1

-XII-

GLOBALISATION

1. Introduction

Globalisation should be essentially perceived as a process of transformation through

unification of various kinds and at various levels. This is to say that events occurring in a
certain part of the world come to reach and to exert various impacts in another part of the
world. First and foremost, this unification is perceived as an economic phenomenon as it has
basically been triggered by economic reasons and factors.

Globalisation is primarily meant to produce wealth and welfare. Its target is that of raising the
standards in poor countries and bringing them into the area of economic, social or political
modern contexts. Actually, according to the actions and the results noticeable worldwide so
far, the main globalisation ways and leavers prove to be: economic, financial and
administrative, all activated through generalised institutional frameworks. Some of them: MIF
(International Monetary Fund); WB (World Bank); EBRD (European Bank for
Reconstruction and Development)WTO (World Trade Organisation); OECD (Organisation
for Economic Cooperation and Development); GATT (General Agreement for Trade and
Tariffs); NAFTA (New Zeeland and Australia Free Trade Agreement); (FDI (Foreign Direct
Investment); ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations); UNDP (United Nations
Development Programme); WHO (World Health Organisation); UNFPA (united Nations
Population Fund Analysis);

It is true fact that globalisation seems to have become an irreversible trend in our modern
world, as it is equally true that it performs as an ongoing process, with its ups and downs,
with its positive and still negatively perceived characteristics, with its for and against
standing.

In sum, globalisation mainly targets economic efficiency, increased productivity,

technological development, profitable markets, free trade exchanges, encouragement of
investment, access to up-to-date standards of training, individual and labour mobility, social
prosperity. At the same time, it is not wrong to add that globalisation also envisages a
decrease of conflicts of all kinds and at all possible levels, with the hope that all the
arguments and practices that have, so far, proved to encourage it will become true fact.

However, as practice proves, it is more than clear that arguments in favour and arguments
against globalisation have split researchers, analysts and commentators into globaphobists
and globaphilists. Mainly, this rests with the overall perception on how institutional
frameworks in various contexts respond to globalisation (Bourguignon and Coyle, 1999).

So, it is obvious that there is legitimate grounding to develop upon a case for and a case
against globalisation (both of them to be presented at a further stage). In fact, this is nothing
but a proof and a good sign of perfectly functioning democratic mechanisms. This is to say
that debate, discussion and presentation of arguments still exhibit a free ground of
manifestation and scope.
 2

1.2. Globalisation and markets.

Globalisation is a dynamic, world wide process of opening, liberalisation and international

integration through a vide variety of markets: labour, goods, capital, technology, services.
(Guillermo de la Dehesa, 2007).

Through various forces, people and the contexts they live and perform in tend to unify and
function as a single entity that is desirably supposed to include as many common
denominators as possible: economic, social, administrative, financial, socio-cultural, political,
legal, technological, etc. In turn, all these factors (with their emergence, development and
impact) seem to gravitate around basic concepts, of which that of market, directly or
indirectly, exhibits particular influences,. Discussions and analyses on the impossibility to
separate globalisation from markets has been extensively tackled by specialists in the field
(Guillermo de la Dehesa, 2007; Baig and Goldfajn, 1999; Bertola, 1999; Feldstein, 1999;
Miller, 1988).

Speaking of markets let us consider some areas such as:

• industrial = emergence of worldwide production markets and extended access to

foreign products for both consumers and companies;
• financial = worldwide emergence and expansion of financial markets with better
access to external financing;
• economic = building up a global common market, based on the freedom of exchange
of goods and capital.
• informational = increase in information and data flows between/among
geographically remote locations;
• technical = more efficient co-operation, exchange and implementation of technology;
• transportation and infrastructure = increase of more rapid, comfortable and
efficient means of securing mobility (goods, people, businesses), with beneficial
consequences on the development of trade, business, travel, spread of consumer
goods, tourism.

The enumeration may continue with many more elements and/or areas which cannot be
overlooked when approaching the issue of globalisation, which is more and more seen as a
constructive process of our modern times. One may equally include here concepts and
relationships relating to areas like politics, the social context, culture, the legal system, ethics,
environment, ecological considerations and many others.

Speaking about the gradual emergence and consolidation of these ‘common denominators’,
the problem mainly rests with the consequences and the ways in which they have affected a
possible globalised world, still affect it nowadays and will carry on exerting their impact in
future.

At first sight, being most diverse, complex and abundant in variables and interdependencies,
any process of unification of such amplitude may seem almost impossible. This appears all
the more evident if we draw a parallel with the concept of culture and what essentially
underlies it: diversity, specificity, relativity, uniqueness and, especially its remanent force (its
‘memory’).
 3
The existence and the relevance of cultural differences may be affected by globalisation, even
if only partially. One should not forget that these differences range from very low levels, such
as the members of the same family, to higher ones, like those between nations.

By targeting harmonisation, a globalised world will obviously trigger a lot of change. Yet, if
we consider the main culture components, i.e. symbols, practices and rituals, heroes and
values, it seems clear that globalisation affects practices and rituals first. It is here that
harmonisation and unification primarily occurs and operates. Values are categories of a
deeper meaning and substance. They embody and react through a sort of ‘remanent force’ that
does not easily yield to change. With any culture, values always tend to maintain their
position of ‘genetic defenders of a culture’.

Looking back in time, if hundreds of years ago all these specificities may have seemed most
hard to spell out and deal with (unless power as force was the main intervention instrument)
nowadays, things have substantially changed.

Globalisation remains a concept still comfortably easy to define, in broad terms, yet very
difficult to forecast, categorise or capture against neatly definable patterns. Future
directions of development, changes at various societal levels, the nature of interrelations, the
impact on the culture physiognomy (and the list remains open to improvement) will still give
a lot of trouble to research. This becomes the more so evident especially when research and
analysis target uncertainty avoidance against the background of the impact of globalisation
on a given culture becoming.

However, prospects such as interaction, interdependence, adaptation, co-habitation, sharing or

unification may no longer seem so intangible ‘faraway pavilions’, provided the list of ‘for’
and ‘against’ motivation on globalisation grows richer in its ‘for’ argumentation. If this
turns out to be the case, globalisation has all the chances to become a source and creator of
pleasant, profitable environments, of synergy, and less one of misunderstanding and conflicts.

1.3. The way towards globalisation

It is interesting to notice that, during the ages of the world’s great empires, unification – if not
even incipient globalisation (surely, within the limits of the respective empire’s power and
capacity of influence) – occurred to some extent and scope. Undeniably, however, in those
times, the primary means to achieve such desiderata was power as force, whereas power as
knowledge (probably with the exception of great, long-lasting empires) remained a
contributor to a considerably reduced effect and visible only at later stages. Against this
balance, the level of technology development as a driving force cannot be overlooked.

This continuously ascending transition process from ‘power as force’ to ‘power as

knowledge’ is noticeable in the becoming of great civilisations which, undoubtedly and
unavoidably have accommodated globalisation tendencies.

An illustrating example, from this point of view, would probably be the Roman Empire, of
which has been frequently said to have designed and built what could be called ‘the first
European Union’ round the Mediterranean basin (‘Mare Nostrum’). Indeed, they
managed to bring together, to rule and administer a great diversity of peoples of most varied
cultural backgrounds. More than other great empires, the Romans managed to achieve and
leave for posterity a huge legacy due to the profitable and skilful combination of power as
 4
force and power as knowledge, the former basically in conquering, the latter substantially in
governance, administration, management, education, law design and law enforcement.
Here, special attention needs to be paid to the so-called ‘institution of the Roman legion and
of the legioneer himself’.

It is not far-fetched to contemplate the Roman legion as a ‘peripatetic government’ i.e. a

true collection of itinerant administrative institutions or ministries. Besides conquering,
the legionnaires were supposed to build, to administer, to defend, to instruct, to educate, to
impose legislation. In sum, to be ambassadors of a superior order and civilisation, to promote
and defend it

At the same time, as mentioned previously, Roman citizenship (that incentive and long-
desired ‘bunch of rights and privileges’) should equally not be overlooked. For the Roman
Empire, in those times, it proved to be an incredibly powerful state governing mechanism.,
which was made use of with outstanding management skills.

It is also interesting to see how researchers and historians, along the years, have tried to
explain the differences in exercising power as force, power as knowledge and management
strategies between two great empires of the ancient world, the Roman and the Chinese. Areas
of research have proved to be multiple. However, two of them seem to provide underlying
characteristics explain the causality and also constitute a safe basis for extending research in
most various directions.

First of all, the geographical element and the structure of the populations inhabiting it exerted
a capital influence upon the future physiognomy of each empire.

A continental Chinese Empire (although of considerable extension) somewhat situated at an

extremity of the known world, at that time, might have been more convenient to conquer and
administer. Unlike the Chinese, the Romans had to equally deal with both the advantages and
the disadvantages of the Mediterranean basin, then considered the true ‘heart of the world’, in
many respects.

Secondly (and probably, the most relevant) seem to be the so-called ‘constitutive elements’
brought together under a sole leadership and management.

While the Chinese had to deal with components of fairly the same kind, culturally
speaking, the Romans needed to bring together and administer a true ‘Babylon of
populations and cultures’. Needless to say that, here, the equation includes various stages of
societal development and, more importantly, a multitude of cultural products and all they
stand for. The legacies of the people conquered ranged from material products to religious
beliefs and worshiping practices, traditions and rituals of all kinds. All these had to be
assessed and evaluated, selectively taken over, put to practice and turned to good account in
accordance with the general interest of the leadership.

In this respect, it is fascinating to contemplate the huge capacity and ability of the Romans in
‘borrowing’ the ancient legacies and cultural assets of their predecessors (peoples and
empires: Arab, Egyptian, Greek, Persian etc.). With an outstanding capacity and ability to put
to good use power as knowledge, the Romans turned to good account for the prosperity of the
empire everything considered useful: science, technology, engineering, architecture and arts,
philosophy and literature.
 5
A close analysis of these two basic causality elements may also provide logical explanations
for the span of development and, no less, the longevity of the two empires. Probably, for the
Romans the huge diversity and the mixture of the constitutive elements was a more difficult
task to administer, manage and keep functioning. This may one of the explanations for the
difference of life-span between the two empires. On the other hand, however, the very same
diversity and mixture proved to be an unprecedented challenge and an incentive for rapid
progress. This diversity and mixture claimed the appearance of a true laboratory where the
becoming of a great civilisation was designed and where its legacy was produced.

In ancient times, through intelligence and innovation, the Chinese, the Egyptians, the
Phoenicians and the Greeks have also consolidated their power and developed enriched
legacies that have passed the test of time.

Others, the great Mongols, for instance, although having conquered most of Asia and a
considerable part of Europe, fought hard to maintain their dominance and left almost nothing
behind. This is telling proof that ‘power as force’ alone has proved to do very little for the
consolidation of a culture and a civilisation. Such empires were indeed short-lived and left
behind ‘threadbare legacies’.

Speaking about the progress of technology, the development of the construction materials
should be also considered as a most legitimate contributor to the evolution and consolidation
of cultures and civilisations. If during the ages of the great empires stone and brick were
paramount in construction and development, iron and steel massively took over during the
later era of modern colonisation (Victorian England or the industrial revolutions across
Europe). To go further, more and more sophisticated materials and material combinations
have come into wide use: metal alloys, plastics, ceramics, raisins, glass fibres, etc.

Along the stages of historical development, power has gradually ceased to be equated with the
idea of force, while irreversibly acquiring increasing potential and dimensions of knowledge.

Nowadays, through the perspective of power as knowledge, we witness a shifting

phenomenon that gradually affects the economies of most developed countries. It is true fact
that the classical production economies (that appeared during the era of the industrial
revolutions and have exhibited a continuously ascending course ever since) tend to gradually
shift to economies of knowledge and information. In other words, noticeable nowadays in
most of the developed countries is the transition from muscle to brain, from heavy
industries to the computer, from ‘hardware’ to ‘software’ economies.

Similarly, restricted and isolated markets of all kinds have been growing larger, defying
boundaries formerly considered impossible to surmount or trespass. In between, knowledge
has laboriously covered a strenuous way in developing technologies and, in a way,
consolidated the relationship between the other two factors: power and the market. The
process has followed an on-going ascendant course, yet at a considerably slow pace. Although
during the industrial revolution, throughout Europe and, especially during the Victorian
England, technology and industries exhibited an unprecedented boom, it was not yet the time
to speak about globalisation as we think of and experience today.

At least one element was still missing: speed. Gaining in substance, by and by, speed
eventually became manifest as generator of the so-called ‘accelerated shrinking of the world’
or ‘shrinking of time’ – even if travelling is not necessarily implied, here. Nowadays, one can
get to the far end of the world in a matter of hours and data can travel the world in seconds.
 6
The path towards globalisation has been considerably smoothed by shortening distances on
land, air and sea (rapid means of transportation). This eased up social and labour mobility, i.e.
the chance for individuals of various cultures to get together and interact in pursuit of various
targets: work, education, research, trade, business or missionary activities.

Speed has also invaded the world of information, data processing and transmission, with
similar, if not even more dramatic consequences. Information transmission has become a
matter of seconds. In turn, telephony, radio and television, satellite transmissions, the internet,
the e-mail or the computer networks have substantially contributed to the unprecedented
change of the world we live in. Due to all these, economies, the world of business and
especially that of banking and finance have constantly changed their practices and their
management strategies.

To follow the interesting becoming of the terms power as force, power as knowledge, market
and speed, their enrichment and so-called elevation of meaning might be a most instrumental
‘master key’ for understanding both the dynamics of cultures and that of globalisation. No
less, the passage from the stone and brick to the extensive use of iron, steel or plastics may be
an equally fascinating path of analysis regarding the development of cultures, civilisations
and the emergence of globalisation as an ongoing process.

It is clear that globalisation is not a ‘modern invention’. However, everybody can witness and
experience its impact more prominently in our contemporary times, in particular beginning
with the second half of the 19th century (de la Dehesa, 2007).

The 20th century made its debut with global market integration, yet it knew a considerable
interval of regress that ended with the two world wars, the Great Crisis and the accession of
fascism and communism. The present-day globalisation age is already more than 50 years old
and it exhibits more solid and articulate bases and operational principles. A failure, now
(considering the unprecedented development of technology and information) would be
extremely prejudicial and harmful as it would bring us all back to most counterproductive and
even dangerous outcomes: retreat and exclusion from the peaceful economic competition, the
denial of the free market rules, another damaging era of military competition and even tragic
wars (de la Dehesa, 2007). To work out a profitable globalisation for all, the world needs
liberty: liberty for free trade, capitalisation for the benefit of each participant/actor, liberty of
investment, free movement of individuals and labour, indiscriminate customs regulations and
taxes etc.

1.4. Do we encourage or do we tend to slow down globalisation?

The answer could be both depending on what area of the local is affected by the global. As
proved by history, the global has been constantly penetrating the local in a continuous process
and in most varied aspects. Let us consider some examples that may prove that the matter
exhibits substantial complexity and verdicts are most inadequate and unfair.

For instance, the arts and handicraft work of the American Indians (a local specificity)
employs materials (cloths, metals, paint, dyed-wool yarns, glass beads, etc.) which are all
made in Europe. The traditional Hawaiian steel guitar was actually invented by a Check
immigrant living in California. Ancient cultures such as the Etruscan mixed all kinds of
Oriental and Greek influences. Undoubtedly, all these examples exhibit positive aspects of
globalisation. However, when we think of kitsch-souvenirs and artefacts or the so-called
touristy junk foods, the balance inclines towards the negative.
 7
To carry on, just as an example, the preservation of the “Historic Area of Colonial
Williamsburg” (in USA Virginia) stands for the other side of the coin, in this respect.

The former capital of the 18-th century largest British colony in North America was named
after William III of England and officially came to existence in 1699. Williamsburg, (initially
born at 17-th century Jamestown) is now both an open-air, large scale museum and a living
city (about 10,000 residents) kept free of kitsch and junk artefacts, as much as possible.
Operated by a non-profit educational organisation, the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, the
city is administered by a mayor, a council and a city manager.

Williamsburg is a true site of enactment performance of most various kinds (organisational,

institutional and operational) meant to display a ‘slice of history’ and prove that it may be still
functional. It is, ultimately, a perfect example of a symbiosis between a past and a present
state of affairs. As a living museum and a functioning modern community, Williamsburg
makes possible that hundreds-of-years old realities and organisational structures (with people
at work, as such) co-exist with contemporary ones.

Most of the institutions and offices in operation hundreds of years ago have been
reconstructed and still function, where applicable. Moreover, grocery, general store, taverns,
book bindery, apothecary, blacksmith, carpenter, silversmith and jeweller, cobbler,
shoemaker, saddler and harness makers, linen and fabrics, bakery, butcher, barber or the
wigmaker are just some of the shops and workshops still unchanged, still open and doing
business. Here, everything from working methods to materials or tools remains frozen in the
historical context of their appearance.

Maybe, as such, Williamsburg could be considered a living example, an awareness raising

message and, no less, a warning signal as regards that remanent force exhibited by cultures
and civilisations, i.e. that ‘culture memory and culture warehouse’ which does not easily
yield to awkwardly and indiscriminately approached tendencies of globalisation.

Research in the field has also shown that the McDonald expansion all over the world may be
another aspect of globalisation with both negative and positive facets. It may be seen as a
world-wide imposition of a materialistic culture of basic needs that, through its considerable
force of impact, tends to dilute national or cultural specificity. From this point of view it may
be seen as a globalisation feature devoid of substance – a fake, if not downright dangerous,
attempt at harmonisation and unification.

Firstly, this fast-food branch has brought no specific cultural ingredient to the areas it has
penetrated. While it sells different things that might appear as specific for a certain
environment (burgers in America and Europe, falafel in Egypt or seafood burgers in China or
Japan) the actual goal does not go beyond sheer profit. Alongside the probably positive
aspects of hygiene and a pleasurable setting, the by far negative and health-hazard cult of junk
food has been spread and, unfortunately, still flourishes substantially. A similar example,
along this line of analysis, might be the Hollywood film-making industry, nowadays.

The rapid development pace of our modern world shows that globalisation is inevitable; it
becomes increasingly articulate and its apparent advantages are, hopefully, bound to
overcome and outnumber the disadvantages. When addressing cultures, however,
harmonisation still remains a ‘sore point’ with most unpredictable impact and consequences
in many respects (Rodrik, D. 1997; Stiglitz, 2003; Wolf, 2004). Therefore, as a guiding
principle and as an incentive to make the right choice, a survey of pros and cons might be
 8
useful. The considerations selected below might be food for thought in designing attitude,
correcting behaviour, acquiring intercultural competence or enhancing the power of
knowledge and understanding.

1.5. The case for globalisation.

- a steady and dynamic process of liberalisation, openness and international co-

operation;
- the chance and the challenge to experience diversity, in general;
- prospects towards the achievement of global public desiderata such as: global peace,
global health, global information, conservation of global environment etc.;
- the spectacular decrease of natural barriers, through shrinking space and time;
- globalisation means liberty; of free commerce, investment and capitalisation to the
advantage of each and every actor;
- a means to reduce the levels of uncertainty avoidance;
- better and faster access to knowledge and, implicitly, a smooth and beneficial
transition from power-as-force to power-as-knowledge;
- fertile ground for spreading the principles of democracy and increasing the number of
rule-of-law states;
- the gradual disappearance of rigidity as regards the status of state frontiers;
- easy and better access to information
- unprecedented advantages of the technology gains: transportation (ground, sea and
esp. air), state of the art materials, processing techniques (freezing, for instance)
- the benefits of the ‘world wide web’ (www) and of the state-of-the-art systems of
communication;
- rapid and spectacular gains in the field of science: medicine, biology, chemistry,
physics, automation, cybernetics and control systems, aeronautics etc.
- increase of the flow of goods, services, trade, finance and information;
- more profitable exchanges of experience and expertise and reduction of costs;
- reduction or elimination of man-made barriers such as taxes or customs tariffs;
- great opportunities for ‘filtering’ cultural and social values and for extracting, taking
over and using the best of their specificities and meaning;
- better access to the natural resources all over the world;
- free access to people and labour mobility;
- profitable co-operation in securing and exploiting basic resources: energy, water;
- the chance to raise awareness and the power to adequately address environment
protection, pollution or global warming issues;
- encouragement of investment that implicitly triggers better access to education and
professional training, greater employment opportunities and labour mobility ;
- an enriched milieu for professional, work and labour mobility;
- increased possibilities to reduce poverty, to do away with illiteracy, fanaticism,
terrorism, or excessive nationalism;
- increased opportunities for carrying out case studies and adjust management and
administration policies and strategies;
- an incentive for efficient communication through language learning;
- considerable reduced levels in bureaucracy and the gradual elimination of the ‘red
tape’;
- a more efficient and profitable environment attenuating and solving conflicts for
securing peace and security and keeping the world war-free;
- increased chances and means to prevent and intervene in case of need: natural
disasters, accidents, epidemics/pandemics or aid supply;
 9

1.6. The case against globalisation.

- a possible erosion of the national identity and national sovereignty, generating an

increasing resistance to change and a surge of nationalism;
- the feeling of losing sovereignty;
- the clash between the global and the local;
- a menace for the communities or the individuals personality;
- the reluctance of culture memories to hasty and indiscriminate institutionalisation;
- change at the level of practices (customs, habits, celebrations, rituals) is not easily
welcomed; the case becomes even more difficult to accept when it is liable to affect
the values of a certain culture;
- incompatibilities difficult to overcome due to poor capacity or will to ‘learn how to
unlearn’ at the level of different cultures;
- reluctance to interference with the specificity of family, education or interrelations
principles and patterns;
- a too rapid pace towards harmonisation and uniform standards cannot be easily
internalized by certain cultures (insufficient levels of education and knowledge);
- the existence of a still considerable discrepancy and gaps as regards the distribution of
wealth as generator of reluctance and defensive attitude in international/intercultural
contacts and co-operation;
- improper management of realities by increase of mobility against the background of
the relaxation of frontier statuses: labour and unemployment, terrorism, plagues and
diseases:
- caution as regards the manner and the extent to which information (media) and
entertainment will affect cultural identity and characteristics; adversity towards the
aggressive practices of the media, frequently seen as intellectual and educational
harassment and an invader of privacy;
- the global market should remain an economic and financial concept but not a cultural
one;
- loss of jobs in highly urbanised countries due to their export through investment in
developing or underdeveloped ones;
- replacement of domestic products with those coming from abroad;
- in practice, the feeling of a reduced impact and consideration for the opinions and
views of the less developed states in relation to those developed or the super powers;
- unbalanced distribution of wealth between developed, developing and underdeveloped
countries;
- adversity towards the abuse of power professed by banks and international financial
organisations;
- a faulty and biased integration of the local into the global dimension; the imposition of
the global on the local in terms of institutions and commerce (the supermarkets and
their impact on the small producers and traders);
- due to low levels of knowledge and education, the impossibility to have access to
wider horizons, to develop awareness, to enhance understanding and admit cross- and
intercultural contact.

1.7. What do we need to do in order to make globalisation profitable for all?

 10
A fair and a rational assessment and evaluation of the phenomenon of globalisation (the for
and the against cases, today) undeniably leads to the conclusion that it is an irreversible
reality we all populate and face, we all experience and we all need to deal with.

To various degrees, admittedly or not, we all live in a globalised world. What accounts for
globalisation as an undeniable process of our modern civilisation is, first of all, the
development of technology. It is that reality which people and states both design and build,
but equally experience, for better or for worse. Everybody welcomes it, benefits from its
advantages and results and everybody contributes to its ongoing progress.

Globalisation, to offer a suggestive comparison, is like a piece of machinery which we all

need to be able to operate adequately and profitably so that it may not turn its power against
its very inventors. So the key word here seems to remain management.

So, by going through such a list of for and against argumentation (which will definitely
remain open), the wisest conclusion would be that globalisation, just as the cross-/intercultural
contacts and relations, remains and should be addressed as a give-and-take process. In this
respect, world-wide effort (be it that of ordinary people, scientists or researchers) needs to be
directed towards two desiderata:

- firstly, care should be taken that – due to lack of appropriate expertise, faulty design,
or counterproductive implementation (improper policies and strategies) – none of the
pro arguments should become part of the against list.
- secondly, knowledge and expertise should be devoted to all possible means of
addressing and finding remedies for each and every of the entries comprised in any
against list.

Considering the above, here are some of the ‘musts’ that could make globalisation a profitable
asset for all, some of them considered by experts in the field, such as Joseph Stiglits or
Guillermo de la Dehesa:

- a careful and realistic management of the impact of the global upon that of the
local, of the clash between the globalising mechanisms and the ‘culture
memories’; here we should not forget that cultures are not exclusively defined by
material products, but also by values, morals, or other various sensitive and emotional
areas. In this respect, probably, the question raised by Samuel Huntington
(Huntington, 1996) needs closer attention and analysis. This rests with the assumption
that, nowadays, the main source of conflict in a globalised world is neither ideological
nor economic but mainly a cultural one (possibly a difficult to manage friction at
various levels of understanding the intrinsic meanings of values, practices or rituals;
- a true democratisation of globalisation through the development of consolidated,
democratic institutions capable of easing social tension. Here, a participative
democracy and public policy (public discussion and debate prior to government
decision making) would be most profitable and beneficial in all areas;
- the elimination of the democratic deficit in international institutions (see J. Stiglitz,
2008). Here, of some enumerated by Stiglitz, relevant would be:

 modification of votes structure within IMF and World Bank, by

granting an increased decision contribution to developing countries;
 modifications in country representation in international for a, by an
extended participation of ministers (not only economy and finance);
 11
 a revision of the so-called global social contract, meant to bring to
bring about an equitable grounding in the relation between developed
and less developed countries, both inhabitants of the same planet
(adequate sums paid in return for natural resources, debt policies,
support and loans policies, interference in emerging democracies,
environment protection polices and many others);
 better transparency and the possibility of presenting various points of
view in all international organisations sessions;
 increased participation of the developing countries in the decision
making process;
 better judiciary procedures through the setting up of a global legal
institution meant to enforce and monitor international legislation; the
setting up of an international tribunal responsible for endorsing and
establishing the legality of various agreements (at bilateral or regional
levels) and preventing the fragmentation of the global, multilateral
commercial system;
 discouraging the fragmentation of the global trade and financial
systems by the creation of various bilateral and regional agreements;

- a better integration of labour markets, a free movement of capital and the liberalisation
of commerce. This is because, in the last years, we have witnessed a very slow
progress and a visible discrepancy between developed and developing countries, fact
that generates discordance at the level of GDP (gross domestic product) values;
- promotion and development of the international commerce as a true factor of progress;
learning and expertise become more evident in industries that develop and expand
than in those that shrink and reduce their span of growth;
- technology and telecommunication development has clearly proved that global
societies are by far more integrated and, consequently, the markets (financial or trade)
can equally integrate both consumers and producers more rapidly;
- better, i.e. more adequate international institutional frameworks and multinational
corporations, all observant, flexible and adaptable to the local realities targeted. These
need to better regulate and manage finances, intellectual property, competition,
environment, health, terrorism, arms, people and drug trafficking;
- extension and diversification of educational, training and research programmes as the
only solution towards an increase in productivity and, implicitly, welfare. The
accumulation of expertise and experience in a certain field leads to increase in quality
and reductions in cost (see: microprocessors, PCs, mobile phones, motorcars, aircrafts
etc);
- adequate policies meant to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor;
- finding and exercising ways to promote multiculturalism and not the ‘levelling’ of
cultures; any attempts of levelling cultures is, ultimately, nothing but an
unconceivable levelling of personalities and of individuals as entities;

In view of the above, to put it suggestively, globalisation could be regarded as the building of
a house. In this case we do not exclusively need materials and mechanisms or techniques. In
order to see the edifice accomplished, we also need to contemplate the construction through
the optics of a long term perspective, with the necessary clairvoyance and patience.
Ultimately, it is obvious that paramount are not the materials and mechanisms but the design
and the management of the construction, both based on a thorough needs analysis of the
project targeted.
 12
In doing so, as a conclusion, for those who do not understand, or do not want to understand
globalisation against desiderata such the above presented, it means that one very simple thing
is either overlooked or, again, not understood: ‘one cannot eat the cake and have it at the
same time!’

****************************************
TASKS

1. Explain and develop upon any of the above listed ‘for’ or ‘against’ arguments.
2. Supply solutions for a possible elimination of any of the against arguments and argue
what is to be done to make it become part of the for list.

*****************************************

-----.-----