO). 2000. World Labour Report 2000: Income Secuity and Social Protection in a Changing World. ILO, Geneva.

 Knowles, Stephen. 2001. Inequality and Economic Growth: The Empirical Relationship Reconsidered in the Light of Comparable Data. Discussion Paper 2001/128. UNU/WIDER, Helsinki.  Kuznets, Simon. 1955. “Economic growth and income inequality.” American Economic Review, Vol. 65,No. 1, pp. 1–28.  Lewis, W. Arthur. 1954. “Economic development with unlimited supplies of labour.” Manchester School Vol. 22, May, pp. 139–192.  Li, Hongyi, Lyn Squire and Heng-fu Zou. 1998. “Explaining international inequality and intertemporal variations in income inequality.” Economic Journal, Vol. 108, pp. 26–43.  Ohlin, B. 1933. International and Interregional Trade. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.  O’Rourke, Kevin. 2002. “Globalization and inequality: Historical trends.” In World Bank (ed.), Annual  Bank Conference on Development Economics 2001/2002. Oxford University Press, New York.  Perotti, Roberto. 1996. “Growth, income distribution and democracy: What the data say.” Journal of Economic Growth, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 149–187.  Persson, Torsten and Guido Tabellini. 1994. “Is inequality harmful for growth?” American Economic Review, Vol. 84, No. 3, pp. 600–621.  Pritchett, Lance. 1997. “Divergence, big time.” Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 3–17.  Ravallion, Martin. 2001. “Growth, inequality and poverty: Looking beyond averages.” World  Development, Vol. 29, No. 11, November, pp. 1803–1815.

 Held, D., McGrew, A., Goldblatt, D., & Perraton, J. (1999). Globalization. Global Governance,5(4), 483-496.  J. Baylis, Smith and Owens, eds. (2017) The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations, New York: Oxford University Press.  Joseph E. Stiglitz (2018), Globalization and Its Discontents Revisited: Anti Globalization in the Era of Trump, New York: W.W. Norton & Company.  Jagdish Bhagwati (2007), In Defense of Globalization, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

 Newsweek Interactive, LLC. Marc Lindenberg and Coralie Bryant, Going Global: Transforming Relief and Development NGOs, Bloomfield, Kumarian Press.  Sen, A. (2006) Identity and Violence: Illusion and Destiny. London: Penguin/Allen Lane, ch.7, pp.130-148.

Unit-III : Issues in Globalization

Alternative Perspectives on Globalization: Nature and Character

In the era of globalization, the imposition of free trade policies and the increasing privatization of social services have facilitated the accumulation of tremendous wealth for the owners of capital at the expense of working people and the environment worldwide. Neoliberal globalization, the highest stage of capitalism, now dominates every major sector of the world economy. Over the past decades, particularly, transnational corporations have tightened their control over national governments and international institutions. The social and environmental costs of neoliberal globalization are prohibitive. The global mega trends of rising inequality and absolute poverty, political instability, and global climate change, all compounded and accelerated by neoliberal globalization which are adversely affecting the lives and threatening the future of every inhabitant of the nation and the world. In view of these mega trends and the current global economic crisis, the conclusion that neoliberal globalization does not serve the interests of the vast majority of the people on the planet and is both economically and environmentally unsustainable, is self-evident. Clearly an alternative perspective on globalization is sought for. In the line it is the socialist alternative on globalization for the national and world agenda. The key to struggle on globalization lies in the contest between the sovereignty of capitalism which is based on privilege and domination versus socialist democracy based on the principles of liberty, unity, and social justice. The socialist alternative offers a coherent strategy for action on both the national and international levels. Socialism refers to various forms of economic organization advocating public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with a method of compensation based on the amount of labor expended. Most socialists share the view that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and derives its wealth through exploitation, creates an unequal society, does not provide equal opportunities for everyone to maximize their potentialities and does not utilize technology and resources to their maximum potential nor in the interests of the public. According to them, the aim of both developed and developing economies is to have sustainable, equitable, democratic, diverse and genuinely free societies, based on largely self- reliant regional and local economies, in harmony with their environment and each other. The important point is to empower nations and communities to retake control over their local economies and to make them as diverse as suits local needs. This moves from the present situation in which all economies compete with each other to one in which goods and services are supplied more locally. This is the socialist alternative to the free market and free trade

34 policies which currently dominate economic and political thought. They do not share the pessimistic acceptance that there is no alternative to globalization. Some of the alternative perspectives on globalization according the socialist are: 1. The Local Economy: The aim of local and regional economies would be to produce as much as they can of their own primary products, manufactured goods and services. What they cannot provide should be obtained from neighboring economies. Long distance trade should be the last resort. To this end controls such as tariff barriers and quotas should be gradually introduced. 2. Capital and Investment: Access to capital at local and regional level should be the key to funding investment by enterprises and communities to improve social and environmental conditions and job opportunities. According to socialist, this is not achieved by the free market, which encourages ever-larger and more distant institutions and capital flows. To reverse this requires both encouragement of local activity and the assertion of democratic control of larger capital flows. Encouragement must be given to organization of financial institutions on mutual principles, including the re-mutualization of building societies. The promotion of local and regional financial institutions is essential and should include de-merger of larger institutions. Policies such as Bank here to sell here should be encouraged. Community banks and credit unions can also play a major role in enabling local people. According to socialist, it will be necessary to reintroduce national controls of capital movements and to re-regulate finance capital more broadly. The aim must be to encourage productive investment and in particular community reinvestment. This will be best achieved by the application of stakeholder principles at local and regional levels, supported by national regulation of corporate investments in a manner which involves the wishes of the affected communities. 3. Controlling the Speculators: According to Socialist, investment should be the focus, not the gambling of speculation. Financial trading on the margin should be discouraged and tightly regulated. Credit should not be made available to allow speculators to multiply the size of their bets well beyond the cash required to cover them. Taxes should be used to discourage short-term speculative transactions-in particular currency speculation. 4. Transnational Corporations: A consequence of extending the free market has been the reverse, as enterprises in it seek to grow to influence and eventually dominate the markets in which they trade. This process has passed the point where such enterprises dominate local communities and regions. Many are now much larger than the countries which nominally control them. According to them, this must be addressed in two ways. In the short term, transnational institutions of similar size must be used to assert the primacy of the common interest over those of the corporations. But the only lasting remedy is to encourage the break-up of such organizations to more manageable units, through trade regulation, anti-trust legislation and fiscal policy. The aim must be to

encourage productive investment in goods and services. Market access should be regulated by site here to sell here policies. For some sectors this would relate to a community or region within a nation, for others to the whole country and for very large industries to more than one country. 5. Limiting Market Access: A limit should be set for market share at regional and national level by any one company. Where such a market is dominated by a particular company, new firms should be encouraged through grants, loans and subsidies to enter it to maintain the impetus for improved products, more efficient resource use and the provision of choice. The transfer of information and technology would be encouraged to improve the efficiency of local industry. The advantages enjoyed by very large organizations must be countered. They must be rendered more accountable to their stakeholders, through greater transparency, internal democracy and public regulation. Company and accounting law should control transfer pricing and the diversion of company profits and individual earnings off-shore. There should be a sustained effort to curb corporate tax evasion. The use of offshore banking centers should be ended by bank here to sell here policies. 6. Multinational Agreements: According to Socialist, this approach, while both sustainable and equitable, runs very much contrary to existing and proposed international arrangements such as the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), its development the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the proposed Multilateral Agreement on Investment. According to them, all these serve the interests of the large transnational corporations and capitalists, at the expense of the rest of the world, including regions and communities of the countries in which they are based. Such arrangements must be replaced with ones that promote cooperation for self-reliance. Financial aid policies and capital flows, technology transfer and residual international trade should be on fair trade not free trade terms. These should be geared to the promotion of sustainable local economies. The aim is to foster sustainable industry and prosperity through local and regional self-reliance. Critical Dimensions of Globalization Globalization describes an ongoing process by which regional economies, societies, and cultures have become integrated through a globe-spanning network of communication and exchange. Globalization is sometimes used to refer specifically to economic globalization: the integration of national economies into the international economy through trade, foreign direct investment, capital flows, migration, and the spread of technology. However, globalization is usually recognized as being driven by a combination of economic, technological, sociocultural, political, and biological factors. The term can also refer to the transnational circulation of ideas, languages, or popular culture. Globalization has economic, political, cultural and ideological dimensions. Economic globalization can be reflected in the idea that all economies are globally interconnected. A

36 shift from a world of distinct national economies to a global economy in which production is internationalized and financial capital flows freely and instantly between countries. Political globalization is evident in the growing importance of international organizations. These organizations are transnational and enable states to take concerted action without sacrificing national sovereignty. Cultural globalization is the process whereby information, commodities and images produced in one part of the world enter into a global flow that ‘flattens out’ cultural differences In economic fields, economic globalization which is mentioned earlier affected all aspects of humankind’s living, from production to consumption, going by distribution and exchange. Economic globalization is not a new process, for in the past five centuries firms in the economically advanced countries have increasingly extended their outreach through trade and production activities to territories all over the world. Economic globalization appeared as an extension of the world capitalist liberalization which seeks to enable strong capital to achieve utmost benefits through liberalizing trade and establishing free competition in trade exchanges. This is the system of free economy which is based on opening markets to capital able to conquer them. In other words this is the market economy. In the past two to three decades, economic globalization has accelerated as a result of various factors, such as technological developments but especially the policies of liberalization that have swept across the world. The most important aspects of economic globalization are the breaking down of national economic barriers; the international spread of trade, financial and production activities and the growing power of transnational corporations and international financial institutions in these processes. Economic globalization has become the defining process of the present age. While the opportunities and benefits of this process have been stressed by its proponents and supporters, recently there has been increasing disillusionment among many policy makers, analysts and academics. The reasons for the changing perception of and attitude towards globalization are many. Among the important factors are the lack of substantial benefits to most developing countries from opening their economies, despite the well-publicized claims of export and income gains; the economic losses and social dislocation that are being caused to many developing countries by rapid financial and trade liberalization; the growing inequalities of wealth and opportunities arising from globalization; and the perception that environmental, social and cultural problems have been made worse by the workings of the global free market economy. While economic globalization is a very uneven process, with increased trade and investment being focused in a few countries, almost all countries are greatly affected by this process. For example, a low-income country may account for only a tiny part of world trade, but changes in demand or prices of its export commodities or a policy of rapidly reducing its import duties can have a major economic and social effect on that country. That country may have a

37 marginal role in world trade, but world trade has a major effect on it, perhaps a far larger effect than it has on some of the developed economies. A major feature of globalization is the growing concentration and monopolization of economic resources and power by transnational corporations and by global financial firms and funds. This process has been termed “transnationalization”, in which fewer and fewer transnational corporations are gaining a large and rapidly increasing proportion of world economic resources, production and market shares. Where a multinational company used to dominate the market of a single product, a big transnational company now typically produces or trades in an increasing multitude of products, services and sectors. Through mergers and acquisitions, fewer and fewer of these transnational corporations now control a larger and larger share of the global market, whether in commodities, manufactures or services. While it is true that globalization encourages free trade among countries, there are also negative consequences because some countries try to save their national markets. The main export of poorer countries is usually agricultural goods. Larger countries often subsidize their farmers like the EU Common Agricultural Policy, which lowers the market price for the poor farmer’s crops compared to what it would be under free trade. The deterioration of protections for weaker nations by stronger industrialized powers has resulted in the exploitation of the people in those nations to become cheap labour. Due to the lack of protections, companies from powerful industrialized nations are able to offer workers enough salary to attract them to endure extremely long hours and unsafe working conditions. It is true that the workers are free to leave their jobs, but in many poorer countries, this would mean starvation for the worker, and possible even his/her family if their previous jobs were unavailable. Also, the low cost of offshore workers have enticed corporations to buy goods and services from foreign countries. The laid off manufacturing sector workers are forced into the service sector where wages and benefits are low, but turnover is high. This has contributed to the deterioration of the middle class which is a major factor in the increasing economic inequality. Families that were once part of the middle class are forced into lower positions by massive layoffs and outsourcing to another country. This also means that people in the lower class have a much harder time climbing out of poverty because of the absence of the middle class as a stepping stone. The surplus in cheap labour coupled with an ever growing number of companies in transition has caused a weakening of labour unions. Unions lose their effectiveness when their membership begins to decline. As a result unions hold less power over corporations that are able to easily replace workers, often for lower wages. Increase exploitation of child labour is also often observed to grow with globalization. For example, a country that experiencing increases in labour demand because of globalization and an increase the demand for goods produced by children, will experience greater a demand for child labour. This can be

38 dangerous, e.g., quarrying, salvage, cash cropping but also includes the trafficking of children, children in bondage or forced labour. Thus, critics of globalization say that it was planned in a rush. The main criticism regarding globalization is in the dominance of developed countries in framing the world economic policies. In this regard, is it justifiable to leave its handling to large capital and international financial organizations, created to serve capitalism and provide conditions for its limitless movement around the world ignoring the voice of developing countries and other third world countries. Traditionally politics has been undertaken within national political systems. National governments have been ultimately responsible for maintaining the security and economic welfare of their citizens, as well as the protection of human rights and the environment within their borders. With global ecological changes, an ever more integrated global economy, and other global trends, political activity increasingly takes place at the global level. Under globalization, politics can take place above the state through political integration schemes such as the European Union and through intergovernmental organizations such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the World Trade Organization. Political activity can also transcend national borders through global movements and NGOs. Civil society organizations act globally by forming alliances with organizations in other countries, using global communications systems, and lobbying international organizations and other actors directly, instead of working through their national governments. The political dimension started when the world adhered to the Western democratic system, whose implementation became inevitable, leading to a globalization of the system of government and of the ways of participation in government. The mechanisms leading to the holding of sound popular elections were also globalized. International organizations took care of globalizing international law, international legitimacy and human rights, their charters globalized the rules of war and peace and the patterns of international cooperation. Therefore, politics was globalized in the largest sense of the term, including the systems of government and the conditions of international cooperation and of international relations. The international community started to perfectly command the details and the smallest components of this globalization up until the United Nations Organization and its agencies and bodies, especially the Security Council. Perhaps, the most important and unique feature of the current globalization process is the globalization of national policies and policy-making mechanism. National policies including in economic, social, cultural and technological areas that until recently were under the jurisdiction of States and people within a country have increasingly come under the influence of international agencies and processes or by big private corporations and economic and financial players. This has led to the erosion of national sovereignty and narrowed the ability of governments and people to make choices from options in economic, social and cultural policies. Most developing countries have seen their independent policy-making capacity

39 eroded, and have to adopt policies made by other entities, which may on balance be detrimental to the countries concerned. The developed countries, where the major economic players reside, and which also control the processes and policies of international economic agencies, are better able to maintain control over their own national policies as well as determine the policies and practices of international institutions and the global system. It is also true that the large corporations have taken over a large part of decision-making even in the developed countries, at the expense of the power of the State or political and social leaders. Part of the erosion of national policymaking capacity is due to the liberalization of markets and developments in technology. For example, the free flow of capital, the large sums involved, and the unchecked power of big players and speculators, have made it difficult for countries to control the level of their currency and the flows of money in and out of the country. Transnational companies and financial institutions control such huge resources, more than what many governments are able to collect, and thus are able to have great policy influence in many countries. Certain technological developments make it difficult or virtually impossible to formulate policy. However, an even more important aspect is the recent process by which global institutions have become major makers of an increasingly wide range of policies that are traditionally under the jurisdiction of national governments. Governments now have to implement policies that are in line with decisions and rules of these international institutions. The key institutions concerned are the World Bank, the IMF and the WTO. These institutions exercise tremendous authority in a majority of developing countries that depend on their loans. In particular, countries requiring debt rescheduling have to adopt structural adjustment policies (SAPS) that are mainly drawn up in the Washington institutions. SAPS cover macroeconomic policies and recently they also cover social policies and structural issues such as privatization, financial policy, corporate laws and governance. The mechanism of making loan disbursement conditional on these policies has been the main instrument driving the policy moves in the indebted developing countries towards liberalization, privatization, deregulation and a withdrawal of the State from economic and social activities. Loan conditionalities have thus been the major mechanism for the global dissemination of the macroeconomic policy packages that are favoured by developed nations. The Uruguay Round negotiations greatly expanded the powers of the GATT system, and the Agreements under the WTO, have established disciplines in new areas beyond the old GATT, including intellectual property rights, services, agriculture and trade-related investment measures. According to experts, the Uruguay Round has been an unequal treaty, and the WTO Agreements and system including the decision-making system are weighted against the interests of the developing nations. The existing agreements now require domestic legislation and policies of member States to be altered and brought into line with them. Non-compliance can result in trade sanctions being taken against a country’s exports through the dispute settlement system, thus giving the WTO a strong enforcement mechanism. Thus, national governments have to comply with the disciplines and obligations in the already wide range of

40 issues under WTO purview. Many domestic economic policies of developing countries are thus being made in the WTO negotiations, rather than in Parliament, bureaucracy or Cabinet at the national level. There are now attempts by developed nations to expand the jurisdiction of the WTO to yet more areas, including rights to be granted to foreign investors, competition policy, government procurement practices, labour standards and environmental standards. There are also other influential international organizations, in particular the United Nations, its agencies, treaties and conventions and world conferences. In the cultural field, globalization started to affect culture in its general meaning, i.e. humankind’s imagination, theories and practices and even their feelings, freedom of thinking, of enjoying specificity and inner dialogue as well as dialogue with the other. The process of globalization has helped the tremendous development of new information and communication technology. Technology has created the possibility and even the likelihood of a global culture. The internet, fax machines, satellites, and cable television are sweeping away cultural boundaries. Global entertainment companies shape the perceptions and dreams of ordinary citizens, wherever they live. This spread of values, norms, and culture tends to promote Western ideals of capitalism. This progress facilitated in bringing the various parts of the world closer and disseminates knowledge particularly through the internet which created a new and open world, a world with unified feelings and with increasingly closer cultures and interacting civilizations. Modern states that have no ancient culture or civilization and they do not fear for their identity or for their civilization or culture because they are new ones with no legacy, no heritage and no prosperous history to be proud of and to build on to engage in the future. Some countries are also aware of such threats, based on their attachment to the principles of homeland, borders, nationalism, the flag, the national anthem, history and national sovereignty. These countries’ fear is also nurtured by their pride of their nations’ role and concern to see them swallowed by globalization, a globalization whereby the strong dominates the weak. Globalization might appear as premature for a majority of countries, particularly in countries where the Nation-State still plays the leadership in societies and that are not up to the level of societies for which globalization was specially made. The fear of globalization goes as far as considering it as a system that sweeps all the principles known to the civilized world, including the protection of the weak by a strong Nation-State from exclusion, unemployment and poverty and the provision of social security to its weakest citizens. Some opponents of globalization see in its system a mere reflection of the dominion of the social aspects by the financial ones. They even consider it as a new form of occupation, not a political or a military one, but rather a financial occupation that imposes a uniform type of thinking and erases all national historical heritages. This imbalance leads to polarization between the few countries and groups that gain, and the many countries and groups in society that lose out or are marginalized. Globalization,

41 polarization, wealth concentration and marginalization are therefore linked through the same process. In this process, investment resources, growth and modern technology are focused on a few countries (mainly in North America, Europe and Japan). A majority of developing countries are excluded from the process, or are participating in it in marginal ways that are often detrimental to their interests; for example, import liberalization may harm their domestic producers and financial liberalization may cause instability. The uneven and unequal nature of the present globalization is manifested in the fast growing gap between the world’s rich and poor people and between developed and developing countries; and by the large differences among nations in the distribution of gains and losses. Questioning the Benefits of Economic Integration, Inequality and Instability in Global Economy Economic Integration Economic integration is a term used to describe how different aspects between economies are integrated. As economic integration increases, the barriers of trade between markets diminishes. The most integrated economy today, between independent nations, is the European Union and its euro zone. The degree of economic integration can be categorized into following stages: 1. Preferential trading area: A Preferential trade area also known as preferential trade agreement is a trading block which gives preferential access to certain products from the participating countries. This is done by reducing tariffs, but not by abolishing them completely. A preferential trade area can be established through a trade pact. It is the first stage of economic integration. 2. Free trade area: Free trade area is a type of trade block, a designated group of countries that have agreed to eliminate tariffs, quotas and preferences on most goods and services traded between them. It can be considered the second stage of economic integration. Countries choose this kind of economic integration form if their economical structures are complementary. If they are competitive, they will choose customs union. This is the second stage of economic integration. 3. Customs union: A customs union is a type of trade block which is composed of a free trade area with a common external tariff. The participant countries set up common external trade policy, but in some cases they use different import quotas. Common competition policy is also helpful to avoid competition deficiency. Purposes for establishing a customs union normally include increasing economic efficiency and establishing closer political and cultural ties between the member countries. It is the third stage of economic integration. Customs union is established through trade pact. 4. Common market: A common market is a type of trade block which is composed of a customs union with common policies on product regulation, and freedom of movement of the factors of production both capital and labour and of enterprise. The goal is that the movement of capital, labour, goods, and services between the members is as easy as

within them. This is the fourth stage of economic integration. Sometimes a single market is differentiated as a more advanced form of common market. In comparison to a common market a single market envisions more efforts geared towards removing the physical borders, technical standards and fiscal taxes barriers among the member states. These barriers obstruct the freedom of movement of the factors of production. This is the fifth stage of economic integration. 5. Economic and monetary union: An economic and monetary union is a type of trade block which is composed of a single market with a common currency. This is the fifth stage of economic integration. 6. Complete economic integration: Complete economic integration is the final stage of economic integration. After complete economic integration, the integrated units have no or negligible control of economic policy, including full monetary union and complete or near-complete fiscal policy harmonisation. Complete economic integration is most common within countries. Advantages of Economic Integration: 1. Trade Creation: Member countries have (a) wider selection of goods and services not previously available; (b) acquire goods and services at a lower cost after trade barriers due to lowered tariffs or removal of tariffs (c) encourage more trade between member countries the balance of money spend from cheaper goods and services, can be used to buy more products and services 2. Greater Consensus: Unlike WTO with high membership easier to gain consensus amongst small memberships in regional integration 3. Political Cooperation: A group of nation can have significantly greater political influence than each nation would have individually. This integration is an essential strategy to address the effects of conflicts and political instability that may affect the region. Useful tool to handle the social and economic challenges associated with globalization 4. Employment Opportunities: As economic integration encourage trade liberation and lead to market expansion, more investment into the country and greater diffusion of technology, it create more employment opportunities for people to move from one country to another to find jobs or to earn higher pay. For example, industries requiring mostly unskilled labor tends to shift production to low wage countries within a regional cooperation Disadvantages of Economic Integration: 1. Creation of Trading Blocs: It can also increase trade barriers against non-member countries. 2. Trade Diversion: Because of trade barriers, trade is diverted from a non-member country to a member country despite the inefficiency in cost. For example, a country has to stop

trading with a low cost manufacture in a non-member country and trade with a manufacturer in a member country which has a higher cost. 3. National Sovereignty: Requires member countries to give up some degree of control over key policies like trade, monetary and fiscal policies. The higher the level of integration, the greater the degree of controls that needs to be given up particularly in the case of a political union economic integration which requires nations to give up a high degree of sovereignty. Inequality and Instability in Global economy The rise of the global economy has been accompanied by large increases in international trade, investment, technological innovation and migration. These changes cannot be undone, and they have created new opportunities for economic growth in industrialized countries. But the global labour force has expanded fourfold since the 1980s, and supply of unskilled labour exceeds demand. Uncertainty has been growing in Europe and the US over globalization. Besides globalization opponents, established economists and politicians question whether undisputed benefits of the global division of labour come at increasingly heavy costs, especially social injustice. However, a closer look shows that a growing economic gap in developed countries has more to do with evolving technology than with global connectedness. Income inequality has risen in the industrialized world with skilled workers’ incomes rising faster than compensation for low-skilled labour. A major source of income inequality actually is unemployment. In many countries, there exists a strong correlation between the increase in unemployment, which mainly affects the low-skilled, and income inequality. While unemployment often follow business cycles, the long-lasting distributional trends nevertheless point to other more structural causes of growing wage differentials. Supporters of the anti-globalization movement argue that globalization has dramatically increased inequality between and within nations and in particular that it has marginalized the poor in developing countries and left behind the poorest countries. The socialists do not advocate the free market and free trade. According to them, global free trade and the free market are the most effective means of capitalist exploitation of people and planet. They oppress people, waste the planet’s limited resources and destroy the environment on which every one depends. According to them, economic integration results in global instability. Global instability may in the form of economic instability, political instability or financial instability. Therefore, it is argued that the response to this sustained onslaught must be to protect the local, globally.

References  Appadurai, Arjun, Modernity at large: Culture dimensions of globalization, New Delhi, Oxford Univ Press, 1997.  Baldwin, Robert E and Winters, L Alan, Challenges to globalization: Analyzing the economics, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004.  Bhagwati, Jagdish, In defense of globalization, New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2004.  Bhattacharjea, Aditya and Marjit, Sugata, Ed, Globalization and the developing economies: Theory and evidence New Delhi: Manohar, 2004.  Held, David; McGrew, Anthony, Globalization/Anti-globalization, Cambridge, 2002.  Robertson, Roland, Globalization: Social theory and global culture, London: Sage Publications, 1992.  Tomlinson, John, Globalization and Culture, Cambridge: Polity Press, 1999.

Unit-IV : Globalization and Politics in Developing Countries

Lesson-1 Globalization and the Social Movements

The discussion in the chapter shall be divided into following questions: What is globalization? What do we understand by social movements? How globalization affects social movements? How globalization gets affected by social movements? I We all know that globalization is all about interconnectedness of the world and the intensification of this process. It has resulted in the world turning into a global village. It means now any place of the world is no longer unaffected by the happenings in the other part of the word. Globalization has been greatly supported by the information technology and the communication revolution. Now movement of money, goods and labour has been so intensified that these movements look like moving within a small village. Consequently, such intensified information and movement have unforeseen effect on the people and processes around the world. We should also keep in mind that despite the arguments and counter arguments by the globalization supporters (also known as Globalists) and the opponents (also known as Skeptics), no one denies its effect on people, society, economy, culture and nation state. Differentiating the process of globalization from the interdependence of the nation-states Anthony Mcgrew notes following uniqueness of the globalization: a) a stretching of social, political and economic activities across political frontiers so that events, decisions and activities in one region of the world come to have significance for individuals and communities in distant region of the globe. For example: Civil wars and conflicts in the poorest regions increase the flow of asylum seekers and illegal migrants into the world’s affluent countries; b) the intensification, or the growing magnitude of interconnectedness, in almost every sphere of social existence from the economic to the ecological, from the spread of pandemic like Covid-19 to the Islamic fundamentalism; from the intensification of world trade to the spread of weapon of mass destruction; c) the accelerating pace of global interaction and the transport and communication that increases the rapidity with which ideas, news, goods, information, capitals and technology move around the world.

d) The growing extensity, intensity and velocity of global interactions is associated with a deepening enmeshment of the local and global in so far as local events may come to have global consequences and global events can have serious local consequence, creating growing collective awareness or consciousness of the world as a shared social space, that is globality or globalism. (McGrew 2008: 18) It is also worth reminding that the advocates of globalization pushed the idea of a more equal world, especially in terms of economic development. However, the experience of three decades of this process (since the demise of USSR) for the global south has not been as promised. It has resulted in people gathering around the world questioning the very principle of globalization. These mass agitations, though is not a new process but certainly have new dimensions that has affected the process of globalization and vice-versa. Let us now consider first these mass movements popularly known as social movements. II A social movement is the collective efforts of people to seek changes within a system. They do not want to overthrow the socio-political system and change the power distribution in society but want redressal for their concerns. If a movement seeks complete transformation of socio-political structure then it is better characterized as revolution. The history of social movements dates back to French revolution of 1789 when the slogans of ‘liberty, equality and fraternity’ was raised. It has effect on the movements around the world when people demanded equal liberties to all human beings. In First World such movements tried to establish liberal democratic societies. In Second World it was establishment of socialist order and in Third World the colonized came together to establish their nationalist governments. All such movements comprised a class structure, organized leadership, clear objective and strategy to attain their aspired goal. These are better known as ‘old social movements’. Such movements established nation-states at the forefront of the world actors, having sovereign power over their population. Nation- states were designated as solution to all problems of their people. However, this expectation soon faded and nation states are seen as the problem to many aspirations sought by people. The old movements compartmentalized the people into monolithic class identity and nation state as panacea to all problems. It resulted into the lost of many aspiring identities, biased developmental models and monopoly of power to states. The advent of globalization only radicalized this process and the people around the world started uniting against these global developments and to recover their lost identities. Since the 1980’s such movements are better known as ‘new social movements’. Contrary to the old social movements the new social movements are unorganized, leaderless, without concrete strategy, intermittent and dispersed movements drawing the voluntary support from a wide range of supporters and sympathizers not necessarily directly affected with the issues raised by the movement. These movements are not for material development but for securing the quality of life by voicing the concerns for environment protection, lost socio-cultural identities, questioning the development paradigms, opposing the global market forces and so

47 on. Now let us consider how globalization provided a momentum for the emergence of such movements. III The claims of the forces of globalization driven by liberal – capitalist market model was always under suspicion as it was the product of the consensus of the developed West minus the Rest. The capitalist forces have unable to secure a satisfactory equitable justice at home for their dispossessed masses. Therefore a similar claim for the whole world was always doubtful and it is not unknown to the students of political science that how the LPG model (liberalization, Privatization and Globalization) was forcefully introduced in the rest of the world after the demise of the communist challenge in USSR. Their claim of an economically strong nation-state and an equitable world order soon proved a misnomer and the forces of globalization turned the globe into brutal market managed by the global economic organizations like IMF, World Bank and WTO. It makes the strong nations more stronger and weak nations weaker, opposite to what was promised. Its impacts are manifold on the social, economic, cultural and political arena. At the social level it created fissures in the society as the difference between the propertied and the dispossessed grown even at a faster pace. Around the world it has created social unrest in societies. In the economic sphere the multinational companies and the global policies are deciding the fate of a nation. From industrialization to monopoly capitalism to finance capitalism has changed the world in to bourgeoisie West and the proletariat Rest. The exploitation of the global South has been still apace as during the colonization. Development models are enduring the core-periphery relations at the global and the local level as well. The impact of globalization is not limited to the socio-economic sphere only. It has severely challenged the local culture by exporting the western products and habits. No doubt the local cultures are under serious constrain with such forces. Politically, the nation states have lost their sovereignty to the global forces. The fates of the nations are decided at the platform of global institutions and nations are unable to counter it. The multinational companies are beyond the control of any nations and the global stock markets are deciding the economic health of a state. An unjust and undemocratic global world can’t aspire for a more just and democratic local affair. The above discussion logically supports a mass movement at the local and global level for a just and democratic home and world. Around the world people are against the unjust rule and the global forces. In the economic sphere the ‘world social forum’ is one such movement that provides the platform to the people and activists around the world to fight against the global economic challenges for the poor and dispossessed. Arab spring, Occupy Wall Street and Global Queer movement are few such movements that question the global and local governments and demand a more just and democratic society. The rise of Right wing politics,

48 global religious movements, fundamentalism and even the global terrorism are somehow a reaction to the cultural challenges posed by the forces of globalization. In India also we have seen scores of movement from Narmada Bachao to anti-nuclear plant, from farmers to the tribal, from the LGBT to the anti-Valentine’s day; all are challenging the socio-economic-cultural and identity issues related to the local and the global. IV The above discussion should not give impression that the globalization only has impacted the people, nation and social movements around the globe. Even the social movements have also largely affected the nature and working of globalization and global forces. The social movements have provided platform that a school girl Greta Thunberg questioned the global leaders on their lackluster approach towards the problem of climate change. The mass agitation against growing economic disparities has helped the socialist sympathizer to sworn in and block the advancements of globalization. The cultural assault has strengthened the Rightist governments around the world that are trying to morph the forces of globalization by obstructing the free flow of people and goods. The global fundamentalism and global terrorism has roots in the unequal world created by the global forces that force them to ponder upon these challenges. The movements by women, peasants, tribal, and queer community has questioned the homogenized and undemocratic order created by the forces of globalization. The challenges posed by and to the globalization have been discussed normatively by William Scheuerman (2018) in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy that provides a lucid understanding of the philosophical and normative discourses of the globalization process. Let us discuss the challenges posed by globalization to the normative political theory. Such discourse revolves around three basic questions of differentiating between foreign and domestic; the democratization of global institutions; and the securing of normative goals like distributive justice. Such debates include mostly three strands of scholars namely, the Liberals, the Realists and the Cosmopolitans. It has been argued that globalization has nothing to do with the domestic affairs and management of the states and the values like liberty, equality and justice are the internal matters of sovereign. However, states are facing challenges in realizing these values because of the deterritorialisation and constrains from the global forces. One can question that if the global forces are constraining the effective pursuance of such values does the responsibility not lie on these forces to further these causes. Since the fate of the globe is intertwined how can the global forces be leave the people to seek the help within their sovereign borders only? Similarly, though we emphasize the democracy for the institutions of nation state why can’t we think in the same way for global institutions. Actually, the extreme inequality at global institutions can’t further a democratic cause within territories. The structures of the global institutions like IMF, World Bank, WTO and even United Nations and their responses to the social movements like World Social Movement are hardly democratic. It only questions the

49 faith of liberals in such international institutions and emphasizes the realist assumption that at last nation states are the real actors and an anarchic global order can’t expect democratic states. No doubt that cosmopolitanism is a distant dream and the distributive justice can only possible within territorial authorities. Hence putting such responsibilities on global institutions and on affluent countries are only moral claims. We can understand this with the example of the free and welcomed movement of goods and finance but not for labour. In reality global forces are not global but the global arms or platforms of narrow national interests. In case of globalizations the capitalist market interests are painted and presented as the global interests. The lack of consensus on environmental concerns, competition for arms market and the current outbreak of Covid-19 and a rush for getting patent of its vaccine only shows the real character of the global forces run by the capitalist logic. Conclusion Concluding the chapter we can say that it is not the question of either-or with the globalization but to make way in between and the social movements provide a way to seek such grounds of intersection so that the ills of globalization can be minimized and benefits could be maximized. These movements are not aberrations but the critics that need to be taken seriously to found a just, equitable and democratic global order. Ignoring or suppressing such movements can be short-sighted and may lay the ground for a more strong protest against the system. References Baylis, John, Smith, Steve and Owens, Patricia. (2008). The Globalization of World Politics. NewYork: OUP. Held, David, McGrew, Anthony, Goldblatt, David, and Perraton, Jonathan. (1999), Global Transformations: Politics, Economics and Culture, Stanford: Stanford University Press. Mukherjee, Subrata and Ramaswamy, Sushila. (2017). ‘New Social Movement’ in Theoretical Foundations of Comparative Politics. Hyderabad: Orient BlackSwan. 192-202. Stiglitz, Joseph E., (2018), Globalization and Its Discontents Revisited: Anti-Globalization in the Era of Trump, New York: Norton & Co. Scheuerman, William. (2018) “Globalization”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. in Edward N. Zalta(ed.), (Winter 2018 Edition), URL = . Accessed on 6 March 2020.

Lesson-2 Globalization and the Demise of Nation-State

Outline of Chapter Introduction Nation-State-Some Definitions Rise and development of modern nation state Modern Nation States  Territory  Population  Sovereignty  Government Globalization Theoretical Discussion  Ultra-globalist  Skeptical  Transformationalist Conclusion Learning Outcome Questions Bibliography

Introduction Globalization has limited the role of the nation-state in many ways. Globalization can generally be recognized as a fading system of economic, social and cultural boundaries between nation-states. Some scholars even believe that nation-states, which are naturally divided by political and geographical boundaries, are becoming less relevant in a global world. Harsman and Marshall criticize globalization, saying that the autonomy of the nation- state has changed due to the international economic system. Traditional nation-states are in danger because economic internationalization has weakened national sovereignty and weakened the economic decision-making power of the nation-state. In this process, the national security of economic activities is more directly related to the internationalization of the market than the so-called old nation-states. The changes that have taken place due to interrelationships between national boundaries have rendered political communities and national sovereignty redundant. This changing concept has created a tension between

51 traditional forms of social and political participation and the interdependence of the contemporary world. The relentless race to rapidly reduce barriers in relation to international commerce and communication is seen as a potential threat to nation-states. Air and sea transport made it possible for same-day travel to other continents due to which trade between countries located in any corner of the world was greatly expanded, which did not end the sovereignty of nation- states. Instead, globalization has emerged as a force that has transformed the way nation- states deal with each other in the international commerce, giving them immense mobility. On the other hand, in this era of globalization, if we talk relative to the third world, then the market has become a central concept in the context that global economic flows have spread to every corner without any hindrance by which every nation-state without its necessary demand The reason seems to be becoming borderless somewhere. The already established autonomy of the nation-state in the context of the Third World is declining. Pre-national political institutions are moving to replace the traditional institutions of nation-states. The legislature, the executive as well as other institutions of representation are coming under the influence of pre-national political institutions like IMF, World Bank and WTO. In addition, global thinkers argue that the amount of daily trade on foreign exchange throughout the world has made the nation-state unable to control its own currency. The pace and intensity with which business is taking place in the world capital market, the national governments are not able to control the exchange rates and inefficient leaders have become dependent on the grace of the people and institutions making continuous economic choices on which their There is no control. The chapter presented is an attempt to present a critical analysis of these above discussions. Nation-State-Some Definitions Before understanding globalization and nation-state, we have to understand the arrival or creation of the state. What we address as the state is interpreted as the nation-state after the Treaty of Westphalia, so in this chapter where the word state will be mentioned, it will actually refer to the nation-state itself. States are the organized units which are under one government. States are sovereign. The nation-state is an essential unit of the modern world. Most of the world’s people are citizens of some nation-state. For those who are not citizens of any nation-state, it is very difficult to maintain their existence in the current world order. According to Aristotle, the state is a community of families and villages whose aim is the attainment of a full and self-reliant life. Kautilya has described the seven parts of the kingdom and this is called his “weekend principle” king, spirit or minister, pur or fort, treasure, punishment, friend. The area of the state is large. That is, an area surrounded by large terrain. According to Jean Bodin, the state is a union of families, governed by some supreme power and reasoning intelligence. According to Garner, the state of political science and the notion of public law, is a community of more or less individuals of number who permanently reside on a certain

52 territory and are wholly under external control, or Be almost independent and have an organized government, whose orders are naturally followed by a large community of residents. Max Weber considered the state to be a community that claimed a monopoly of the lawful use of physical force in specified territories. Rise and development of modern nation state It took a long time to transform the modern nation-state into a political organization. In ancient times humans lived in communities. Naturally, man is a social animal who cannot live alone. He is an integral part of the society, so in his life human has to follow certain rules and this community life gradually leads to the establishment of political communities and states. In its initial form the structure of the state was simple. That simple structure has now developed into an esoteric structure. Over time, its form has changed and it has become a universal organization. In fact, the development of a modern nation-state is the result of a very long history of human civilization:  Clan states  Oriental empire  Greek city  The Roman Empire  Feudal state Modern Nation States Nationalism arose in Europe from the 15th and 16th centuries when the power of the zamindars and religious authorities under the feudal state was eroded and the Treaty of Westphalia which was signed between May and October 1648 in the Westphalian cities of Osnabruck and Munster Was a series of which largely ended the European Wars of Religion. The Treaty of Westphalia came to a close with a quiet period of European history, which saw the deaths of about eight million people. Scholars have identified Westphalia as the beginning of the modern international system, based on the concept of Westphalian sovereignty. The peace of Westphalia set the example of peace established by the Diplomatic Congress. Based on the concept of co-existing sovereign states, a new system of political system emerged in Central Europe. Inter-state aggression had to be kept in check by the balance of power and a standard was set against interference in the domestic affairs of another state. As European influence spread around the world, these Westphalian doctrines became central to the concept of sovereign states, international law, and the existing world order in particular. Apart from the new economic relations, people were joined as a temporary group with the idea of unity of national language and culture and natural boundaries of the country etc. In this way the nation-state first developed in France, Spain, England, Switzerland, Netherlands Russia, Italy and Germany. The early states were dominated by monarchy, in which all power was in the hands of a king, but in the 18th century, constitutional rule emerged in Europe,

53 firstly in England, under the Gaurav Revolution, it was peacefully acquired in the hands of Parliament. The French Revolution had to resort to violence during the 18th and 19th centuries with the support of colonialism In this period, Britain, France, Belgium and Land Portugal, Spain, etc., spread their colonization net on the regions of Asia, Africa and Latin America and exploited them to the fullest. After the Second World War, colonialism began to decline and on the horizon of the world. New nation states emerged. In this way, the nation- state of the present form emerges after the Treaty of Westphalia, which mainly states the four basic elements–  Population: Population is the first essential element of the state, because the state is a human community and a state cannot be imagined without humans.  Territory: The second essential element of the state is the fixed terrain (territory). A human community cannot be called a state until it resides permanently on a certain land.  Government: The third essential element for the state is government. The state is a political community of human beings and community life is necessary to have a political organization like government, because government is the instrument that gives practical purpose to the objectives and goals for which the state has emerged.  Sovereignty: Sovereignty means ‘supreme authority'. Sovereignty is the commanding power of the state. Since sovereignty resides in the state itself, both external and internal forms have supreme and omnipotent values. Sovereignty gives the state supremacy and independence in both internal and external matters. Sovereignty is the most important element. Even a government- endowed human community living in a certain territory cannot be called a state unless sovereignty is under their authority, that is, as long as that human community is able to resolve its internal and external problems and to determine policy don’t be free. Therefore, sovereignty is the element that gives the state superiority over other human communities. Globalization Globalization is the free movement of goods, services, currency. The development of information and technology and the most modern means of transport gave wide scope to globalization. A system based on free trade and non-interference gives rise to globalization. The process of connecting all the countries of the world on the basis of social, economic, cultural etc. also defines globalization. David Held defines globalization as interdependence, as social and economic relations bind the world. At the same time, most globalist thinkers like K.Ohmi believe that multinational corporations and international markets have become powerful and impersonal forces control the world. There are many approaches to globalization at present, which elaborate on its form, result and impact.

A different view of the origins and nature of globalization is offered by neo-Marxists; who believe that globalization is a new form of imperialism and an extension of liberal narrow policies. They also believe that developed western countries are using it to protect their economy from future crises. Only unilateral benefits will be available to the developed countries. Liberal economic institutions like World Bank, IMF etc. give loans to a country only if it agrees to its conditions. The best example of this is the Indian economic reform adopted in 1991. Mexico had to undergo the same experience in 1982. Indian economist AmartyaSen considers globalization as a historical process, saying that it is not necessarily Western. They also emphasize the need for its improvement. While JagdishBhagwati is a supporter of free trade, he believes that free trade has widely helped in the development of the economy. While many developing countries like China and India have benefited from globalization, the underdeveloped countries of Africa have also suffered. The chapter presents a critical analysis of these approaches. Theoretical Discussion One common effect of globalization is that it supports Westernization, which means that there is no harm in other nation-states when dealing with the US and Europe. This is especially true in the agricultural industry, in which second- and third-world nations face internal competition from Western companies. Another possible effect is that nation-states have to examine their economic policies in light of the many challenges and opportunities It is forced that multinational corporations and other institutions of international commerce exist. Multinational corporations, in particular, challenge nation-states to confront the unique issue of foreign direct investment, forcing nation-states to determine how much international influence they exert in their economies. Globalization has also led to a feeling of interdependence between nations, which can lead to an imbalance of power among nations of different economic powers. Broadly speaking, in the above perspective of the nation-state, there are three main approaches to understanding globalization:  Ultra-globalist,  Skeptical and  Transformationalist. Ultra-Globalist Outlook The ultra-ultra-globalist approach emphasizes the progressive level of interactions of growing relations between states which has given rise to a complex network of political, social and economic relations in the present world. National boundaries can no longer play the role of a deterrent in the production process. Today, very few activities are left which are oriented towards local or national markets and it is now very difficult to address the actual origin of human products due to the continuing complex conditions of production organized beyond those confined within national boundaries. In the economic field, it is argued that two trends are evident as a result of this. According to ultra-globalist thinkers like Ohmi, multinational

55 corporations and international markets have become powerful and impersonal forces control the world. First, the volume of international finance, trade and production has increased to the extent that these activities have also crossed the boundaries of the nation, leading to the emergence of a unified economy. Importantly, the production process has now changed production- driven commodity categories such as - automobiles in industries, computers, aircraft, electrical machinery and buyer-driven goods categories - such as textiles, footwear, toys, household goods in contrast to the world All production sites have been united. The main thing in this lattice industrial structure is that it is spread across the world regionally and geometry is undergoing changes. From the standpoint of ultra-globalist theory, there has been a complete change in the local configuration of production processes. Gone are the days when production was made keeping in mind the local needs of the population. The contemporary world is now based on a large production chain and network of geographical scale from local to global level. These networks are structures through which different parts of the world are connected by the flow of physical and non-material substances in the system of different power relations. Secondly, it is argued that this has widely affected the autonomy of the state. This has reduced the controlling power of the state in economic flows. The ultra-globalists have pointed to the increasing economic means of enterprises as compared to the overall economic activities taking place within the state. Skeptical view But skeptics consider globalization a myth. They say that in the 19th century, there was a relatively greater increase in trade, the number of workers increased rapidly and the integration of states as an international system increased economic interdependence at a relatively high level. At the same time, the theory of comparative advantage of Adam Smith was propagated, what we are experiencing today is the increasing level of these processes. In contrast to the ultra-globalists, skeptics give more importance to political power than economic power. They believe that the market does not govern, rather the state regulates all economic activities. Believers of the skeptical approach contradict the views of ultra-globalists. They present an alternative view of the world in which they describe the levels of old-time international trade, production and finance as compatible with today’s integrated levels. In particular, they also challenge the idea of ultra-globalists’ relative free trade across the border and their claim that today’s multinationals are fictitious and set up production facilities where their operating costs are low.. If so, he argues that we should also experience convergence in the price and pay levels of production. He argues that this is not directly the case because if so, how would we explain that German workers are earning nearly twice as much in the south or eleven times in Thailand? Why is there such a wide gap in national economies not only in terms of remuneration of workers but also their dividends? Apart from this, they also point to the fact that there is a wide difference in the value of goods worldwide. If a truly free trade is taking

56 place, local companies will be forced to compete with their international counterparts. Therefore, we would expect a greater concentration of values between states than in the present situation. Presenting this alternative analysis, skeptics doubt the notion of ultra-globalists that the power of the state is declining. If it is to be believed that the present corporations are actually more effective than the states which are free to operate from one state to another, then political fatalism can result. Hurst and Thompson believe that ‘a consequence of the concept of globalization can distort radical reforms in national strategies that appear unlikely in the time of international markets’ decision and acceptance. Globalization is a myth suitable for a world without illusion, but now it is taking away our expectations as well. Skeptics argue that on the world stage, states will always remain an important doer, which will remain a means of controlling the actions within and across state boundaries. Apart from this, they argue that the original industrialized states have always been active partners and major producers of economic globalization. For example, the Comprehensive Code of Liberalization of Capital Movement has been a major means of promoting the free flow of investment between states. Skeptics also point to the importance of state involvement in the management of financial and currency systems. It would not be wrong to say that they do not recognize the changing nature of such systems. Transformationalist view The third approach which takes its place among the ultra-globalists and skeptics is called transformationalism. The most balanced approach has been given by the changeists, who believe that globalization is bringing change in the world, that is, it is a major force in bringing social, economic and political changes. However, he does not believe that we are currently living in a globalized world. They believe that this world is a more integrated place and economic type relations between various entities like state, corporation, multilateral organizations etc. are unprecedented. The world economic process is much more relative than the domestic based process. And today it directly or indirectly encroaches on a larger proportion of national economic activities than before. In the changing phase of globalization, today the question arises simply that in which direction the multilateral form of trade is going? Purely globalization represents a form of trade in which workers, along with goods and capital, are allowed free freedom in other countries. It can be divided into the following two major categories–  Beyond the borders of countries, greater economic freedom than before  Free movement of capital and goods rather than labor Economic historians believe that the first round of globalization took place during the First World War. It has been undergoing a second round for the last four decades. The situation in China and India was very bad in the first round. Both countries were not counted in the top 45 countries. But in the second round, both countries have lifted their place. In 2016, China

57 was second and America’s seventh after America. India’s gross domestic product during this period was above that of Italy and Canada and was slightly behind that of Britain and France. At that time, China and India have accepted globalization completely but now western countries are seen opposing it. US President Donald Trump has taken a tough stance towards the policy of ‘America, for Americans'. They have also started withdrawing from the World Trade Organization, opposing globalization. At the same time, he has also adopted a policy of encouraging American companies to increase investment in the US itself. Apart from America, Germany, Britain, France and Italy have also started retreating in Europe. The reason for the retreat of these countries from globalization is not only economic, but new political entities have started taking such steps in their own interest. For almost four decades, economic policies have indirectly controlled political activities. But now the situation has reversed, which is a matter of concern for liberals. With the best phase of globalization in 1990, there were two types of discussions which need to be mentioned here. In 1998, Jagdish Bhagwati opposed the free movement of capital, supporting the free trade of goods. They believed that capital-market often had more volatility than goods-market. In 1996, it was also seen in some countries of Asia, Malaysia, Thailand, Philippines etc. The arrival of capital in these countries was 93 billion dollars, but the outflow was only 12 billion dollars. This created an economic crisis in East Asia. In the merchandise trade, never comes so high. The noted economist of Turkey, Denny Rodrik, said in relation to free trade that the losers will be drowned forever due to economic liberalism. Both these fears failed to stop globalization. Currently, two types of political trends are emerging, which are affecting the direction of globalization. It is being claimed that there is a huge imbalance in the global nature of markets and the sovereignty of a country. For example, if the salary was to be paid more in America, then obviously the company there would want to go to a country with cheap labor. Accordingly, there is a loss of capital, which is considered necessary to stop. Although the free movement of labor was less than that of goods and capital, the international migration has increased more than ever before. The policy of protest for migrants can be attributed to the changing political-democratic system. This anti-policy has taken the form of abominable racism at some places. While there is anger against Muslims in America, there is in North America against Muslims in France. The same is for migrants from Middle-Eastern countries in Germany. Where will the end of all these trends go? It is having a very bad effect on labor-immigration. Ethnicity is becoming a new topic of concern for modern nations. There will be no significant impact on capital. Large supply chains and other international networks will also remain unchanged. The effects on business will also remain the same. Nothing can be said about the impact on business. But now it is up to the heads of state that how they can protect their domestic trade without increasing the duty on imports without any commercial war.

Conclusion Globalization is a process where state-centric agencies and service conditions disintegrate in favor of the linkages of different actors operating in a global context. The implications are that in globalization the subject of sovereignty becomes narrow and the process of coordination of various state actors is not controlled by any state actors. But for the last few years, the emphasis of protection countries on protectionism has posed a threat to globalization, we see globalization in opposition to protectionism (commercialism). The Industrial Revolution took place in Europe, resulting in the need for excess production to market. Countries with industrial revolution had to conserve their goods. Therefore, the bourgeoisie of these countries turned to those countries where there was a huge market potential. Due to this need of the market, the world also had to bear the brunt of colonialism and imperialism. By grabbing the resources of underdeveloped countries, taking advantage of their labor force and capturing their market, these imperial countries came forward in the race for development. Now the market crisis arose when these colonizing countries became independent. Colonialism reached its final stage by the 50s, but these imperialist countries still needed a market. Due to the creation of the United Nations, it was no longer possible to directly capture the market of another country. Now the demand of the market could have been met in the same way, if the whole world had been transformed into a single market. Therefore, developed countries began to expand globalization in the name of foreign direct investment based on free trade and non-interventionist policy to control the markets of developing and underdeveloped countries (Third World). On the other hand, the newly developing countries could not even stand up to the economic hit of colonialism, so how would they open their markets to the companies of the developed country? To avoid this globalization, developing countries adopted protectionist policy. License-permit-quota gave protection to their nascent industries, traders and farmers etc. India followed the same policy, but soon the external and internal pressure on these countries to open their markets started increasing. On the one hand, these western countries were counting the benefits of globalization to capitalize on the growing demand for capital in developing countries; on the other hand their own economies were collapsing. As a result, developing countries had to open their markets and a wave of globalization raged all over the world. However, the developed countries were in favor of globalization because it gave them maximum profit and minimum loss. No developing country could match them in science and technology. The quality of their products was so good that there was no threat to their market from the products of developing countries. The policies and standards of the world market were preparing the same. And it was not as if developing countries were the only losers in opening up their markets. Globalization gave rise to competition, inspired to grow. Provided quality living standards to the people developed in all fields like agriculture, industry, science-technology etc. Provide employment opportunities to workers in their country as well as other countries. Developing countries were learning to follow the path of

59 developed countries through globalization. Countries like India, China, Brazil and Mexico became the bright stars of the world economy. This was the time when the wave of globalization spread rapidly throughout the world. Developing countries came to a stage in negotiations with developed countries. Globalization was about to come to its zenith by agreements such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Trans-Atlantic Partnership, the Trade Facilitation Agreement of the World Trade Organization, and many such bilateral and regional free trade agreements. But time changed, and now the world is facing some unexpected and disappointing events. Today, the nationalist political ideology is becoming popular among the pioneers of globalization in the world, which has been preferred to country first instead of global village. Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel due to her soft refugee policy, the fierce right-wing party A.F.D. Lost from The right-wing party National Front came to power in the election of French states. The right-wing party also came to power in Poland last year. The Nationalist Party has also won elections in Switzerland. Even in America, Donald Trump with nationalist views has won the presidential election. It was due to this right-wing approach that Britain decided to secede from the European Union. One after the other, Western world is adopting state governance under the primary concept of nationalism. In the first world countries, this changing landscape, ie those who give rise to the concept of globalization, are themselves adopting protectionist policies today. Today, in a capitalist country like America, slogans like ‘By American Higher American’ are being heard instead of ‘Global Village'. The reason for this is that now these countries have started seeing the dark side of the golden picture they have produced. But the dark side of it is that in the era of globalization, the sovereignty of the nation-state has started to weaken. International treaties on issues like environment, trade have weakened the sovereignty of countries. In recent years there has been a huge increase in the interdependence of various nations, the situation is that no country can claim to be completely self-sufficient today. For regulation of international trade, all countries have to follow the rules of the World Trade Organization. The International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and multinational companies influence the economic policies of nations. Economic organizations such as the European Union have been formed, the countries involved have to delegate the right to determine the economic policies of their country to the Union (European Union). This has caused extensive damage to the economic sovereignty of countries. The same damage has also reached some political sovereignty. Even though the United Nations has not been as strong as the formation of a global government, all countries use this platform to establish and follow certain rules and traditions. Today there is a wide spread of transportation, communication in the world. People from different countries are connected through social media. Information spreads in the country and the world within a few moments. People have been in contact with the cultures of other countries. This cultural reconciliation is being seen as a threat to our culture. Cultural sovereignty of the third world has also been weakened by globalization. Huntington explains

60 these conflicts in his book ‘Clash of Civilizations'. Not only political and cultural sovereignty, but there are other reasons that find globalization contrary to the sovereignty of the nation-state. If economies are interlinked, then their dependence is also increasing. Today, the economic recession of any one country engulfs the whole world. Which seems to completely destroy the sovereignty of economic regulatory power of nation-states. In conclusion, we can say that every society and nation has no permanent ideology. Change is the law of nature and also an indicator of development. If there is any change in the world ideology, then we can hope that this too will be for the good of mankind. And as far as the future of nation-state is concerned in the context of globalization, today all the countries of the world have become so interdependent among themselves that it is no longer possible to be completely self-sufficient. Just as rivers found in the sea cannot be separated, in the same way countries cannot be separated from the world now; Rather, there are some issues like environment, terrorism, in which the whole world needs to be united for resolution. Even though western countries are assimilating themselves from globalization, now the second generation is moving forward to take advantage of globalization in which the developing countries like China, India, Brazil and Mexico will play a major role. Now Asia will be the center of globalization and the new chapter of development will be written in the name of the countries of the East instead of the West. But with the sovereignty of the nation-state, the dream of a healthy world village will be fulfilled only when the new policy of globalization is balanced and takes everyone along. It will have to be based on the all-inclusive concept of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam, not as inequality-based as the First World and Third World. Learning Outcome– After reading this chapter, an understanding of the following aspects of globalization and decay of the nation-state will be clear:  An understanding of nation-state; meaning, definition and dimensions of modern nation-states.  Sovereignty of State in the context of the modern nation-state.  The relationship between globalization and the modern nation-state.  To critically analyze if globalization affects the sovereignty of the nation-state.  Information including examples of the effects of globalization on the sovereignty of third world countries.  Study of various approaches to globalization  Knowledge of the facts of the ultra-globalist approach of globalization in relation to the decay of the nation-state. Questions– 1. What do you understand by nation-state? Explain the modern nation-state. 2. Explain sovereignty in the context of the modern nation-state. 3. Critically evaluate the relationship between globalization and the modern nation-state. 4. Does globalization affect the sovereignty of the nation-state? Do a critical evaluation.

5. Critically examine the effects of globalization on the sovereignty of third world countries. 6. Explain the globalist approach of globalization in relation to the decay of the nation- state. 7. Explain the skeptical and transformationalist approaches of Globalization. Bibliography ● James, Paul (2006). Globalism, Nationalism, Tribalism. London: Sage Publications. ● Jonathan; Rosaldo, Renato (2002). “Introduction: A World in Motion”. The Anthropology of Globalization. Wiley-Blackwell. ● Albrow, Martin and Elizabeth King (eds.) (1990). Globalization, Knowledge and Society London: Sage. ● Frank, Andre Gunder. (1998). ReOrient: Global economy in the Asian age. Berkeley: University of California Press. ● Giddens, Anthony. (1991). The Consequences of Modernity Cambridge: Polity Press ● Held, David; Goldblatt, David; McGrew, Anthony; Perraton, Jonathan (1999). Global Transformations Cambridge: Polity Press. ● Larsson, Thomas. (2001). The Race to the Top: The Real Story of Globalization Washington, DC: Cato Institute. ● Steger, Manfred (2009). Globalization: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press ● Sorrells, Kathryn. (2012). Intercultural Communication Globalization and Social Justice. Thousand Oaks: Sage. ● Wolf, Martin (2001). “Will the nation-state survive globalization?”.Foreign Affairs. 80 (1): 178–190. doi:10.2307/20050051. JSTOR 20050051. ● Clayton, Thomas. 2004. “Competing Conceptions of Globalization” Revisited: Relocating the Tension between World-Systems Analysis and Globalization Analysis. In: Comparative Education Review, vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 274–94. ● Ghosh, Biswajit (2011). “Cultural Changes and Challenges in the Era of Globalisation.” Journal of Developing Societies, SAGE Publications, 27(2): 153–75.

Lesson-3 Globalization and Human Migration

Outline of Chapter Introduction Major Factors Responsible for Human Migration  War and other disasters  Religious/ ethnic conflicts  Demographic factors  Economic factors  Cold War and aftermath  Sociological factors Globalization Encourages Human Migration Human migration in the global world Contemporary Debate Conclusion Learning Outcome Questions Bibliography

Introduction Globalization, defined as cross-border flows and diffusion of transit networks, has changed the context of migration. New technologies of communication and transportation allow a continuous and multi-directional flow of individuals, ideas, and cultural symbols. The World Economic Forum has defined globalization as “the process by which individuals and goods can easily move across the boundaries of the nation-state.” According to this definition, the concept of globalization cannot be functional without human migration. Individuals cross borders to offer their labor, their investment, and their ideas in markets that are not available in their home countries. Globalization has now become increasingly rapid with technologies from container shipping to modern air travel and the internet, however it is as old as human migration. People and goods have been found to travel along major trade routes such as the Silk Road since the millennium. Traders began to travel in the Indian Ocean and other modes of water transport before the so-called “Age of Discovery", but after the 16th century the

63 transition from feudalism to capitalism led to trade and migration links between the old and new worlds has given a wide range of momentum. Some thinkers say that global “open-border” policy for migration may allow labor to function far more efficiently than a massive increase in global GDP. There is some doubt on the suggestion of other accreditors that no country actually operates according to free trade, and that migration control and trade laws are needed to protect the individual economies of countries. In the twenty-first century, international migration is affecting the lives of more people than ever before. With over 160 million people estimated to be living outside their homeland, almost no country is currently untouched by international migration. The struggle with poverty, political repression, human rights abuses forces more and more people to migrate out of their home countries for migration. On the contrary, economic opportunities, political freedom, physical protection and security for both highly skilled and unskilled motivate workers to work in a new place. Due to these circumstances it is believed that the possibility of slowing the pace of international migration in the future is almost negligible. Human history is marked with the ‘Age of Migration'. From the Greek colonies, the Roman military conquests, through the Byzantine and Ottoman empires, and from the European colonies to the great emigrants of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, migration has resulted in great social events as a result of civilizations. (Spencer, Sarah; 2011) In the present time there are very few countries which have remained untouched by human migration. The United States has attracted the largest number of international migrants so far, but in addition Germany, France, Canada, Saudi Arabia and Iran have also inspired migrants to live and settle in their countries. Evidence of both immigration and migration is found in some countries such as Mexico, that is, it also sends human migrants to other countries and migrants from other countries also come to their country. Therefore, migration of people to countries is seen through history, due to which it is not visible as a new phenomenon. In this globalized world where everything seems global, migration is also changing its nature and forms which gives it a new look. Like tide, globalization has absorbed in itself many social and economic dynamics which are now defined in terms of the trend of globalization. International human migration is also a trend. International migration has now become globalized due to globalization, which lies in the sense of globalization that greater spread of goods, people and capital and greater mobility in world politics. Globalization has changed the nature of international migration not only quantitatively, but also qualitatively. The diversity of workplaces in globalization and the increased mobility by the people involved in the process of migration make this a qualitative change. The erosion of nation-state sovereignty and autonomy weakens systems of border-control and migrant assimilation. The result is a change of material and cultural practices associated with migration and community formation and a blurring of boundaries between different categories of migrants. (Castell, Stefan, 2002) Migration can be seen as a continuum under the systemic role in modern society, but its character and form varies in terms of economic and social changes and developments in technology and culture.

Hence, the current circumstances of globalization have changed the key features of migration. Globalization is not just an economic phenomenon. It cannot happen without parallel flow of capital, goods and services, ideas, cultural products and people. And most of all this flows through a variety of international networks from corporations, intergovernmental organizations and international corporations and international criminal syndicates. (Held, 1999) Globalization underlines several key features of the nation-state. Castel says that the definition of international migrants always lies in crossing national boundaries. But there has been a belief from earlier times that they would either permanently move from one nation- state to another (permanent migration), or return home after a period (temporary labor migration). But the sovereignty or power of the nation-state was not questioned in any case. Such expectations lose their legitimacy under the conditions of globalization. Castel gives some facts related to human migration in the era of globalization which are as follows: Migration increases and migrants become more diverse in social and cultural characteristics. States do their best to encourage some skilled and entrepreneurial migration and to prevent other unskilled labor migration and asylum seekers, but they find themselves difficult to make clear distinctions and enforce rules. New developments in information and transportation technology increase the amount of temporary, repetitive and communication migration. An increasing number of migrants orient their lives to two or more societies and develop transit communities and consciousness. Such trends are linked to the increasing power of informal networks as a mode of communication and organization that cross national boundaries. This can weaken state control policies and reduce the efficacy of traditional methods of migrant incorporation into society. (Castel, 2000) Major factors responsible for human migration

 War and other disasters: War and large-scale disasters (whether natural or man-made) are important factors of direct migration as people migrate to protect their lives. In addition, the roots of international migration can be traced by individuals searching for other countries to protect themselves and their families from constant physical danger and to avoid the problem of lack of economic opportunities. This second cause of migration is qualitatively different from the pursuit of economic reform, which is a constant feature of migration. (Spencer, Sarah) According to Spencer, the two elements are likely to remain important factors over the next two decades within these two broad causes. The first is political, social and cultural intolerance over extreme and group-based violations of human rights. The second is the systematic failure of governments to address issues of cumulative disadvantage: economic exclusion and various forms of ethno-racial, religious or linguistic discrimination that systematically harm certain areas of the population. Both of these are the most important factors responsible for human migration all the time in different countries.

 Religious/ ethnic conflicts: Spencer also talks about three additional reasons that require separate mention here because these reasons have recently received both significance and criticism. The first is clearly racial ethnicity and / or religious conflict in which forcing the target group not to contest the election is not merely a cause of conflict but a major policy objective. The second involves the degradation of ecosystems to the point of making life unstable leading examples of which include water security and widespread degradation of water quality, contamination of basic food and the consequences of desertification. The third concern is related to the increase in various forms of natural and man-made disasters.  Demographic factors: There are various factors affecting migration such as demographic factors, economic factors etc. Human migration has already been a large demographic force, due to a decrease in the rate of basic population growth in the advanced industrial world. Between 1985 and 1990, the number of international migrants accounted for nearly a quarter of the developed world’s population growth. This figure increased to 45 percent in the period 1990–1995 due to increased immigration and steadily decreasing fertility in the First World countries. (Spencer, Sarah) While fertility rates are falling in First World countries, there is a continuous population growth in Third World countries. In most industrialized countries, fertility rates are well below replacement rates. In Europe, the average age of children born per woman is 1.4; Italy has a fertility rate of 1.2. Countries with declining fertility are facing the possibility of a decline in the overall population, leading some demographics to see an estimate of an aging population. Such nations are motivating people from other countries to work in their own country for working people younger than an aging population. Although immigration will not solve the problem, it will help to reduce labor shortage and also to reduce the increasing age of the society (Martin, F. Susan). Demographic trends where fertility rates are high help to understand emigration pressures in Africa, Latin America, and parts of Asia. Rapidly growing societies often do not create enough jobs to keep pace with new entries in the labor force. Development can also be a cause of environmental degradation, especially when land use policies do not protect fragile ecosystems. Natural disasters wreak havoc on densely populated areas in poor countries (Martin, F. Sussan).  Economic factors: Economic factors also affect the human migration trend. Susan explains that economic trends affect human migration trends in many ways. Multinational corporations, for example, exert pressure on governance to reduce the movements of officers, managers and other key personnel from one country to another. But when they see a labor shortage, whether it is in the Department of Information Technology or in seasonal agriculture, companies also want to import foreign workers to fill jobs. According to Susan, sources of growth in global trade and investment also affects human migration to countries. Economic development can be

66 regarded as the best and long-term solution to emigration pressures arising from lack of economic opportunities in developing countries for a long time. However, almost equally, experts caution that emigration pressure is likely to persist over a long period of time and possibly increase further before long-term gains increase. Wayne Cornelius and Philip Martin said that leaving home begins to increase with the opportunity for income increases in developing countries. This emigration continues to increase. The decrease comes when the gap in the value of labor between the two countries of immigration and migration ends. This principle is credited as responsible for migration to countries such as Italy and Korea.  Cold War and aftermath: Geopolitical change from the Cold War era offers both opportunities and challenges for the management of international migration, particularly refugee movements. During the Cold War, the United States and other Western countries saw refugee policy as an instrument of foreign policy, and in this context, the Cold War made it impossible to address the core problem of refugee movements, resulting in Southeast Asia., Often represented conflicts in Central America, Afghanistan, and Africa. Some refugees were willing to return to their lands dominated by conflict or communism. With the end of the Cold War, new opportunities arose for the end of decades-old conflicts. In countries of Eastern Europe (where earlier communist regimes existed) respect for human rights increased and millions of refugees displaced over the years were repatriated (repatriated). (Martin, F. Susan)  Sociological factors: The sociological explanation of migration focuses on the importance of cultural and social capital. Cultural capital refers to the knowledge of other societies and the opportunities they provide, as well as information about actually going elsewhere and looking for work. Clearly, globalization helps to provide images of Western lifestyles in the world’s remotest villages under this cultural capital. Better literacy and basic education also contribute to migration potential. Social capital refers to the connections needed to perform migration safely and cost-effectively. It is well known that most expatriates follow previously discovered paths and go where their compatriots are already established, making it easier for them to deal with bureaucratic hurdles and find work and housing. Older migration scholars spoke of the migration chain, whereas in recent years there has been a great emphasis on the ‘migration trap’ and in which it develops as a link between communities in both the home and destination areas. This network has been greatly facilitated by the advanced communication and transport technologies of globalization, due to which human migration power and flow are increasing. Network is another factor that helps to maintain and replace sustainable migration even though the root cause of migration as labor is removed. For example, in 1973, when the German Government stopped the migration of workers from Turkey, the flow continued and the size of family reunions, asylum seekers and

67 illegal migrants continued to increase, and they also established transit in the previous period. They used the path and community infrastructure only. (Martin, 1991) Therefore, most theorists and scholars have agreed on some common factors known for migration. The most obvious and popular reason is the high wages of work in labor-intensive countries. So the motivating source of human migration, in this case, are the high levels of unemployment and poverty in countries that move from their country of origin to decide to favor the natives to migrate to countries with labor opportunities with higher wages. Also in some cases networks of friends and relatives already working in destination countries serve as sources of information and communities of initial temporary stagnation for newcomers. So the temptation given by friends, relatives and migration by social network may also be possible. Also, it is not only a factor that causes labor migration, but it is in the interest of both countries to promote migration. Labor sending countries promote migration because they have some vested objectives. The first is large-scale domestic unemployment and the second is foreign exchange earnings. Labor sending countries promote migration, as this provides some relief in terms of employment and these countries are particularly developing countries with high unemployment and poverty problems. The aspirations of educated workers for higher salaries take them to other countries as well. Sometimes it is the students who go abroad for the purpose of study and settle there, because the work opportunities and high labor value attract them. Second, migration also serves as a source of foreign earnings. The contribution of labor migration to foreign exchange income is notable which is received by labor sending countries. Therefore, migration is not a new phenomenon and its factors are also not new. What is new in migration in today’s global world is merely its nature and form. Globalization encourages human migration: Globalization is a major driving force of international labor migration. In Stalker’s words, “In the world of winners and losers, losers simply do not disappear; they want to go somewhere else.” (Stalker, 2000) The reason for this is that globalization coupled with liberalization policies resulted in a huge increase in the mobility of labor across borders, as in the case of capital and technology. Manuel Castel (1999) writes that globalization weakens the sovereignty and autonomy of the nation-state and international migration is an integral part of globalization. Globalization has made migration easier through better communication, dissemination of information through mass media and better transport among others. It is a growing trade and investment flow in many areas, leading to increased interest and awareness in migration. The recent expansion of global communication networks; telephone connections, continental cuisine and rental video shops, etc. have already had a profound impact on the consciousness of the world’s less affluent societies. It has broadened the horizons of human migration, raising expectations.” And cultural differences have diminished. The images communicated

68 by such media may be largely false. Nevertheless, they remain in developed states. Delivering a powerful message about the experience people benefits. (UNHCR, 1995) The causal forces of globalization have strengthened the dynamics of skilled labor moving forward with foreign exchange investment flows and multinational investment. Professional managers, highly skilled individuals and technicians are welcomed by many countries to attract foreign investment. Globalization has also increased economic disparities between countries. Stalker argues that the flow of goods and capital between rich and poor countries will not be sufficient to meet employment needs in poor countries. For example, “social disruption caused by economic restructuring is likely to encourage more people to move out of their communities and encourage them to work abroad.” (Stalker, 2000) On the ‘dark side of globalization’, some have argued that globalization contributes to the high human trafficking and purchasing of individuals across borders with the proliferation of transnational crime syndicates. (Linard, 1998) Some theorists and scholars have argued that globalization also reduces migration. Growth in trade may reduce migration through the creation of additional employment and higher growth in labor-sending countries. Investments made by multinationals in labor-sending countries can generate employment and income in a country that reduces indigenous pressures. Another possibility opened by globalization forces is trade in services. The growing tradition of skill- and in-depth knowledge services opens up new opportunities for high-paying jobs in migrant sending countries and can be seen as a ray of hope to inspire skilled workers to stay in their country (Lineard, 1998). But despite some differences, analyzing the trends of globalization, all the leading theorists have concluded almost the same, that human migration is increasing in today’s global world and it is likely to increase in the near future. Human migration in the global world: In the late twentieth century two major models of migration and incorporation dominated academic and policy approaches. First is the settler model, according to which immigrants gradually integrated into economic and social relations, then united or formed families and eventually assimilated into host society (sometimes in two or three generations). The second temporary migration model, according to which migrant workers stayed in the host country for a limited period and maintained their affiliation with their country of origin. For the last half-century, three types of primary migration have been the most important: permanent settlement migration, temporary labor migration and refugee movement. Highly skilled migration is the high type of migration that is currently most popular with governments of migration countries. Since the 1980s, the United States, Canada, and Australia have established privileged entry systems to attract entrepreneurs, executives, scientists, professionals, and technical experts. Recently, Western European and some East Asian countries have also started following this trend. (Findlay, 1995) Under this we see that

69 attracting Indian IT professionals has become a global competition, while health services in countries such as the UK cannot operate without doctors and nurses from Africa and Asia. This type of migration may refer to a ‘brain drain’ which is the transfer of human capital from poor to rich countries, but can also bring technology transfer and cultural innovation to the core areas. As poor countries give more preference to hiring graduates than employment, while rich countries continue to reduce their education budgets, migration is sure to increase. (Findlay, 1995) Low-skilled migration was important in most post-1945 industrial development in most wealthy countries but is now rejected on the grounds that it is economically unnecessary and socially harmful. NIC often continues to import unskilled labor for construction work or plantation industries. However, this mostly takes the form of systematic use of irregular migrants or asylum seekers and their lack of rights makes them easy to exploit (Castells, Stephen; 2000). In the circumstances of globalization, some new types of migration are emerging and some old types are becoming more important which are as follows: ● A new type of phenomena, in which entire families migrate to countries such as Australia and Canada for safety or lifestyle reasons, while the breadwinners return home long distances for their original work. This type of human migration is prominent in relation to Hong Kong in the period before reintegration into populist China, but even today this type of migration affects a growing number of countries. (Pe-Pua, 1998) ● Migration return, although apparently not new. Its volume is increasing as a result of the trend towards temporary or communication migration. Migration return plays an important factor in economic, social and cultural change and their potential role in development processes is currently being given special attention. (Castel, 2000) ● Retirement migration is an emerging global mobility closely associated with improvements in transportation and communication. An increasing number of people from wealthy countries with relatively high living costs and unattractive climates want to spend the last years of their lives in a more public-facing environment. The best example of this can be seen in the migration of Western Europeans from southern Europe (King et al, 2000) to Japan and Australia and New Zealand, and northern Americans to Latin America and the Philippines. It also has immense cultural implications and provides the basis for new service industries (Castel, 2002). ● Posthumous migration which is a phenomenon that reflects the cultural and psychological complexity of the migrant experience. Many migrants planned to return to their native lands to bury their bodies. (Tribalat, 1995) Even though the dream of a return to old age proves to be a myth, the bonds with the motherland can become vocal again after death.

Contemporary Debate: Castel identifies three main approaches to include migrants in society: assimilation, inter- exclusion, and multiculturalism. In the old understanding of long distance migration, newcomers were expected to move permanently and relinquish contact with their place of origin, so that they and their descendants eventually assimilated completely into the new society. As a mode of incorporation, assimilation means encouraging immigrants to learn the national language and fully adopt the social and cultural practices of the receiving community. This includes loyalty from the place of birth to the new country and the adoption of a new national identity. However, not all immigrants have been seen as assimilating. Even the United States has temporary migration plans such as the Brezzero program for Mexican farm workers. Also, not all immigration countries have tried to assimilate immigrants. Even before the industrial revolutions in Europe, the practice of hiring temporary migrant workers was common (Möch, 1992, 1995). Such schemes became institutionalized in France, Germany and Switzerland in the late nineteenth century. In which state and employers’ organizations had a high degree of control. In post-1945 Europe, ‘guestworker’ or temporary labor recruitment systems played a major role in labor market policies. ‘Guestworkers’ meant relatively proximate countries, particularly from the European periphery, and had no right to family reunion or permanent migration. Recently, similar approaches have been used in Gulf oil rich countries and newly- industrialized Asian countries. This mode of incorporation is referred to as differential exclusion which means that migrants are temporarily integrated into certain social subsystems such as the labor market and limited welfare rights, but other areas such as political participation and national culture is excluded from. (Castel, 2002) However, both assimilation and differential exclusion share an important general principle that immigration should not bring about significant changes in the receiving society. Such beliefs in the regulation of ethnic differences may persist in the past, but from the 1970s onwards it began to be questioned in Western immigration countries. Temporary migrants in ‘guest worker’ countries are turning into permanent settlers. Democratic states have found themselves unable to deport large numbers of unwanted workers. And in such a situation, immigrants cannot be denied social rights completely, as this can lead to serious conflicts and divisions. This resulted in family reunification, community formation, and the emergence of new ethnic minorities. Expectations of long-term cultural identity in classical immigrant countries proved to be misleading, with ethnic communities retaining their languages and cultures in the second and third generations. Migrants began establishing cultural associations, places of worship and ethnic businesses that soon became important throughout Western Europe as well. (Castel, 2000) As a result, official policies of multiculturalism were initially introduced in Canada (1971) and Australia (1973). Multiculturalism in the United States has a somewhat different meaning that is virtually linked to interpretations of the role of minorities in culture and history (Gitlin, 1995; Steinberg, 1995). Here pluralism was used to accept cultural and religious diversity in

71 the private sector rather than government policy on immigrants. Similar policies with different labels (such as the policy of minorities in the Netherlands) were soon followed in European immigration countries. In some cases they were introduced only in certain areas such as welfare or education, or in the provincial or municipal rather than national level (Hale, 1999). There is widespread recognition that cultural and social changes brought about through migration are facts of life that must be recognized in various fields. This can be seen as one of the major effects of immigration: within a few generations, old myths of national uniqueness and homogeneity have been underestimated. Conclusion Globalization causes major changes in the character of international migration. The context of migrant incorporation has already changed fundamentally and will continue to change. The rise of multiculturalism is a sign in itself. But all this is not beyond the context of a new form of identity and multiculturalism. In the early twenty-first century, globalization is reducing all methods of controlling difference based on regionalism. Increasing mobility; Growth of temporary, cyclic and recurrent migration; Travel cheap and easy; continuous communication through new information technologies: All questions the idea of a person who belongs to just one nation-state (whether temporarily or permanently). These changes have triggered debate on the importance of parochialism and nationalist communities as new ways of migrants. Cross-national communities are groups whose identity is not primarily based on attachment to a particular region. They therefore present a powerful challenge to traditional views of the nation-state. (Bowman, 1998) Currently the international community is advancing rapidly. This trend can perhaps be best understood as part of the processes of global integration and time-space compression. This is partly a technical issue, better transportation and accessible real-time electronic communication is the physical basis of globalization. But above all, it is a social and cultural issue: globalization is closely associated with changes in social structures and relations and changes in place, mobility and related cultural values. This is likely to have important consequences, which we are only beginning to understand (Bowman, 1998; Held et al, 1999). It is possible that in the future the associated migrant and consciousness migrant will become the dominant forms of human migration and will have far-reaching consequences. International migration has always assisted in cultural exchanges and individuals, groups and communities from different cultures, ethnic groups and religions have faced challenges while living together, so it is reasonable to expect that it will create multicultural spaces and Human migration will continue to spread ideas and values. The right to migrate is an option for all those with minimal human capital, who cannot fulfill their aspirations because of social mobility in their countries of origin, except for the right to live in economic and social restrictions on the exercise of rights cease. Thus, something is discovered in international movements of individuals and families that their own countries only offer them symbolically. It is based on increasingly informed decisions, with the assumption that such steps involve risk and cost reduction. This is now the current attitude of

72 migration, for which the objectives are now relatively independent of economic considerations. One of the cultural manifestations of globalization is the transition from regional-based national identities to others that are perhaps less widespread but of a cross- regional nature. Migration has led to the emergence of new actors who organize into communities and connect with each other through networks and maintain close relationships with their areas of origin in which they send and transmit information and represent collective references to identity in regions of destination. (Ports, 1997) These international communities are a clear example of the interactive role of international migration and globalization in the context of an identity explosion that marked the fragmentation of today’s societies. (Castells, 1999, Volume II) Social networks and communities form part of a positive strategy of migrants (as opposed to their cultural characteristics, expression of their demands for citizenship, and protection from practices of immigration and social rejection from restrictive viewpoints). Is exemplary in many migrants’ working conditions and anti-immigration sentiments). To a large extent, they act as feedback factors promoting migration flow and further diversification of human dynamics. Learning Outcome: After reading this chapter, the following aspects related to globalization and human migration will be clear:  What is globalization?  What is human migration? Meaning and Definition.  Factors responsible for human migration.  Nature of human migration: positive and negative.  Does globalization affect human migration? Influencing Factors.  Human migration, human rights and multiculturalism.  A critical conclusion on contemporary debates in the context of globalization and human migration. Questions: 1. What is human migration? Explain the factors responsible for human migration. 2. What do you understand by human migration? Explain the forms of human migration in the context of globalization. 3. What do you mean by globalization? Does globalization affect human migration? 4. Critically explain the factors affecting human migration through globalization. 5. Explain human rights in the context of human migration in the era of globalization. 6. Does human migration promote multiculturalism? Critically evaluate. 7. Write a critical essay on contemporary debates in the context of globalization and human migration.

Bibliography  Bauman, Zygmunt (1998), Globalization: The Human Consequences, UK: Polity Press  Castles, Stephen and Alastair Davidson (2000), Citizenship and Migration: Globalization and the Politics of Belonging, New York: Routledge  Castles, Stephen and Mark J. Miller (2003),The Age of Migration, UK: Guilford Press  Held, David (1999), Global Transformations: Politics, Economics and Culture, California: Stanford University Press  Martin, F. Susan (2011), A Nation of Immigrants, New York: Cambridge University Press  Martin, P.L (1991), The Unfinished Story: Turkish Labour Migration to Western Europe, Geneva: International Labour Office  Stalker, Peter (2000),Workers Without Frontiers: The Impact of Globalization on International Migrants, USA: Lynne Rienner Publishers  Spencer, Sarah (2011),The Migration Debate, Great Britain: The Policy Press

Unit-V The Inevitability of Globalization: Domestic and Global Responses

It is indeed impossible, and perhaps improper to provide a fixed definition of globalization because the term is used in economic, social, political, cultural and many other areas. Globalization is the trend of increasing interaction between people on worldwide scale due to advances in information communication technology. It is a multi-dimensional phenomenon which is irreversible in character. It is a process characterized by stretching the political, economic, socio-cultural and technology activities across political frontiers so that events, decisions, and activities in one region of the world have significance for individuals and societies. It has also been conceived as a process of shrinking world, global integration, the reordering of interregional power relations, consciousness of the global condition and the intensification of interregional; interconnectedness. In most general sense, Globalization today mainly refers to expansion of economics activities like trade, and movement of capital and goods and labour, beyond borders facilitating higher levels of interconnectedness in the world. The socio-political impact of such economic activities can hardly be ignored. The process of globalization may affect domestic as well as international economy, and may have spill-over repercussions on national and international politics. Liberals and neoliberals believe that globalization is inevitable, involving a fundamental transformation of global politics away from state control moving towards market control of global economic life, partly due to technological changes.i The free flow of information and ideas around the world widens opportunities for personal self-development and creates more dynamic and vigorous societies. It is a good sign that the consumers have more options before them while buying or using a product and due to cut-throat competition, the maintenance of quality of goods is ensured on lower price. It could be seen that in the 1950s, exports accounted for only 8 per cent of the world wide Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and half a century later they have simply tripled due to globalization.ii Besides, it can be noted that the pace of trade integration has been higher in the global south than in the global north, which implies the less developed countries of the global south increasing contribution to the world trade. This is a positive trend and is also expected to rise. While many features of globalization have been beneficial, others have resulted in problems for certain economies and countries. On the one hand, that may have led to the rapid economic growth. On the other hand, globalization has led to dramatic shifts in the quality of life around the world, including climate change and growing socio-economic inequality.

Some argued that economic globalization as such is a dynamic process that transforms the structure of domestic economy and once it has gained a certain momentum it continuously accelerates and become unstoppable and development of domestic economy increasingly depends on international trade and capital markets. At times it can be seen that the state loses its control on some of its national polices and to make and implement decision on a host of issues that matters to their citizens for being a part of intergovernmental organisations and become a spectator to all the events. Rosenau rightly terms it as widening and withering of the state’s competence. iiiGlobalization is reshaping political life by reducing the readability of states to make and implement economic policy and to perform their traditional functions. Although international regulatory institutions and agencies, such as the WTO, World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), play a critical role in this respect, set up international rules, principles, regulations and agenda for each member states. Environmental issues are quintessential global problems. While it is true that some countries contribute more than others to most environmental problems, no one country is responsible for global warming or any of the other major ecological concerns. None of them can be solved by national governments acting on their own. The Environment includes everything that lies outside the formal political system. Damaged caused by one state can draw the entire world into a state of suffering. Therefore it is extremely important for all countries to adopt the policy of sustainable development.ivAs if they were primarily national problems for which international cooperation is the exception rather than the rule. But no doubt, globalization is the prime accused in the case of environmental degradation. At cultural level, it has led to a similarity of culture and at the same time it has brought about strong differences also. It is the dominant western culture that has been very overwhelming and prominent all over the globe. Moreover, the ‘cultural capital’ is being lost as the result of an incipient homogenization of tastes, beliefs and cultural markets.v Domestically, states of all types face increasing pressures from below on almost every imaginable issue. However, as social changes such as rapid urbanisation, increased levels of education, and the spread of the mass media suggest, new social and political movements create new demands, which are making it harder for governments to do their jobs effectively. But a more critical view might be that as neoliberalism has spread around the world as an integral part of economic and political globalization, functions once handled by the nation- state have been scaled back or eliminated. Many INGOs can be seen as coming into existence to fill various voids left by the withdrawal of the nation- state. Thus, the role of civil society has got intensified with the advent of globalization.vi Today globalization has generated massive transformation in all the existing social institutions, as well as the economic, political and the cultural spheres. It transformed the pre- modern forms of practices and thus created a new infrastructure that transformed the character of earlier structures. This has created a need for yet another newer discourse. Thus we have to analyzed the present scenario through a new perspective.

Different Views

With increasing popularity and importance of globalization, the term globalization drew different and contradictory views from different scholars around the world. One view that supports globalization and mainly comes from the rich industrial North, holds that globalization has benefited the world immensely. The supporters of globalization mainly glorify the phenomenon and boast its achievements. According to them The idea of the integrated global market helps the rich and the poor at the same time. They argued that in the foreseeable future, all nations across the globe would reap the benefits of globalization and the world economy would steadily move towards equitable growth, efficiency with spread and adoption of western liberal values, standers and way of life. According to this view, if the rich get cheap labour from the global market, the poor would have continuous access to capital and goods. The growing access to markets worldwide would help, the rich and the poor alike. They believe that globalization has ultimately brought the fruits of liberal economy to people all over the world. Free and competitive trade would break the shackles of state – controlled, subsidized, idle economy that is not growth – oriented. A free, growth – centered, liberal economy would help the poor state to move on the path of unprecedented economic development, thereby narrowing the gap between the rich and the poor. Commenting on the argument of the opponents that the said phenomenon has exploitive and is responsible for the economic inequalities, they (supporters) have come up with the argument that deterioration of people of developing countries is temporary and exist only in relative terms. Their position has improved in absolute terms and will continue to improve further that would become visible in improved standards of living, better health facilities, improved technology and access to facilities and establishment of democracy. The benefits of globalization according to its supporters, can be best observed through the revolution in information technology (IT) in recent years. Media has not only facilitated quick, easy and cost effective interaction with the people but actually has empowered people with ideas, innovations and information empowering them to relieve themselves from oppression and exploitation. A second view, which mainly comes from the underdeveloped South, criticizes globalization and its ways for the economic woes of the world. The opponents highlight the irreparable impact caused by this phenomenon and accuse globalization for rising inequalities, poverty, environmental damage and increased incidences of human rights violations. They advocate to replace the neo-liberal market principles by economic protectionism and stood for reverting back to localism. According to these critics, the fruits of globalization are not enjoyed universally, but mainly by the rich states, due to their superior control over the flow of capital and the communication system. The North – South divide has not been obliterated; on the contrary, it

77 is very much pronounced and visible in today’s world. Millions of people are still excluded from the purview of globalization, and they suffer in silence. Therefore, Globalization, according to them, has not generated an unbiased, integrated, free world market; it has rather created antagonistic, rival, regional economic blocs in Europe, America and Asia. A third view comes from a group of scholars who believe that the problem lies not with globalization itself, but with how it has been managed. These scholars believe that globalization, if managed properly, can be immensely beneficial for the people, boost democracy, civil society and sustainable development. The notion of globalization only as an economic activity must be changed to make it more humane. As Joseph Stiglitz, argued that: One of the reasons globalization is being attached is that it seems to undermine traditional values…Economic growth – induced by globalization – will result in urbanization, undermining traditional rural societies. Unfortunately, so far, those responsible for managing globalization, while praising these positive benefits, all too often have shown an insufficient appreciation of this adverse side, the threat to cultural identity and values.vii Stiglitz therefore recommends ‘globalization with a more human face’ to reap its benefits. The changes that he suggests for reshaping the current form of globalization are: (1) Reforming the international financial system with drastic changes in the work of the global financial institutions like the IMF, WTO and World Bank; because the polices framed by the global institutions are biased. (2) Adopting policies for sustainable, equitable and democratic growth; and (3) Altering the capitalist view of ‘development’ where the industrially advanced countries ‘guide’ the process of development of the weaker nations. The less-advanced countries must assume responsibility for their own development. This view assumes that the state still has, and must retain, enough control over the national economy in the third world to move it towards people’s benefit. A profit – oriented global market can never think of the welfare of all people in the world; only a state – guided national economy can think of the benefit of the indigenous people. Domestic and Global Responses to Challenges The globalization phenomenon has been instrumental in encouraging heated debates in the contemporary world. Many argued that the imposition of free trade policies and the increasing privatization of social services have facilitated the accumulation of tremendous wealth for the owners of capital at the expense of working people. However, the neoliberal globalization agenda does not serve the interest of the vast majority of the people. The key to struggle on globalization lies in the contest between the sovereignty of capitalism which is based on privilege and domination versus socialist democracy based on the principles of liberty, unity and social justice. According to them, capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and derives its wealth through exploitation, creates an unequal society, does not provide equal opportunities for everyone to maximize their potentialities and does not utilize technology and resources to their maximum potential.viiiFor years the critics of globalization repeatedly evoked the need

78 to create alternative. And some of the practical alternatives that can counter the onslaught of globalization are: 1. Promote Local Economy: The aim of the local and regional economies would be to produce as much goods and services as they own primary consumption. Long distance trade should be the last resort. To this end controls such as tariff barriers and quotas should be gradually introduced. 2. Foster Capital and Investment: Access to capital at local and regional level should be the key to funding investment by enterprises and communities to improve social and environmental conditions and job opportunities. This is not only achieved by the free market which encourages even larger and more distant institutions and capital flows. The promotion of local and regional financial institutions is essential and should include de-merger of larger institutions. It will be necessary to reintroduce national controls of capital movements and to regulate finance capital more broadly. The aim must be to encourage productive investment, particularly community reinvestment.ix 3. Transnational Institution: creating a new production and exchange complex that includes community co-operatives and private enterprise. Transnational institutions of similar size must be used to assert the primacy of the common interest over those of the corporations. They should encourage the breakup of such organization to more manageable units, through regulations, anti-trust legislation and fiscal policies. The aim must be to encourage productive investments in goods and services. 4. Regulating Market Access: some economists believe that free trade is only possible if industries in developing countries are allowed to grow under a certain level of economic protection. A limit should be set for market at regional and national level for any company. Where such a market is dominated by a particular company, new firms should be encouraged through grants, loans and subsidies to enter it to maintain the impetus for improved products, more efficient use of resources and the provisions of choice. The transfer of information and technology would be encouraged to improve the efficiency of local industry. The advantage enjoyed by very large organizations must be countered. They must be rendered more accountable to their stakeholders through greater transparency, internal democracy and public regulation.x 5. Multinational Agreements: Existing and proposed international arrangements and Organization mainly serve the interests of the large transnational corporations and capitalism, at the expense of the rest of the world, including regions and communities of the countries in which they are based. Such arrangements must be replaced with ones that promote cooperation for self-reliance. Financial aid policies and capital flows, technology transfer and residual international trade should be on fair trade. These should be geared to the promotion of sustainable local economies.xi

6. Self-Reliance: The economy may be viewed at various levels from village to the state to the nation. At each level, there has to be relative self-reliance. The cooperative efforts of members and participatory decision-making are very significant. Similarly, at the village level whatever is required by the people should be produced as far as possible within its geographic terrain. 7. Avoid bad Consumerism and Rebuild Community: globalization is a process that has unified people of the world into a single society and has drastically affected the lives and living of people of developed, developing and under developed nations alike. In other words, it has created in the present time new patterns of livelihood, governance, leisure and identities. For example-The TNCs and MNCs are the main beneficiaries of globalization. Through various ways they domesticate the potential consumer in order to maintain their market. Most of the products of TNCs may not be necessary for ordinary people but due to consumerism they are forced to buy all these and this can lead inequality. 8. Decentralized Planning: properly steered decentralized politics and planning can be potential weapon to fight globalization. Grassroots social and economic institutions like the Self-Help Groups, Micro-Financing, etc. can empower people enabling them to avert globalization.xiiAs Sen points out that it would be difficult to achieve economic prosperity without making use of the opportunities offered by the market. The market does not work itself. It depends upon certain enabling conditions’, which includes economic, social and political institutions that shape a globalized economic and social relation.xiii 9. Developing Cooperative Behavior: Developed and developing countries have to act co-operatively, so that the gap between poor and rich does not widen more, but it has to start narrowing. However, there are no institutions, particularly democratic institutions to do that effectively. In order to make globalization more manageable and seek to base it on principles of solidarity, it is important to reform and strengthen the role of major international organisations. Moreover, Global economy needs global ethics, reflecting respect for human rights and recognition of personal and social responsibility.xivExpanding ties of international organisations with non-governmental organisations might be one of the examples for the reform.xv 10. Creating Awareness about Global Challenges: People around the world are not being helped to recognize that most important issues- overcrowded cities, quick spread of new infections, global warming, growth of worldwide disparity, destruction of the environment-are all part of the same global process called globalization. People should be aware that these issues do not just happen, but they all are related. States must be more local oriented and solve national problems first, but at the same time they should be able to react promptly to global issues.

Conclusion Globalization is a source of both hope and of apprehension. Further, the controversy over the merits and demerits of globalization is very livid in international politics. For The optimists, globalization could be one of the most positive features of modern life. More, pessimistic analysts, focus on globalization social economic short comings. In a last decade of the twentieth century, the term “globalization” became one of the most frequently used in the analysis of contemporary international relations, and continues to be actively used to characterize global political, economic and social processes. However, the current globalization is mostly influenced by the interests and guidelines of economically developed countries and their ideological preferences. These factors leave their imprints on the development of globalization, accelerating or slowing it down, and give specific nature to certain aspects of this phenomenon. Main requirements of an alternative globalization are the equality for all nations and people as well as regulation of specific areas of the world’s development with the help of strong democratic international institutions. Keywords

Civil Society: Civil society can be understood to be a political space where voluntary or non- governmental associations deliberately seek to shape the rules that govern aspects of social life. It is a process through which individuals negotiate, argue, struggle against or agree with each other and with those in authority. Civil society is particularly lauded for its role to hold governments accountable for their policy decisions and implementation. Strengthening of civil society was to be achieved by identifying potential civic advocacy groups such as labour unions, professional bodies and environment groups. Democracy: Democracy is a kind of political system, which simply defined, refers to ‘rule by the people’. In the developed countries, democracy and the concomitant system of rights that it makes available to the citizens has been intrinsically linked to the functioning of a market economy. However, democracy must be realised not only as a formal political system based on consent of the people but also substantively in the manner of social and economic democracy. International Non- Governmental Organisations (INGOs): International not for profit organisations performing public functions but not established or run by nation-states. Development: While the term ‘development’ defies any singular definition, it can broadly be understood in two ways- quantitatively, namely, as economic growth which is most conveniently measured in terms of increase in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and per capita income of any given country, and qualitatively, namely, by mapping fulfilment of basic needs of the people, access to essential resources, availability of opportunities and enhancement of human capabilities. The latter definition hinges on viewing development as a versatile and dynamic concept which factors in local and particular perspectives and requirements.

Ecological Balance: It is the off balance or equilibrium between all organisms so that the diversity of the ecosystem is ensured. Sustainable Development: Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. It recognizes that growth must be both inclusive and environmentally sound to reduce poverty and build shared prosperity for today’s population, and to continue to meet the needs of future generations. Review questions 1. Is globalization inevitable? Comment. 2. Critically analyse the domestic and global compulsions for the inevitability of globalization? 3. Is globalization unavoidable? Explain in the context of “anti-globalization” movements? 4. Explain the domestic and global responses to the challenges posed by Contemporary globalization? 5. What do you think about globalization? Can we avoid it? Is it a good thing? Where does it lead? 6. Is globalization inevitable and desirable? Explain. 7. Will globalization inevitably bring about the inequality of wealth? References

i Mansbach, Richard W. and Kirsten L. Taylor, ‘’Introduction to global politics’’ (Landon, Routledge, 2014), p-202. ii Kegley, C.W and Wittkopf, E.R, World Politics: Trends and Transformation, United State of America: Thomson Wadsworth, 2004, p-256-257. iii Rosenau. J., Turbulence in world politics, Brighton: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1990, p-88. iv Shiva, V., Ecological Balance in an era of Globalization, in Lechner, F. J. and Boli, J. (eds.) The Globalization Reader. 2nd Edition. Oxford: Blackwell, 2004. v Ravllion, M, ‘’Growth, inequality and Poverty: Looking Beyond Averages’’, World Development, 2001, p- 1803-1815. vi White, G., ‘Civil Society, Democratization and Development: (1) Clearing the Analytical Ground’, Democratization, Vol., 1994, pp.375-90, 1994. vii Joseph E Stiglitg, Globalisation and its discontents, (New York: W. W. Norton and Company, (2002), 247. viii J. Cavangh, J. Mander, (2004) Alternative to Economic Globalisation: A better world is possible Berrett-Koehler Publishers. ix O’Brien, Robert; Goetz, Anne Marie; Scholte, Jan Aart; Williams; Marc (2000) Contesting Global Governance: Multilateral Economic Institutions and Global Social Movements, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

x Anthony Giddens, (1994) Beyond Left and Right: The Future of Radical Politics. Polity Press. xi David Held and Anthony Mc Grew, A. et al. (eds.) Global Transformations Reader. Politics, Economics and Culture, Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1999, pp. 1‐50. xii Kurian Mathew V, “Alternative to Globalisation: A search”, Mainstream Weekly, Vol XLV (35), 2007, http://www.mainstreamweekly.net/article287.html, accessed on February 23, 2020. xiii Sen. A, ‘How to judge Globalism’, The American Prospect, Vol. 13, No. 1, January 2002, pp. 1-14. xiv Brown, Chris with Ainley, Kirsten, (2005) Understanding International Relations, 3rd edition, Palgrave Macmillan. xv Roland Roberson, (1995). Global Modernity’s. Globalization: times-space and homogeneity- heterogeneity. Sage publication, pp. 25-41.