3.2 The Debate on Globalization
3.2.2 The Anti-Globalist View
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
borders around the world in terms of trade. 172
6. Globalization is an evolution of world affairs, it is not a conspiracy theory created by some unknown organization as some people believe.173 There may be misunderstandings about globalization due to miscommunications or lack of information given to the public.
7. There is a gap in global society which has still been unable to be fulfilled by a supranational organization and the decrease in national government power led to the situation of globalization.174 Additionally, the increase of global interconnectedness leads to the fact that the effectiveness of traditional policy instruments tend to decline considering they are out-dated and more advanced technology have provided further
effective measures for fulfilment of global needs.
8. The process of globalization is not a reversible one. It is not a subject matter that one can just discard once they have had enough, globalization will only intensify in the future, and therefore, we should be prepared to cope with it.175
3.2.2 The Anti-Globalist View
On the other hand, sceptics of globalization are quick to assert that globalization may have been a process before but its time is coming to an end. The historian Ferguson referred to a
“sinking globalization,”176 while Wolf asks, “Will globalization survive?”177 Gray states that “the
172 Nye, J., “Globalization is Not Americanization,” Taipei Times, October 22nd 2004,
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2004/10/22/2003207970 [Last Accessed: December 12th 2015]
173 Modelski, G., Devezas, T., and Thompson, W. R. (2008), Globalization as Evolutionary Process: Modeling Global Change, London: Routledge, p. 7
174 Suter, K. (2002), Global Order and Global Disorder: Globalization and the Nation-State, Praeger, Westport:
CONN, p. 2
175 Hirst, P., and Thompson, G. (1999), Globalization in Question, Cambridge: Polity; “Azevedo Says Globalization Is Not Reversible,” Bloomberg, March 14th 2015, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/b/9a3ba52b-e69f-4a1f-bd9d-19d6c39f4851 [Last Accessed: December 12th 2015]
176 Ferguson, N. (2005), “Sinking Globalization,” Foreign Affairs, 84 (2): 64-77
177 Wolf, M. (2006), “Will Globalization Survive?” World Economics, 6(4): 1-10
‧
era of globalization is over,”178 Milanovic elaborates on “why globalization is in trouble,”179 and Saul estimates that the current era is “the end of globalism.”180 Rosenburg sums up the anti-globalist argument by observing that “the age of globalization is unexpectedly over.”181 The belief that globalization is dying stemmed from the 9/11 incident. While some globalists expound that the 9/11 incident was where globalization originated however, according to sceptics, the terrorist attacks actually placed a limit to globalization and caused it to stagnate instead. Anti-globalists argue that for the first time in almost a decade, the growth of trade, capital flows and foreign investment simultaneously became negative. Global trade had fell in 2002 by 4 per cent, capital flows fell by 19 per cent in 2001 and a further 67 per cent in 2002, while foreign direct investment collapsed by 41 per cent in 2001 and a subsequent 21 per cent in 2002.182
In addition to this, the downturn in economic globalization has been accompanied by consequent changes and shifts in the global community as evidenced by the move from
“multilateralism to unilateralism, stability to insecurity, cooperation to geopolitical competition, and soft power to hard power.”183 Sceptics contend that globalization is just an ideology of social progress and the studies of Hirst and Thompson, Hay, Gilpin and Rugman, though they differ in their methods of analysis, however, all the studies have demonstrated in common that economic trends are heading towards internationalization or regionalization rather than globalization.184 They argue that globalization has become exaggerated in both its historical and theoretical significance, considering the world is still composed of competitive nation-states.
178 Naimi, M., “Post-Terror Surprises,” Foreign Policy, September 2002,
www.foreignpolicy.com/issue_september_2002/ml.html [Last Accessed: December 17th 2015]
179 Milanovic, B., “Why Globalization is in Trouble,” YaleGlobal Online, 2006, http://yaleglobal.yale.edu [Last Accessed: December 17th 2015]
180 Saul, J. R. (2005), The Collapse of Globalism, London: Atlantic Books
181 Rosenberg, J. (2005), “Globalization Theory: A Post-Mortem,” International Politics 42 (2): 2-74
182 BIS (Bank for International Settlements) (2003) BIS Quarterly Review (Basel) (Dec.); WTO (2001), World Trade Report 2002, Geneva: World Trade Organization; UNCTAD (2003), World Investment Report 2003, Geneva: UN Conference on Trade and Development
183 Held, D., and McGrew, A. (2007), Globalization/Anti-Globalization: Beyond the Great Divide, Cambridge [England]; Malden, Mass.: Polity, p. 6
184 Hirst, P., and Thompson, G. (1996), Globalization in Question, The International Economy and the Possibilities of Governance, Cambridge, UK: Polity Press; Hay, C. (2005), “Globalization’s Impact on States,” in Ravenhill, J.
(ed.), Global Political Economy, Oxford: Oxford University Press; Gilpin, R. (2002), The Challenge of Global Capitalism, Princeton: Princeton University Press; Rugman, A. (2001), The End of Globalization, New York:
Random House
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
They argue that nation-states are taking back their authority and are regaining back their role of being key players in the world. Even if the power of the nation-state is limited, they are fierce in protecting their sovereignty, their autonomy, their right to rule and their capacity to choose the most suitable forms of political, economic, and social development for their society.
This can be exemplified through the example of the US actions regarding the Mexican border as they have doubled the size of Border Patrols, the use of more high-tech surveillance equipment such as drones and sensors, back-up by National Guard units and the border fence.185 Additionally, powerful conglomerates of the nation-states are the ones who continue to have an extensive influence on global economy rather than the MNCs as argued by the sceptics.186 The choices of nation-states alter significantly according to many factors such as their location in the hierarchy of states, and moreover, the independence bequeathed by sovereignty is considerably important. National politics are still the subject of numerous public debates and proves their importance in the anti-globalist argument.187
Sceptics emphasize inter-governmentalism and they argue that the global society is still dominated by relationships between national governments. Furthermore, sceptics do not agree with the globalists view of a common global popular culture, as sceptics believe that this idea has been exaggerated. Sceptics argue that even if the common global popular culture did increase its presence in recent years, it has since declined considering there has been a reassertion of national and regional cultural independence and regional cultures are beginning to be shaped in diverse ways that has yet to spread to the rest of the world. In addition to this, sceptics argue that with the rise of national identities, it restricts the influence of a global popular culture. This will be discussed in the latter part of the chapter as it ties into the globalization-separatism debate.
185 Jerry Markon, “Fewer Immigrants are Entering the U.S. Illegally, and That’s Changed the Border Security Debate,” The Washington Post, May 27th 2015, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/flow-of-illegal- immigration-slows-as-us-mexico-border-dynamics-evolve/2015/05/27/c5caf02c-006b-11e5-833c-a2de05b6b2a4_story.html [Last Accessed: December 15th 2015]
186 Ritzer, G. (2010), Globalization: A Basic Text, Malden, Mass: Wiley-Blackwell, p. 35
187 Held, D., and McGrew, A. (2007), Globalization/Anti-Globalization: Beyond the Great Divide, Cambridge [England]; Malden, Mass.: Polity, p. 18