Centre of Excellence on Development Communication

(Department of Theatre and Performing Arts)

Faculty of Arts

Ahmadu Bello University Zaria

An Assignment on

THAP 807
(Cultural Studies)

Topic:

Globalisation: The Evolution of International Society

Submitted to

Dr. Emmanuel Jegede

August, 2014

1
GLOBALIZATION: EVOLUTION OF INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY

INTRODUCTION

Globalization means different things to different people and different things to the
same people across time and space (Fischer, 2000)). As a result, very many
definitions of globalization have been proffered relating to its nature,
extensiveness, causes and consequences (Fischer, 2000; UNDP (Nigeria), 1999;
Robinson, 2001; Walker and Fox, 1999; Caselli, 2004). Many authors have
attempted, with relative success, to define globalization in a variety of ways. Some
claim that it cannot be done; others claim that it would constrain the meaning to do
so, and still others have defied these two beliefs and have constructed a working
definition. Despite differing opinions about developing a definition, all authors
agree on one thing: that defining this term is anything but easy.

Caselli defined this iconic phenomenon (globalization) with a fairly comprehensive

view as a set of processes which:
 increases the number and heighten the intensity of contacts, relations,
exchanges and dependence and interdependence relationships among
various parts of the world;
 transforms the importance of ‘space’ and ‘time’ with respect to those
relations and relationships;
 Increase and spread awareness among the planet’s inhabitants of the
existence of those relations and relationships, as well as of their importance
for their personal lives” (Caselli, 2004).

2
Fischer (2000) observes that to economists, globalization means “the on-going
trend toward greater economic integration among nations” while in terms of
people’s daily lives, it “means that the residents of one country are more likely
now: to consume the products of another country; to talk on the telephone to
people in other countries; to visit other countries; and quite likely to know more
about other countries than they were fifty years ago”. The different perspectives on
globalization notwithstanding, a common thread runs through most of them, to the
effect that globalization relates to the growing interdependence of the world’s
people. It is about increasing inter-connectedness and interdependencies among the
world’s regions, nations, governments, businesses, institutions, communities,
families and individuals. Globalization fosters the advancement of a “global
mentality” and conjures the picture of a borderless world through the use of
information technology to create partnerships to foster greater financial and
economic integration.

Globalization is not a single concept that can be defined and encompassed within a
set time frame, nor is it a process that can be defined clearly with a beginning and
an end. Furthermore, it cannot be expounded upon with certainty and be applicable
to all people and in all situations. Globalization involves economic integration; the
transfer of policies across borders; the transmission of knowledge; cultural
stability; the reproduction, relations, and discourses of power; it is a global process,
a concept, a revolution, and “an establishment of the global market free from
socio-political control.” Globalization encompasses all of these things. It is a
concept that has been defined variously over the years, with some connotations
referring to progress, development and stability, integration and cooperation, and
others referring to regression, colonialism, and destabilization. Despite these
challenges, this term brings with it a multitude of hidden agendas. An individual’s
3
political ideology, geographic location, social status, cultural background, and
ethnic and religious affiliation provide the background that determines how
globalization is interpreted. In order to have a broader and holistic view to this
phenomenon, globalization would be assessed from four concept of definition to
have a clearer meaning of the content and context as highlighted below;

Internationalization
When globalization is interpreted as internationalization, the term refers to a
growth of transactions and interdependence between countries. From this
perspective, a more global world is one where more messages, ideas, merchandise,
money, investments and people cross borders between national-state-territorial
units. Globalization is an intense form of internationalization, so that the global is a
particular subset of the international. Many other analysts are less discriminating
and simply regard the words ‘global’ and ‘international’ as synonyms to be used
interchangeably. Most attempts to quantify globalization have conceived of the
process as internationalization.

Ideas of globalization-as-internationalization are attractive insofar as they entail a

minimum of intellectual and political adjustments. Global relations of this kind can
be examined on the same ontological and methodological grounds as international
relations.

Liberalisation
A second common analytical dead-end in discussions of globalization has equated
the notion with liberalisation. In this case, globalisation denotes a process of
removing officially imposed restrictions on movements of resources between
countries in order to form an ‘open’ and ‘borderless’ world economy. On this

4
understanding, globalization occurs as authorities reduce or abolish regulatory
measures like trade barriers, foreign-exchange restrictions, capital controls, and
visa requirements.

Using this definition, the study of globalisation is a debate about contemporary

neoliberal macroeconomic policies. On one side of this argument, many
academics, business executives and policymakers support neoliberal prescriptions,
with the promise that world-scale liberalization, privatization, deregulation and
fiscal restraint will in time bring prosperity, freedom, peace and democracy for all.
On the other side, critics in the so-called ‘anti-globalization’ movement oppose
neoliberal policies, contending that a laissez-faire world economy produces greater
poverty, inequality, social conflict, cultural destruction, ecological damage and
democratic deficits.

To be sure, large-scale globalisation and widespread economic liberalization have

transpired concurrently in the past quarter-century. Moreover, this wave of
neoliberalism has often played a significant (albeit not necessary) role in
facilitating contemporary globalization.

However, it is quite something else to conflate the two concepts, so that

globalization and liberalization becomes the same thing. Moreover, such an
equation can carry the dubious – and potentially harmful – implication that
neoliberalism is the only available policy framework for a more global world.

Universalization

A third cul-de-sac appears in analyses of globalisation when the notion is

conceived as universalization. In this case globalisation is taken to describe a
process of dispersing various objects and experiences to people at all inhabited
parts of the earth. On these lines, ‘global’ means ‘worldwide’ and ‘everywhere’.

5
Hence there is a ‘globalization’ of business suits, curry dinners, Barbie dolls, anti-
terrorism legislation, and so on. Frequently globalisation-as universalization is
assumed to entail homogenization with worldwide cultural, economic, legal and
political convergence.

Yet this conception, too, opens no new and distinctive insight. To be sure, some
striking universalization has transpired in contemporary history. Moreover,
substantial cultural destruction in recent times has appeared to lend credence to the
homogenization thesis (although, as will be elaborated later, the dynamics of
globalization are actually more complex). However, universalization is an age-old
feature of world history. The human species has spread itself through
transcontinental migration for a million years.

Westernization

A fourth common conception of globalization has defined it as westernization. As

such, globalization is regarded as a particular type of universalization, one in
which the social structures of modernity (capitalism, industrialism, rationalism,
urbanism, etc.) are spread the world over, destroying pre-existent cultures and local
self-determination in the process.Globalization understood in this way is often
interpreted as colonization and Americanization, as ‘westoxification’ and an
imperialism of McDonald’s and CNN. For these critics, talk of globalization is a
hegemonic discourse, an ideology of supposed progress that masks far-reaching
destruction and subordination.

Since its earliest appearance in the 1960s, the term 'globalization', has been used in
both popular and academic literature to describe a process, a condition, a system, a
force, and an age. Given that these competing labels have very different meanings,
their indiscriminate usage is often obscure and invites confusion. How does

6
globalization occur? What is driving globalization? Is it one cause or a
combination of factors? Is globalization a uniform or an uneven process? Is
globalization extending modernity or is it a radical break? How does globalization
differ from previous social developments? Does globalization create new forms of
inequality and hierarchy? All these and more questions are what this discourse
intend to answer.

Al-Rodhan (2006) defined globalization as a process that encompasses the

causes,course, and consequences of transnational and transcultural integration of
human and non-human activities. Based on all these diverse definitions, the group
therefore understands globalization in this sense;

“Globalisation is a system of change interconnecting states globally into a single

entity in respect of socio-economic development, industrial growth and economic
buoyancy, hybridization of culture, liberation of market and free flow of
information and movement with attending consequences creating a dichotomy in
semblance of capitalism. This system is a function of place, space and time.”

7
EVOLUTION OF GLOBALIZATION AND INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY

Globalization process can be divided into many stages encompassing colonization,

slave trade, church constructions abroad, inventions in the high-capacity
transportation, industrialization, highway constructions among provinces and
countries, electrical and electronic infrastructure. On the other hand Robertson
claims that globalization which is thought to be peculiar to present day is in fact a
process which began before the modernity and capitalism and divides this process
into five stages and suggests that the last stage started in 1960 is full of
ambiguities.

A commonly accepted division divides the globalization process into three stages.

Table 1: Stages of Globalization

First Stage Second Stage Third Stage

Stages
1490 1890 1990
Multi-National Companies in
1970s, Communication Reform
Nautical Industrialization and
Impulse in 1980s, Disappearance of
developments its requirements
Competitors of the West in
1990s
Evangelists, then
Profit and then Cultural-Ideological effect,
explorers, then
Process military therefore countrywide
companies and finally
occupation spontaneous effect
occupation
Highest level of civilization,
To get the God’s Burden of the white governance of international
Medium religion to the man, humane mission, community, “invisible hand” of
pagans racialist theories the market, globalization: for
everyone’s interest
Political Empires and Regional and Economic
Nation States
Structure Colonization Integrations
Result Colonialism Imperialism Globalization

8
Source:Yaman, 2001.

First Stage (1490): Started with the overseas discoveries of the West. The
discoveries were followed by the establishment of colonial empires.

Second Stage (1890): Second extension of the West started after 1870 and
institutionalized in 1890s. The utilized technology after the industrial revolution
generated high imbalances between the West and the rest of the world. This
difference was resulted with the deployment of Western countries into the markets
of countries that had not experienced the industrial revolution and exploitation of
the resources in these countries. A merciless competition that curtails profit rates
started. This competition previously had remained at the firm level as the land and
resources abounded but later on as the free lands become scarce it raised to the
national level. Increased competition resulted in conflicts and the First World War.

The world changed in many respects after the First and Second World Wars.
Almost all the ordinary balances collapsed and a new formation in the world
started. First, balances that collapsed and changed were the former economic
powers and political authorities connected to these powers. The empires and
monarchies and their colonies which are the power source and scattered into
various continents diffused one by one through declarations of independence.
When economic and political balances changed, social and cultural values and
balances disappeared, the newly gaps were closed by new balances. One of them
was USA and the other was USSR. Thereby two poles and two blocs formed in the
world. But during the Second World War major changes occurred. When the vast
part of Europe was ruined, industrial economy in USA experienced a huge growth.

9
Third Stage (1990): In the first two stages instable balances aroused. The number
of independent states increased, conflicts increased and accelerated. Identity
conflicts reached to peak in the underdeveloped countries.

The national markets of the West were insufficient; markets were desired to
expand in order to encompass the whole world. In this process there were no
competitors against the West like the ones in 1490 and 1890 stages because the
third stage both was the factor that engendered the collapse of Soviet Bloc and the
West was left alone to conquer the world as a result of this collapse. The third
stage was more powerful, widespread and faster than the first two stages because
of the hegemony of MNCs on the world economy started in 1970s, communication
revolution created by putting technological inventions of the West like optical
cable, communication satellites, computers, internet in 1980s and disappearance of
power balances with the dissolution of the USSR and Europe’s turning up as the
only focus of power again in 1990s. Therefore globalization has become a process
that cannot be reversed and it should be accorded and strategies should be
developed against the process.

THEORIES OF GLOBALISATION
The theory of globalization is a very propulsive area of research, but composed of
contributions from many authors. Therefore, it is necessary to systematize
sometimes quite heterogeneous understandings of globalization. Quite spread out,
but, for the purposes of further consideration, an entirely appropriate classification
of globalization theories differentiates three courses of analysis of this
multidimensional phenomenon (Held, McGraw, 2007, p. 2):
1 hyperglobalists
2 transformationalists

10
3 sceptics

By hyperglobalists, globalization is viewed as a legitimate and irrepressible

historical process, which leads to a world order based on the market and
supranational institutions. Globalization presents a new era in the development of
civilization, without precedent in the course of human history. This process is
referred to as progressive and socially desirable. It is also stressed that the intensity
and dynamics of current changes in the economy lead to changes in core
framework of social action (Held, McGraw, 2007, p. 5). Guided by the self-
enforcing growth of global markets and technological progress, globalization
inexorably destroys all previously established hierarchical structures. The role of
the nation-state in this context is also significantly diminishing. Multinational
corporations concentrate vast resources, and become the main carriers of economic
activity on a global level. This creates a global civilization in which the market is
integrated on the world level, multinational companies are becoming major actors
in the economic process and international institutions substitute the role of national
states. Multinational companies have fundamental influence on the economy and
represent natural response to the "borderless" economy that is characterized by
homogenous consumer tastes. These companies crowd out national models of
economy as relevant units of economic activity (Ohmae, 1990).

Hyperglobalists conceive globalization as a process, which has the internal logic

and predictable outcome, the global society based on a fully integrated market. In
other words, all the variety of heterogeneous cultures withdraws in front of the
unique social pattern, based on markets and institutions derived from the radically
liberal cultural framework. In this sense, a well-known assumption about the ''end
of history'' is generated, which implies that the modern, global capitalism with
11
liberal democracy as the political framework represents the last word of socio-
economic evolution (Fukuyama, 1992).

Globalization is seen as a kind of final stage in the spontaneous and self-enforcing

process of creating a global society, as the most efficient model of society, which
stops the further process of selection of types of socio-economic order. It should
also be mentioned that this reflection of globalization includes liberal-oriented
authors such as Theodore Levitt, Thomas Friedman as well as protagonists of
neoclassical economic theory – Sachs, Friedman and others. Moreover, all theories
of socio-economic dynamics that conceptualize that process as a simple succession
of phases, with the ''optimal'' final form of society as a social outcome, which stops
further dynamics, can be considered as a part of the same intellectual tradition.

Transformationalists (Giddens, Scholte, Castells, Walerstein) are more moderate in

terms of emphasis of ubiquity and linearity of the globalization process, as well as
assessing of progressivism of its effects. But they do not accept sceptic thesis about
globalization either. For them, the indisputable fundamental changes in the
organization of society that globalization brings are the growing overall integration
and acceleration of socioeconomic dynamics through "compression" of space and
time. However, their approach is multidimensional, taking into account
mechanisms of globalization other than economic ones.

In this sense, a sociologist of modernism, Anthony Giddens, considers

globalization as a phenomenon shaped by forces of "modern" capitalism: politics,
military power and industrialism (Giddens, 1990). These forces are the sources of
dimensions of globalization.Four basic dimensions of globalization are world
capitalist economy, system of national state, world military order and international
12
division of labour. The specified dimensions of modernity have enabled western
countries to become the leading force in the world. Spreading dimensions of
modernity, according to Giddens, to all countries in the world is identified as the
process of globalization. (Vuletić, 2001, p. 95).

However, another sociologist of modernity, Beck, believes that the unintended

effects of modernity forces are global risk and the new global threat. In order to
overcome the risks, as important dimension of reality, it is necessary to create
institutions of democracy and cosmopolitan confidence. Without it, globalization
represents only a facade for the game of imperialist powers (Vuletić, 2001, p. 96).
There are also opinions that the liberal economic policy, which is inseparable from
globalization, creates political backlash by groups whose interests are negatively
affected. It is difficult to predict how much and in what direction will this political
backlash influence future developments in the global economy (Heileiner, 2006, p.
85).
The founder of the theory of the "world" system, Wallerstein, believes that the
contemporary discourse on globalization is a "gigantic misreading" of current
trends or deception imposed on theory by the powerful groups. He believes that
what is called "globalization" is actually the final phase in the development of the
world capitalist system that started around the 1450s, and had a period of genesis,
normal development and terminal crisis. At the end of the twentieth century the
capitalist world-system extended to all regions of the world and reached its
geographical limit. One of the main reasons of the crisis is the exhaustion of
accumulation possibilities within the system (Wallerstein, 1998).Globalization
represents, according to Wallerstein, an uncertain process of transition of the
world-system into an unknown socio-economic alternative.

13
Transformationalists take up much more moderate position in terms of
progressivity and outcomes of globalization, when compared to hyperglobalists.
Globalization is not linear-progressive in character, but represents a stream of
capitalistic development, subject to cycles and probabilities. The underlying
influence of globalization on socio-economic trends is not questioned, but its final
effects are considered uncertain. In this sense, such an understanding of
globalization is not deterministic.

The third group of theoreticians, who expressed scepticism with regard to ubiquity
of the process of globalization, is also characterized by the criticism towards
globalization. In that sense they emphasize that the level of integration and
openness of today's economy is not unprecedented. International trade and capital
flows were more important relative to GDP in the pre-1914 period (the first wave
of globalization) than in the contemporary economy (Hirst, Thompson, 2003).
Also, instead of a destructible character of globalization in relation to the hierarchy
and the nation-state, they emphasize the significant role of national economies in
pursuing economic liberalization and promotion of cross border activity. The
creation of regional blocks as the essential characteristic of the world economy
offers argumentation that the world economy is less integrated than it was in the
late nineteenth century (Held, McGraw, 2007, p. 5).

Within this direction of thought, assessments of the non-sustainability of the

current unification of the world are also present, because it raises radical resistance
within individual cultures, which in the end can lead to a conflict of civilizations
(Huntington, 1999). In short, scepticism is expressed both in terms of impacts of
globalization and its ubiquity, as well as in terms of sustainability of unification
influences which it produces.
14
Another classification of globalization theories is also possible. It consists of three
theoretical orientations (Miletić, 2007, p. 176):
1 structural
2 conjectural
3 social-constructivists

Structural explanations perceive globalization as a lawful process, inherent to

socioeconomic dynamics. Globalization presents an understandable result of the
development of society, led by the logic of technology and capital accumulation.
Determinism present in this kind of approach is evident.

Conjectural explanation of globalization considers consequence of unification of

techno-economic tendencies with specific historical conditions and policies, which
determine its character. This approach deals with the cyclic character of
globalization, the causes of its acceleration or slowdown in certain periods.

Social constructivist explanations are more interested in the origin of ideas about
globalization, and the ways in which they became part of scientific and everyday
discourse. By setting appropriate tendencies in the world economy and their
classification under the concept of globalization, the process became socially and
ideologically constructed.

In this way, the idea of globalization itself becomes in a certain sense, through the
influence on the awareness of actors, the initiator of the further process of global
integration (Miletić, 2007, p. 176). It can be concluded that each of the previous
explanations can fit into one of the main directions of contemporary theories of
globalization - hyperglobalists, transformationalists or sceptics.
15
TYPES OF GLOBALISATION

In simplistic classification globalisation can be seen in three major ways, that is

economic, political and cultural but to varying degrees, it is evident in all the
principal sectors of social activity thus economic, military, legal, ecological,
cultural and social. In this discourse, economic, political and social trend shall be
explored considering the invaluable effect it has on the whole humanity.

Cultural Globalisation

Cultural globalisation refers to “the emergence of a specific set of values and

beliefs that are largely shared around the planet” (Castells, 2009, p. 117). The
source of most global informational flows is mass media. Traditionally this entails
a flow of information in a single direction, dispersion from one to many.
Throughout the developed world the globalisation of media is often argued to be
tantamount to the globalisation of culture. Indeed, cultural globalisation is familiar
to almost everyone; prominent icons of popular culture, like Coca-Cola and
McDonalds, are common examples that can be found ‘everywhere’. Looking at
global cities (Sassen, 1991) where a consistent brand-name consumerism exists,
cultural globalisation can appear to act as a solvent, dissolving cultural differences
to create homogeneity across the globe. Is culture becoming increasingly
homogenous?

Does globalization make people around the world more alike or more different?
This is the question most frequently raised in discussions on the subject of cultural
globalization. Cultural globalisation involves a complex mix of homogenisation
and increased media corporations, communication networks etc., simultaneously
16
with the reassertion of nationalism, ethnicity, and difference. But few cultures are
hermetically sealed off from cultural interaction.

To a large extent, the global cultural flows of our time are generated and directed
by global media empires that rely on powerful communication technologies to
spread their message. Saturating global cultural reality with formulaic TV shows
and mindless advertisements, these corporations increasingly shape people's
identities and the structure of desires around the world. During the last two
decades, a small group of very large TNCs have come to dominate the global
market for entertainment, news, television, and film. In 2000, only ten media
conglomerates - AT&T, Sony, AOL/Time Warner, Bertelsmann, Liberty Media,
Vivendi Universal, Viacom, General Electric, Disney, and News Corporation -
accounted for more than two-thirds of the $250-275 billion in annual worldwide
revenues generated by the communications industry. In the first half of that year,
the volume of merger deals in global media, Internet, and telecommunications
totalled $300 billion, three times the figure for the first six months of 1999 (Steger,
2003).

One direct method of measuring and evaluating cultural changes brought about by
globalization is to study the shifting global patterns of language use. The
globalization of languages can be viewed as a process by which some languages
are increasingly used in international communication while others lose their
prominence and even disappear for lack of speakers. The number of spoken
languages in the world has dropped from about 14,500 in 1500 to less than 7,000 in
2000. Given the current rate of decline, some linguists predict that 50-90% of the
currently existing languages will have disappeared by the end of the 21st century.

17
The world's languages are not the only entities threatened with extinction; the
spread of consumerist values and materialist lifestyles has endangered the
ecological health of our planet as well.How people view their natural environment
depends to a great extent on their cultural milieu. For example, cultures steeped in
Taoist, Buddhist, and various animist religions tend to emphasize the
interdependence of all living beings - a perspective that calls for a delicate balance
between human wants and ecological needs. Judeo-Christian humanism, on the
other hand, contains deeply dualistic values that put human beings at the centre of
the universe. Nature is considered a 'resource' to be used instrumentally to fulfil
human desires. The most extreme manifestation of this anthropocentric paradigm is
reflected in the dominant values and beliefs of consumerism. As pointed out above,
the US-dominated culture industry seeks to convince its global audience that the
meaning and chief value of life can be found in the limitless accumulation of
material possessions (Steger, 2003).

Economic Globalisation

Economic globalization refers to the intensification and stretching of economic

interrelations across the globe. Gigantic flows of capital and technology have
stimulated trade in goods and services. Markets have extended their reach around
the world, in the process creating new linkages among national economies. Huge
transnational corporations, powerful international economic institutions, and large
regional trading systems have emerged as the major building bloc of the 21 st
century's global economic order.

In the economic spheres, patterns of worldwide trade, finance, and productions are
creating global markets and in the process, a single global economy- what Castells
18
(2000) calls ‘global informational capitalism’. Multinational Corporation organise
production and marketing on a global basis while the operation of global financial
markets determine which countries get credit and upon what terms.

In short many have argued that economic globalization is being driven by

neoliberalism and capitalism. The followingconcrete neoliberal measures are
principles guiding economic globalisation which has catch up with the whole
world;

1. Privatization of public enterprises

2. Deregulation of the economy

3. Liberalization of trade and industry

4. Massive tax cuts

5. 'Monetarist' measures to keep inflation in check, even at the risk of increasing

unemployment

6. Strict control on organized labour

7. The reduction of public expenditures, particularly social spending

8. The down-sizing of government

9- The expansion of international markets

10. The removal of controls on global financial flows

19
Political Globalisation

Political globalization refers to the intensification and expansion of political

interrelations across the globe. These processes raise an important set of political
issues pertaining to the principle of state sovereignty, the growing impact of
intergovernmental organizations, and the future prospects for regional and global
governance.

Obviously, these themes respond to the evolution of political arrangements beyond

the framework of the nation-state, thus breaking new conceptual ground. After all,
for the last few centuries, humans have organized their political differences along
territorial lines that generate a sense of' belonging' to a particular nation-state.

Political globalization is most visible in the rise of supra-territorial institutions and

associations held together by common norms and interests. In this early phase of
global governance, these structures resemble an eclectic network of interrelated
power centres such as municipal and provincial authorities, regional blocs,
international organizations, and national and international private-sector
associations.

20
IMPLICATIONS OF GLOBALISATION IN INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY
Globalization undermines the national state, not only by shrinking the resources
under national control for shaping economic and social outcomes, but also by
reducing government’s legitimacy and authority in the eyes of the public. Across
virtually all advanced industrial countries over the past two decades, there has been
an erosion of public confidence in central governments. Even when analysts
mention the role of specific national causes in this loss of trust, still they tend to
emphasize the universality of the shifts—how everywhere globalization destroys
national control of information flows hence weakens a government’s ability to
influence its public. The effects of the internationalization of the media, the
marketing and export of American popular culture, and the deregulation of
information all combine to weaken national values and traditions, and in so doing,
they dry up the springs of support for national action. The effects of changes in the
international economy are experienced through the national political leaders’
diminished control both over the material determinants of a country’s prosperity
and over the vehicles for reaching common public understandings of national well-
being. In this widely held view of the coming political order, the eclipse of the
national state is the central fact.

The growing mobility of capital and the relative immobility of labour would make
governments increasingly responsive to the interests of capital. If taxes, industrial
policy, environmental regulation, or industrial relations in any society are too
costly or constraining, investors will pull up stakes and transfer them elsewhere;
workers cannot move so easily. Therefore, the expected results of limiting taxation
of capital are that labour will have to shoulder a greater part of the tax burden and
that society’s ability to fund social welfare expenditures will decline.

21
The shift in the domestic balance of power between capital and labour that
globalization promotes by rewarding mobile factors thus translates into a shift in
domestic politics. Social democracy becomes less likely because capital’s
incentives for cross-class compromise are lowered by its growing power.

Globalization shrinks the state by reinforcing the political resources of those

groups in society who desire limitation of the use of state powers to redress
outcomes in the market. It also ties the hands of even those political forces whose
ideological traditions support state intervention in production and redistribution. In
this view, it hardly matters whether the left or the right wins elections; the
constraints of the internationalized economy will oblige either party to follow the
same monetary and fiscal policies or else face a loss of national competitiveness
and investment.

Both in advanced industrial countries and in developing countries, governments

have used a variety of policies to encourage specific industries: preferential credit,
export subsidies, research and development grants, military procurement, export
subsidies, protection of the domestic market for domestic producers, and others. If
government intervention was intended to attenuate a domestic shortage of capital
for promising new activities, then globalization should alleviate the problem, since
domestic firms can now draw on world capital markets (not only on domestic
savings) to finance new investments. But in most other respects, globalization
makes it more difficult or even impossible to use such policies as Japan, Korea,
Singapore, and Taiwan developed in the post-war decades to build modern
industries. Capital mobility makes it very difficult for governments to constrain
local investors to provide funds for industry at lower rates of return than they
would receive abroad. The extension across national borders of commodity chains
22
that coordinate production functions distributed across multiple countries (Gereffi
1996) weakens the links of interdependence among domestic producers and
retailers. The emergence of global suppliers capable of providing services and
subassemblies for multinational corporations wherever they locate production may
crowd out local suppliers and reduce the multinational corporations’ need to
cooperate with local producers and to transfer technology and know-howto them
(Hatch&Yamamura 1996, Sturgeon 1997).

The rules of the new international trading order limit the kinds of help that
governments can provide to domestic industries without violating the antidumping
or anti-competition provisions. The mutual charges of protectionism and hidden
subsidy that the United States and the European Union have pressed against each
other in the World Trade Organization (WTO) over the past year regarding
bananas, beef hormones, and the tax advantages that US corporations derive from
offshore Foreign Sales Corporations are only the latest examples of the capacity of
internationally accepted trade sanctions to restrain government support of
particular industries. OECD debated an international treaty on the rights of foreign
investors, the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, which is even more far-
reaching in its implications for clipping the wings of governments. This accord
would have obliged its signatories to treat foreign investment like domestic
investment and would have constrained the regulatory options of governments at
all levels. Negotiated in secret, the proposed treaty was stopped by a wave of
attacks from nongovernmental organizations and social movements that
orchestrated a campaign against the Multilateral Accord on Investment on the
grounds that it protected the rights of capital but not labour and that it constrained
democratic decision-making.

23
REALITY OF GLOBALIZATION IN THE DEVELOPING WORLD

The Southeast Asia Crisis

In the 1990s, the governments of Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, South Korea, and
the Philippines gradually abandoned control over the domestic movement of
capital in order to attract foreign direct investment. Intent on creating a stable
money environment, they raised domestic interest rates and linked their national
currencies to the value of the US dollar. The ensuing irrational euphoria of
international investors translated into soaring stock and real estate markets all over
Southeast Asia. However, by 1997, those investors realized that prices had become
inflated much beyond their actual value. They panicked and withdrew a total of
$105 billion from these countries, forcing governments in the region to abandon
the dollar peg. Unable to halt the ensuing free fall of their currencies, those
governments used up their entire foreign exchange reserves. As a result, economic
output fell, unemployment increased, and wages plummeted. Foreign banks and
creditors reacted by declining new credit applications and refusing to extend
existing loans. By late 1997, the entire region found itself in the throes of a
financial crisis that threatened to push the global economy into recession. This
disastrous result was only narrowly averted by a combination of international bail-
out packages and the immediate sale of Southeast Asian commercial assets to
foreign corporate investors at rock-bottom prices. Today, ordinary citizens in
Southeast Asia are still suffering from the devastating social and political
consequences of that economic meltdown.

Africa in Perspective of Globalization

The new wave of globalization is marked by the globalization of markets and
finance, the unipolar domination of a single liberal development model, cultural

24
standardization, the internationalization of education systems and global
networking through communications and information systems, raising great
expectations as ideas, products, unique values and thoughts of progress and
emancipation flow back and forth while, at the same time presaging great danger,
serious threats, inequalities, oppression, exclusion and marginalization of many
regions worldwide, leaving conflict, civil war, exacerbated idiosyncrasies and
destructive identities in their trail. Globalization holds out hopes for the expression
of diversity, essential to humanity, but also threatens to destroy diversity through
worldwide totalitarianism that it is likely to impose at any moment. This evidence
is becoming glare in the context of developing nations. Globalization produces
serious economical distresses in the Third World countries, which have to face
foreign competition. Africa in particular including Nigeria has not fared well in the
competitive symptoms of globalization.

The African continent remain the poorest in the world, and has suffereduntold
consequences, namely conflict, political crises, increased migratory flows, social
conflict, middle class impoverishment, greater social instability, unemployment
(youth unemployment, in particular), and urban sprawl without formal planning,
financing policies or investment programmes in housing, infrastructure or basic
services. All this has been accompanied by the “threatening impatience” of a
population increasingly thirsty for modernity, progress and consumerism. As a
result, States destabilized by the triumph of globalization are reviled and stripped
of their status as social protectors and providers of wealth and services.

The urbanization rate, still modest at around 35%, is expected to rise to 40% by
2015 and 50% by mid-century. This unequally distributed trend (10% in Rwanda
and Burundi, for example, but 80% in Gabon) continues to rise, fuelled by a

25
population explosion and the migration of rural people from country to city, thus
adding to an urban melting pot characterized by harsh living conditions in
shantytowns. Although urban growth does free individuals socially and
sociologically from the bonds of tradition, the question is whether it does actually
afford worthwhile employment or, conversely, worsen an already difficult daily
struggle. Conditions in Africa, in which 60% of the population is under 20, are
now the worst in its history, and it is difficult for the continent numerous regional
and sub-regional economic institutions and organizations to promote its
development. There are no less than 12 organizations, that is, the African Union
and the New Partnership for African Development, the main two institutions, and
the Ecosap Small Arms Control Programme (ECOSAP), the
Communautééconomique des Etats de l’Afriquecentrale (CEEAC), the
Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), the Southern African
Development Community (SACD), the Arab Maghreb Union (AMU), the West
African Economic and Monetary Union (UEMOA), the Economic Community of
Central African States (ECCAS), the Common Market for Eastern and Southern
Africa (COMESA), the East African Community (EAS) and the Southern African
Customs Union (SACU). These institutions should indubitably all be reorganized
and be mobilized afresh to attain specific goals linked to the new global economic
and political situation.

This continent of paradoxes, with its enormous needs and where Maghreb and
South Africa alone account for 36% and 40% of Africa’s GDP or three quarters of
the total, is both globalized and on the side-lines. The great African historian
Joseph Ki-Zerbo has defined the situation by saying: “I think it is very difficult for
us to take our place in the globalized world because we have been de-structured
and no longer count as a collective body. If you compare Africa’s role with that of
26
the United States of America, you see the two diametrically opposed features of
globalization, with the globalizing Americans at one end and, at the other, the
globalized Africans stating ironically that they barely produce ballpoint pens …
every imported product epitomises cultural alienation”. Politics still predominate in
this paradoxical continent of over 800 million people, holding back good
governance and economic progress (there were 24 coups d’état in the 1960s, 20 in
the 1980s and 6 or 7 since 2000). According to the United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP), more than half of Africa’s inhabitants have no access to
clean water and nearly a third of African children suffer from malnutrition.
Primary school enrolment rates stagnate at around 60% and more than 40% of
people over the age of 15 are illiterate. The average life expectancy is60 years.
Poverty in Africa connotes not only material deprivation but also “lack of potential
and of capacity”, despite occasionally positive economic indicators.

The gap is thus widening between the rest of the world and Africa, which now
accounts for only 1.8% of world trade (compared to 3% in 1990) and only 3% to
4% of world industrial growth (8% in the 1960s), while 7% growth is necessary to
achieve Millennium Development Goals. The percentage of direct foreign
investment in Africa’s developing countries slumped from 25% in the early 1970s
to only 5% in the 2000s, and whatever progress achieved has been wiped out by
population growth and inflation, not to mention the aggravating effect of the health
situation owing to the malaria and HIV pandemics. Although Africa produces 10%
of the world’s oil and holds 10% of the world’s reserves, it is afflicted by a chronic
lack of access to water, which is concentrated in Central Africa and to a lesser
extent in West Africa. Accordingly, 300 million people lack access to adequate
water supplies and more than 310 million live in unsanitary conditions. Currently,
14 African countries are affected by water shortages (less than 1,000 cubic metres
27
per person per year). The number of countries is expected to double by 2025, and
in 20 years’ time, 40% of the population is likely to be affected.

Environmental degradation, together with extensive farming and deforestation, will

increase soil erosion and water shortages will also reduce agricultural yields,
leading to greater dependence on grain imports and malnutrition, which currently
afflicts 33% of the population – 50% in some countries. Desertification, which
blights 46% of the continent, combined with rising temperatures will encourage
many infectious diseases such as malaria, sub-Saharan Africa being the focus of
90% of malaria cases.

Globalization in India: Effects and Consequences

Globalization has impacted positively on business in India with a consumer base of
1.14 billion people and is now the 3rd largest global telecom market. The mobile
subscriber base has grown from 0.3 Million in 1996 to over 250 million in
2010.India is likely to add over 200 shopping malls by 2010 and 715malls by
2015. India is the world’s 2nd largest two-wheeler market,4th largest commercial
vehicle market, 11th largest passenger car market and Expected to be the 7th
largest automobile market by 2016.

On technological and cultural sense, globalization has created access of people in

India to television to grow from 20% of the urban population (1991) to90% of the
urban population (2009). Even in the rural areas satellite television has a grown up
market. In the cities, Internet facility is everywhere with extension of internet
facilities even to rural areas. Global food chain /restaurants have already found a
huge market in the urban areas of India. Lavish Multiplex movie halls, big
shopping malls and high rise residential houses are seen in every
28
city.Telecommunication and Software Industries are booming in India likewise
entertainment sector in India has a worldwide market.Bollywood movies are
distributed and accepted worldwide.Big international companies like Walt
Disney,20th Century Fox,Columbia Pictures just to mention but few are investing
on this sector.Famous International brands(Armani,Gucci,Nike,Omega etc.)are
also investing in the Indian market with the changing of fashionstatement of
Indians.

Notwithstanding all these success stories India‘s problem with Globalization are
immense and alarming. Some section of people in India, who are basically poor
and very poor, tribal, groups, did not feel the heat of globalization at all; they
remain poor and poorest as they were. Increased gap between rich and poor is now
seen to be fuelling potential terrorist reaction which is now a critical issue now in
India. Ethical responsibility of business has been diminished and corruption has
become endemic in India. Further still youth group of India are leaving their
studies very early and joining Call centres to earn easy money thereby losing their
social life after getting habituated with monotonous work. Although High growth
is experienced in the economy but problem of unemployment is a big trend.

Although it is evident that India is shining in nearly every perspective and flowing
with globalization. Indeed India is getting a global recognition and slowly moving
towards becoming a major economic and political strength and Though it can be
comprehensively argued that the development is progressing rapidly in India,still
many basicproblems like rural poverty,corruption and political instabilityremained
unsolved.

29
Nigeria in the realms of Globalization

Globalizationhas dealt crucial blow on Nigerian culture starting from the colonial
era. Britain amalgamation of the diverse ethnic and unequal tribes to become one
nation for purpose of administrative convenience in1904 created a breeding ground
for undermining rich cultures of our various identities. Centuries after they were
brought together as one, a national culture is yet to emerge because each of the
numerous ethnic groups has jealously guarded their cultures. This is why English
language is still the country’s lingua-franca. Unfortunately, indigenous languages
which are the most effective method of transmitting culture are increasingly
becoming extinct.

Unlike India, Nigeria economy is not developing at a fast rate but yet of recent it
has been adjudged the biggest economy in Africa but that has not translated to
better life for the common man. Nigeria has been choked with the following
negative issues due to globalisation;

 Corruption at all level of Government

 Internet fraudulent practises and cyber crime
 Consumer oriented economy even to the extent of importing raw agricultural
products that our land under normal condition can produce
 Menace of environmental pollution
 Sex trade and abuse with attendant scourge of diseases such as AIDS
 Unstable political system and internal crises
 Unemployment and joblessness
 High wave of crime
 Brain drain and emigration of talents to outside countries

30
  Deforestation and other environmental challenges

. MERITS AND DEMERITS OF GLOBALISATION

No matter the position of stand in the discourse of globalisation be it Hyper-

globalise, sceptics or neutral, the phenomenon is loaded with both positive and
negative results to business, consumer, nations and people of the entire world.
Below are summative merits and demerits of this current engaging process of the
whole universe;

Merits Demerits
Globalization opens people’s lives to As cultures interact, some cultures are being
other cultures and all their creativity and diluted and/or destroyed at the expense of
to the flow of ideas and values. others and negative values are being spread
all over the world with relative ease.
Information and communication The world is now divided between the
technologies have eased interaction connected, who know and who have a
among countries and peoples. monopoly on almost everything, and the
isolated, who do not know and who
practically have nothing.
Globalization has eased international Globalization has encouraged illicit trade in
trade and commerce, facilitated foreign drugs, prostitution, pornography, human
investment and the flow of capital. smuggling, dumping of dangerous waste and
depletion of the environment by
unscrupulous entrepreneurs.
Globalisation has freed labour across Globalisation has facilitated the “brain drain”
boundaries and facilitated “brain trade”. in developing countries, thus reducing
further their human capacity.
Globalisation has set new rules that are Globalization has set new global rules that
integrating global markets. have further marginalised Africa’s poor
countries and people, especially in areas of
trade.
Globalization is creating a global village Globalization has created a global village of
out of a wide and diverse world. privileged people whose borders are
impenetrable to the poor, unconnected and
unskilled.The citizens of the global village
are very few

31
CONCLUSION

Globalisation presents both risks and opportunities for African nations. Most
importantly, the risk that globalization is going to expedite the rate of the
ecologically unsustainable growth in Africa. Recent evidence shows that the
sinking will start from natural resource dependent economies such as Africa.
Africa presently has a new opportunity to reposition itself in the world economic
equation. To do this, we have to reject all the textbook frameworks for
development as handed down by western powers and their agent institutions in
favour of a home grown development strategy that focuses on our specific and
vivid realities. To be globally competitive in a globalizing world African nations
cannot go to sleep in recognizing the painstaking contributions of natural capital to
their economy and make offsetting re-investments; train their local labour force;
ensure that local companies are, to a larger extent, owned by the local people and
managed by competent hands; ensure that profits are re-invested at home rather
than expatriated; innovations in technology should be vigorously developed in the
country rather than imported.

32
REFERENCES
Al-Rodhan, N& Gerard, S. (2006). “Definitions of Globalization:A
Comprehensive Overview and a Proposed Definition.” Geneva Centrefor
Security Policy.
Berger, S. (1995). Trade and identity: the comingprotectionism. In Remaking the
Hexagon:The New France in the New Europe, ed. GFlynn, pp. 195–
210. Boulder, CO:WestviewCable V. 1995. The diminished nation-state;a study
in the loss of economic power.Daedalus 129(2):23–51
Berger, S. (2000). Globalization and Politics MIT IPC Globalization Working
Paper 00-005 Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 2000. 3:43–62
Caselli, M. (2004). “Some Reflections on Globalisation, Development and the Less
Developed Countries”, Centre for the Study of Globalization and
Regionalization Working Paper No. 152/04, October.
Castells, M. (1991) The Informational City: Information Technology, Economic
Restructuring, and the Urban-Regional Process. Oxford: Blackwell.
Castells, M. (1996).The Rise of the Network Society.Oxford: Blackwell
Cerny, P. (1995) ‘Globalization and the Changing Logic of Collective Action’,
International Organization 49(4): 595–625.
Cerny, P. (1997) ‘Paradoxes of the Competition State: The Dynamics of Political
Globalization’, Government and Opposition 32(2): 251–74.
Clark, I. (1997) Globalization and Fragmentation: International Relations in the
Twentieth Century. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Clark, I. (1998) ‘Beyond the Great Divide: Globalization and the Theory of
International Relations’, Review of International Studies 24(4): 479–98.
Clark, I. (1999) Globalization and International Relations Theory. Oxford: Oxford
Drucker, P. F. (1997) ‘The Global Economy and the Nation-State’, Foreign Affairs
76(5): 159–71.
Fischer, S. (2000).“Globalization: Valid Concerns”
http://www.imf.org./external/np/speeches/2000/082600.htm
Fischer, S. (1999). “Global Markets and the Global Village in the 21st Century
: Are International Organisations Prepared for the Challenge?. A Speech
33
 Delivered to the German Society for Foreign Affairs, Berlin, Germany,
November 19.
Fischer, S. (2001) “The Challenge of Globalization in Africa”. Remarks at the
France –Africa Summit in Yaounde, Cameroon, January 19
Fischer, S (2001), “Economic Globalization can Directly Benefit African
Countries’ Development Efforts”, IMF Survey, Vol. 30, No. 5,
February.
Fukuyama, F. (1992).The End of History and the Last Man, New York: Free
Press.
Giddens, A. (1990). The Consequences of Modernity, Cambridge: Polity.
Giddens, A. (2000), Runaway World: How globalization is Shaping Our Lives.
(New York: Routledge)
Gilpin, R. (2001). Global Political Economy: International Economic Order,
Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.
Hatch W., &Yamamura, K. (1996). Asia in Japan’s Embrace: Building a Regional
Production Alliance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ.Press
Heileiner, E. (2006). Alternatives to Neoliberalism?in: Stubs, Richard and
Geoffrey Underhill. Political Economy and the Changing Global Order,
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Held, D & McGrew, A. (2002).Governing Globalization, Polity.
Held, D & McGrew, A. (2007).Globalization Theory: Approaches and
Controversies, Polity.
Hirst, P., & Thompson, G. (2003).The Limits to Economics Globalization, in:
Held, David and Anthony McGrew. The Global Transformations Reader:
An Introduction to the Globalization Debate, Polity.
Huntington, S. (1996). The Clash of Civilisations and the Remaking of World
Order, New York: Simon & Schuster.
McMichael, P. (2000). Development and Social Change: A Global perspective,
Pine Forge Press.
Miletić, D. (2007).Ekonomskaglobalizacijakrozprizmusociologa i ekonomista,
Ekonomija i sociologija,Beograd: Institutdruštvenihnauka,.

34
Mitrović, B &Zoran S. (2007).Globalization and Evolutionary Processes in
Contemporary Economy, FactaUniversitatis, 1/2007.
Nayyar, D. (2006). Globalization, History and Development: A Tale of Two
Centuries, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 30,.
Nicolaides, A. (2012). “Globalization and Americanization- The Hijacking of
Indigenous African culture.” Global Advanced Research Journal of
History, Political Science and International Relations, 1(6).
Nwaegbu, M. U., Eze, C. U., &Asogwa, B. E. (2011). Globalization of Cultural
Heritage: Issues, Impacts, and Inevitable Challenges for Nigeria.
Available at http://unnllib.unl.edu/lpp.
Ogechukwu, C. U., Chukwu, B., &. Ogbo, A. (2014). The Effects of Globalization
on African Culture: The Nigerian Perspective IOSR Journal of Business and
Management Vol. 16 (4) 62-71
Ohmae, K. (1990). Borderless World: Power and Strategy in the Interlinked
World, New York: Harper Business.
Oni, A. A. (2005). Globalization and Its Implication on African Culture and
Development: Challenges for Education. International Journal of
African and African American Studies 4(2)
Robinson, A.N.D. (2001). “Globalization: The Inverse Proportion of Development
of the Continent of Africa”. A Paper Presented at the 19th Annual
Meeting of the Association of Third World Studies on Globalization
and the Third World, Savannah, Georgia, October 11 – 14.
Sawyer, A. (1998).“Globalisation and Social Sciences in Africa” Presidential
Address at the 9th General Assembly of Codesria Dakar December.
Scholte, J. A. (2000) Globalization. A critical introduction, London: Palgrave.
Scholte, J A., (2002) “What is Globalization? The Definitional Issue – Again”
Center for the Study of Globalization and Regionalization (CSGR). Working
Paper No 109/02, University of Warwick.
SotshanganeNkosinathi (2002) “What Impact Globalization has on Cultural
Diversity” Alternatives:Turkish journal of international relations. 1(4)
Steger, M. B. (2003).GLOBALIZATION: A Very Short Introduction Oxford
University Press www.oup.co.uk/vsi

35
UNDP (2000). SADC Regional Human Development Report 2000: Challenges and
Opportunities for Regional Integration. Available from
http://www.har.undp.org
UNDP (Nigeria) (2001), Human Development Report, Nigeria 2001/2002
Millennium Edition. (Lagos: UNDP).
UNDP (2000).Globalization with Human Face. New York: HDR – 1999: UNDP
Vuletić, V.(2001).Savremeneteorije o globalizaciji, u: Tranzicija i globalizacija,
Beograd: Institutdruštvenihnauka,
Wallerstein, I.(1998).Utopistics: Or, Historical Choices of the Twenty-First
Century, New York: TheNew York Press,
Wallerstein, I. (1999). Globalization or the Age of the Trajectory of the World–
System, on line papers,
Walker, G. R. (1999). “Globalization: An Analytical Framework”.
http://www.indiana.edu/g/sj/vol3/no2/walker.html. 29th March.
Yaman, S. (2001). “KüreselleşmeninTarihiGelişimi” [Available at
http://w3.gazi.edu.tr/web/syaman/kuresellesme2.htm],(Accessed 1.08.2014).

36
GROUP THREE MEMBERS
LABO YARI RUQQAYYA P13ARTP8044
ABESIBI OLUGBENGA ADEBAYO P13ARTP8016
PRINCE NATHAN KURE P13ARTP8050
AUDU RAKIYA IKOK P13ARTP7009
UMAR LEATITIA P13ARTP8029

37