Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 6

Academica Science Journal

Economica Series

No. 1 (1) 2012


ISSN: 2285 - 8067

MULTIPLE DEFINITIONS: A KEY ISSUE IN THE DEBATE ON


GLOBALIZATION

Silvia Cristina MRGINEAN,


Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu, Calea Dumbravii 17, Sibiu, Romnia
Ramona ORTEAN,
Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu, Calea Dumbravii 17, Sibiu, Romnia

Abstract: The debates on globalizations definition are the main core of the theoretical
work on this issue in the last decades. After more than 50 years since the word was used
for the first time, there is no agreement on its definition. Our statement is that the lack of
consistency, the imprecision and the ambiguity that could be found in definitions of
globalization are sources of confusions and misunderstanding, and are the causes of the
supra-abundant literature in this area. In order to develop our own definition, this study
provides an overview of existing definitions, emphasizing their strength and weaknesses.
In our opinion, the process of globalization is about creating connections between national
states, companies, individuals and institutions, stable connections that will allow the
development of commercial, financial, technological and information flows among these
subjects.
Keywords: globalization, global, international connections

INTRODUCTION
Globalization is a complex concept that is defined in the literature in many different ways. We can say that
globalization has different meanings for different people. The debates on globalizations definition are the
main core of the theoretical work on this issue in the last twenty years. Most of the papers begin with the
assessment that is no agreement on how to define globalization and the attempt to define globalization is
very difficult.
From this point there are few different options, generated by the specific research objectives, arguments or
subjective opinions. Some of the authors consider the definition the most important thing about globalization,
the contribution that could clear up once for all the continuous debate. Others say that trying to define
globalization is only a way to loose its content, so any attempt to define globalization is useless.
Our article is about the consequences of so many definitions of globalization. After reading it, few questions
naturraly arise: what would be the conclusion that can be drawn from this list of definitions? To what extent
definitions help us fully understand the concept of globalization? Why should someone engage such
research? Due tu the complexity of the concept, research projects, articles and debates are largely focused
on only one aspect of the globalization in order to provide some concrete sollutions and recommmendations.
We think the lack of consistency, the imprecision and the ambiguity that could be found in definition of
globalization are a source of confusions and misunderstanding, and are the causes of the supra-abundant
literature in this area.
Page 29

Copyright 2012 Academica Science Journal. All rights reserved.

Academica Science Journal


Economica Series

No. 1 (1) 2012


ISSN: 2285 - 8067

1. GLOBAL PHENOMENON AND GLOBALIZATION PROCESS


The scientific vocabulary associated with globalization has multiplied over time, searching for new
knowledge, new categories and new content with every new word. There is a consensus in the literature
about the first use of the word globalization: in 1961 Webster Dictionary includes it for the first time,
mentioning that the first known use of the term in English was in 1951. Words like global, meaning whole
world or to globalize, referring to the action of become global were used way before in the usual or scientific
vocabulary.
The debate about globalization is more than a debate about words; it is often an attempt to answer a
question: what is globalization, a phenomenon or a process? In order to express our position regarding this
issue we have to define the terms phenomenon and process. A phenomenon involves the external
manifestation of something, while a process is the evolution, the observable side of a phenomenon, which is
related to a progressive transformation over time. In our opinion, we can identify many global phenomena
(economic, social, cultural, political, etc.) and also particular globalization processes. All global phenomena
regarded as a whole constitute the process of globalization.
Regarding the distinctions between global phenomenon and globalization as a process, the opinions in the
academic world are very different. Whether assign to the word global the geographical sense (as opposed to
local, in this context meaning planetary, in the whole world), or we refer to this term in the context of an
institutional vocabulary and consider it to mean supra-nationality, it must be understood different from
globalization in many ways. Consequently, an explanation of globalization as the action of becoming global
is not appropriate and has not rigorously enough for our study.
Despite the fact that some authors use the two words as synonyms, we emphasize the importance of the
distinction between global which is any phenomenon that has the ability to spread at planetary level and
globalization which has over this characteristic the ability to induce structural changes. This distinction is
also made by Dinga [1], who says that the main difference between globalization and global phenomena
(as fashion) is the capacity to produce or not structural, irreversible changes in the considered system.
The preliminary discussion about the confusions induced by using different terms for globalization could be
continued with examples on distinctions between globalization and globalism, or with considerations about
innovative words like grobalization and glocalization. Globalization and globalism are sometimes considered
as expressions of the same phenomenon, the globalization being the process and the globalism being the
approach. Some authors instead prefer to make a distinction between these concepts, in order to present
globalization as the negative part, and the globalism the positive part of the same process. For example,
Mark Ritchie [2] argues that globalization is the process which relies on multinationals, interested in moving
the money, the plants and the products along the planet in order to find cheep employees and resources: in
this view, globalization is generally unfair from an ethic and moral perspective. On the other side, globalism
is the belief that we share the same fragile planet, and its survival depends on mutual respect and on care
for all its resources and people. The globalism has three pillars: communication in order to understand the
phenomena; resource management on the principles of equitability and sustainability; and mutual support in
difficult times.
As we mentioned, another way to have a contribution to the globalization debate is to innovate the specific
vocabulary. In this context, George Ritzers book The Globalization of Nothing [3] is representative. He
proposes the use of two new words in order to name two antagonic processes which are parts of
globalization: grobalization it is related to the proliferation of nothing, namely to all that things which are
profoundly and irreversible globalized; glocalization it is an alternative to globalization, and it is based on
the inclusion of the local specificities in the development model and, opposite to grobalization, stimulates the
spreading of something. Although as we will see in the next pages, fractality is a main characteristic of
globalization, which in our opinion excludes the high level of local specificity from the globalization process,
George Ritzer is a good example for the idea that sometimes we need new concepts and words in order to
understand the complexity of globalization.

Page 30

Copyright 2012 Academica Science Journal. All rights reserved.

Academica Science Journal


Economica Series

No. 1 (1) 2012


ISSN: 2285 - 8067

2. GLOBALIZATION DEFINITION AND CONTENT


One of the most important contributions to the literature on globalizations definition was made by Jan Aart
Scholte [4, 5]. He develops a definition in four phases: first, the author presents the rise of the vocabulary of
globalization in academic research; secondly, he identifies some dead-ends in the definition of globalization,
which are sources of redundant and inefficient information; the next step is to propose a conceptualization of
the globalization as spreading of transplanetary and supraterritorial social relationships; finally, the author
identifies six different characteristics of globalization based on this analysis. So, Scholte [4] argues that
globalization is the spread of transplanetary and supraterritorial connections between people.
The connections and interactions between people could be or not spatially determined (the last doesnt
depend on the geographical localization of the subjects). Globalization has as distinctive feature the
spreading of supraterritorial phenomena, which has no spatial determination. The distinctive characteristics
of globalization are not only about the quantity, the frequency, the scope and the intensity of social
transplanetary relations. Global connectivity is qualitatively different. Although many relations are established
in a delimited geographical area, there are connections outside this space.
The need of a new definition is obvious because of the fragility of existing ones, their incapacity to generate
knowledge in different ways than preexistent older concepts. Looking for redundant conceptualizations of
globalization, Scholte writes about: globalization as internationalization, globalization as liberalization,
globalization as universalization; globalization as westernization.
Definition of globalization as westernization could be found equally at critics and advocates of globalization.
Sometimes in this view globalization it is understood as Americanization or colonization and it is considered
responsible in destroying pre-existent cultures and local self-determination. Globalization is the spreading of
social and cultural structures of the western modernity (capitalism, industrialism, rationalism, urbanism, etc.).
Despite this, the westernization, modernization and colonialism are much older than contemporary
globalization. Maybe the recent forms of globalization could be studied as specific manifestations, phases or
types of modernity. Robertson [6] argues that globalization is strongly related to modernization and
modernity, to post-modernization and post-modernity. Dinu [7] considers that we can understand
globalization through distinctive features of the post-modernity. Contrary to these arguments, we should not
take globalization and modernization as synonyms.
Globalization as universalization assumes globalization is a process of dispersion over the whole world of
goods, services, information or experiences. Global means worldwide and everywhere. In this view,
globalization is responsible of cultural, economic, legal and political homogenization. This understanding of
globalization can be contradicted by the arguments mentioned above about the distinction between global
and globalization: there are global phenomena which dont induce structural changes of the system (the use
of English language, for example). In the same time, even authors which are critical regarding the
homogenization effects of the globalization, as Ritzer [3], consider that sometimes globalization enhances
diversity conservation.
Another option is to analyze globalization as liberalization. In this view, globalization is a process of lowering
the barriers and restrictions in trade in order to create an open and borderless world economy. Globalization
emerges when government reduces the trade barriers, foreign exchange restrictions, capital control or visas
requirements. Because of this definition, globalization become a debate between proponents of the neoliberal policies (academics, business executives and policymakers which sustain liberalization, privatization,
deregulation and fiscal discipline will bring prosperity, freedom, peace in the long run) and the critics of
globalization which say that laissez-faire philosophy will produce poverty, inequality, social conflicts, cultural
destruction, ecological damage and democratic deficit.
Indeed, globalization and liberalization have characterized the economies in the last 25 years, but the two
concepts are not identical. If we understand them as synonyms, this means that we suppose that there is
only one political option in a globalized world the neo-liberalism. Most of globalization critics reject mainly
the neo-liberal form of globalization. Some of them write about de-globalization [8] as transformation in a
world with autarchic, self-sufficient economies, integrated only at regional, national or local level. Others write
about alter-globalization as a way to reach human security, social justice and democracy. This could prove
Page 31

Copyright 2012 Academica Science Journal. All rights reserved.

Academica Science Journal


Economica Series

No. 1 (1) 2012


ISSN: 2285 - 8067

that neo-liberal policies are not inseparable to globalization (even we think it like the right way for a country to
develop). Scholte [5] argues that is no need to repeat all pros and cons on laissez-faire in globalization
debate. More, explaining globalization as liberalization we dont find new perspectives for todays challenges.
Through redundant conceptualizations of the globalization, in the mainstream literature we find the
understanding of globalization as internationalization. If we define globalization as internationalization, we
think at the rise of the tranzactions between countries. From this point of view, a globalized world is a world
with more messages, ideas, goods, money, investments, people flowing over the national boundaries. For
authors like Paul Hirst and Grahame Thompson [9] globalization is an intense form of internationalization.
Most of the attempts to quantify globalization have understood it as an internationalization process.
The idea of globalization as internationalization is attractive because requires a minimum adjustment of the
existing theories. Despite this, there are many authors which dont agree with this reduction of globalization
to the internationalization. Thus, since the early stages of the current wave of globalization Dicken [10]
argues that although globalization implies increasing interdependence and integration of national economies,
globalization is qualitatively different from internationalization. It is a more advanced and complex form of
internationalization what implies a degree of functional integration between internationally dispersed
economic activities. A global economy is an unprecedented phenomenon, which should not be confused with
the internationalization of the economy. In fact, the world economy has existed since the sixteenth century,
based on international trade, foreign direct investment and migration. Global economic engine is the nationstate. A global economy does have the ability to work together on real-time planetary scale. Four primary
factors have generated globalization: increased trade, multinational corporations, increasing
internationalization of finance and new technologies.
In most cases, those authors which understand globalization as internationalization assume that the current
trend is a replay of the previous historical scenarios. The rejection of this definition of globalization is based
on rejection of the idea of historical repetition. If globalization does not mean anything other than
internationalization perhaps an intesified form why we need another word?
Another group of definitions emphasize the idea that globalization is a process of acceleration and increased
links between different subjects (individuals, companies, states, etc.). We find this kind of opinion to authors
like Stiglitz, Holm and Sorensen. For Stiglitz [11] globalization is a stronger integration of countries and
people because of reducing costs of transport and communication, eliminating artificial barriers in movement
of the goods, services, capital and knowledge and people between countries. For Holm and Sorensen [12]
globalization is a intensification of the economic, political, social and cultural links beyond the national
boundaries. In othe words, globalization is about growing interdependencies between all the people living on
this planet. People are economically and socially linked.
An extensive article about the definition of economic globalization was published in 2006 by Al-Rodhan and
Stoudmann [13]. These authors try to offer a compehensive vision on the existent definitions. They made a
list with 114 definitions of globalization, showing that over 65 from these are related to the economic
dimension of globalization through market expansion, or sellin goods and services abroad. Many of these
definitions include another dimensions of globalization like the social or political ones. This could be a clue
for the idea that globalization tend to alienate from the economic roots of the concept. The proposed
definition look at globalization as a process that encompasses the causes, course and consequences of
transnational and transcultural integration of human and non-human activities [13].
Common global consciousness may be a factor to distinguish between globalization and previous evolutions.
Global spread of practices, intercontinental links, organization of social life on a global scale and common
global consciousness are some of the new characteristics. Jeremy Rifkins book The Empathic Civilization
[14] is a reference book in this direction. He propose a fascinating lecture on human history from a social and
altruistic point of view. Globalization has profoundly transformed our world, a world that never seemed so
deeply integrated (through trade, communication, culture) and at the same time so divergent (by conflicts,
crises, environmental issues). Rifkins thesis is that most of the time the human history is made by th angry
and discontent ones, by those who want to assert their authority. In these conditions, the written history has
as main subject power pathology. The history making events are the exceptions, not the facts between
them. The every day life mean a different type of interaction, based on our true nature the empathic one.
Page 32

Copyright 2012 Academica Science Journal. All rights reserved.

Academica Science Journal


Economica Series

No. 1 (1) 2012


ISSN: 2285 - 8067

Rifkins book is actually an attempt to understand history from the Neolithic to 21st century as a competition
between ecosistem and entropy, between conectivity and empathy. The world is in crisis. Despite the efforts
to meet the challenges of accelerated globalization, the humans seems unable to really focus their collective
mental resources to think globally and act locally. Through this book, the author shows that the gap
between our vision of global development and the impossibility of its achievement could be explained by the
current state of human consciousness. Our minds, our mental strucures, make us to feel, think and react in
an inappropriate way.
So, defining globalization is not a easy issue. An innovative approach of this real challenge is offered by
Dinga [1]. He use the methodological tools of the science of logic to define globalization. The necessary and
sufficient predicates of the globalization phenomena are: inherency (M); spatiality (S); fractality (F);
structurality (T). The necessary predicates of the globalization, induced by the sufficient ones are:
irreversibility (I); auto-cathalysis (A) and homogenity (O).
Inherency refers to the mandatory nature (required, necessary in logical sense) of the phenomenon. A
certain phenomenon will be described as a globalization phenomenon if its growth is generated by the
existence of a gradient defining the existence of that phenomenon. Spatiality (S) refers to the horizonal
dimension of globalization, its capacity to include, connect and create an extra-space of manifestation. Any
dynamic phenomenon has three characteristics: extension horizontal replication, expansion structural
homogenity, and deepening increasing intensity. Fractality (F) refers to the fact that the extension must be
made on the same structural model. Structurality (T) refers to the fact that a phenomenon of globalization
induce permanent changes in the affected systems. Necessary predicates generated by th four sufficient
predicates are ireversibility (I), auto-cathalysis (A) and homogenity (O). Irreversibility refers to the spatial
extent of globalization. Auto-chatalysis is an important feature of globalization, namely its ability to
selfpowered until it reaches its the spatial limits. Homogenization refers to the fact that globalization will
generate fetatures similar to the original ones in the new spaces.
The definition of globalization (of the globalization process) as an ensemble of required phenomena, of a
structural nature, with a spacial vocation and with a fractal character that are produced within a determined
time span, at a planetary level [1] allows for the identification of ex-post globalization phenomena due to the
mentioning of the planetary level [1]. This kind of definition makes a different statement in the literature and it
is an useful tool in globalization theory.
We can find many other relevant definitions. For Dow&Dow [15] globalization refers to the process of the
increasing international integration of economies, throuh the operations of private sector entities
(multinational corporations and international markets in goods and services, particularly financial services).
The costs and benefits of globalization are very different among the countries, the reach and the poor are not
affected in the same way by this phenomenon and Stiglitz [11] is the significant name in the analysis of the
effects of globalization on developing countries. In a edited book that has over 60 relevant articles on
globalization, Lechner & Boli [16] identify two common meanings. Globalization could be understood as
deterritorialization; in this view, globalization is the set of processes by which more people become
connected in more and different ways across ever greater distances. Another meaning of the globalization is
a critical one, it identifies globalization with the process by which capitalism expands across the globe as
powerful economic actors seek profit in a global market and impose their rules. In another words, Spence&
Leipziger [17] saw economic globalization as the dominant force that generated economic integration, beeing
in the same time the main growth factor in the world for decades, even globalization accelerated in the last
two decades.
CONCLUSIONS
As a conclusion we can say that defining globalization is anything but easy. In our view, a better definition of
globalization could be: the process of globalization refers to creation of connections between national states,
companies, individuals and institutions, connexions which are permanent and allow rising of commercial,
financial, technological and information flows among these subjects. These connections are similar to
vectors used in physics, because they are characterized by direction, sense, intensity, and application point.
Page 33

Copyright 2012 Academica Science Journal. All rights reserved.

Academica Science Journal


Economica Series

No. 1 (1) 2012


ISSN: 2285 - 8067

One of the shifts induced by globalization is emerging of supra-national or trans-national subjects (institutions
companies and even individuals) without national determination. Economic globalization is the creation of
stable connections which allow participation at common economic activities for subjects from different
countries. These connections are similar to channels that make possible the flows of goods, services,
capitals, people and information.
Among the few conclusions that can be drawn from the study of a great number of definitions became clear
that literature is not yet even close to understand globalization.
BIODATA
- Silvia MRGINEAN is Associate professor at Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu, Calea Dumbravii 17, Sibiu,
Romnia.
- Ramona ORTEAN is Associate professor at Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu, Calea Dumbravii 17,
Sibiu, Romnia.
REFERENCES
1. Dinga, E., ed. Sustenabilitatea economic prin politici de ajustare n contextul globalizrii. Editura
Academiei Romne, Bucureti, 2011.
2. Ritchie, M. Globalization vs. Globalism: Giving Internationalism a Bad Name. Available from:
http://www.actrav.itcilo.org/actrav-english/telearn/global/ilo/globe/kirsh.htm. 1998.
3. Ritzer, G., Globalizarea nimicului: cultura consumului i paradoxurile abundenei. Editura Humanitas,
2010.
4. Scholte, J.A. Defining Globalization. The World Economy, 2008. 31(11): p. 1471-1502.
5. Scholte, J.A., Globalization: a critical introduction. 2nd ed. Palgrave MacMillan, 2005.
6. Roberston, R., Globalization as a problem, in The Globalization Reader, F.J. Lechner and J. Boli,
Editors., Blackwell Publishing, 2008.
7. Dinu, M. Economia de dicionar. Exerciii de ndemnare epistemic.Editura Economic, 2010.
8. Sapir, J. La demondialisation. Edition du Seuil, 2011.
9. Hirst, P.; Thompson, G., Globalization in Question. The International Economy and the Possibilities of
Governance. Cambridge Polity Press, 1996.
10. Dicken, P. Global Shift: The Internationalization of Economic Activity. London, Guilford Press, 1992.
11. Stiglitz, J.E. Globalizarea: sperane i deziluzii. Editura Economic, 2002
12. Holm, H.-H.; Sorensen, G., eds. Whose World Order? Uneven Globalization and the End of the Cold
War. Westview Press, 1995.
13. Al-Rodhan, R.F.N.; Stoudmann, G., Definitions of Globalization: A Comprehensive Overview and a
Proposed Definition, G.I.o.G.a.T. Security, Editor Geneva Centre for Security Policy, Geneva, 2006.
14. Rifkin, J., Une nouvelle conscience pour un monde en crise. Vers un civilisation de lempathie, Paris:
LLL, 2011.
15. Dow, C.A.; Dow, C.S., The application of development economics: general principles and context
specificity. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 2005. 29: p. 1129-1143.
16. Lechner, F.J.; Boli J., eds. The Globalization Reader. 3rd ed. Blackwell Publishing, 2008.
17. Spence, M.; Leipziger, D., eds. Globalization and Growth. Implications for a Post-Crisis World.
Comission on Growth and Development/ The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, 2010.
Page 34

Copyright 2012 Academica Science Journal. All rights reserved.

Вам также может понравиться