Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Economica Series
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
Page 30
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
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
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