Spar Between Hyperglobalists, Sceptics and Transformationalists - Essay Example

Capturing the Nature of Globalisation: The Spar between Hyperglobalists, Sceptics, and Transformationalists Introduction Over the recent decades globalisation has wholly changed national boundaries. The growth in communications and technology, governmental regulations, or liberalisation has resulted in globalisation radically strengthening over the recent decades. This far-reaching growth in globalisation has resulted in a widening of inequality amongst countries, and a widening of social inequalities within individual nations. David Held and colleagues presented a general idea of various mainstream globalisation perspectives in the 1990s. Each globalisation perspective has distinct opinions on the roots, effects, and future of globalisation. The Globalisation Debate: Who Wins? Logically, the debate about the roots and impacts of globalisation are mostly confined within these subject matters: the foundation and thrusts behind economic globalisation; the level to which market actor or state players are having power over socioeconomic growths; and market-driven restraints to liberal macroeconomic structures (Unay 2006). Possibly, in analysing these concerns, scholars from various systematic fields have presented different descriptions. David Held (1999) summarise three general perspectives of globalisation: the sceptics, the hyperglobalists, and the transformationalists. The hyperglobalists, composed of Marxists and neoliberals, put emphasis on the economic side of globalisation. The hyperglobalist perspective argues that transformations in the global economy are launching a ‘new epoch of human history’ (Yu, Chow, & Kao 2010, 143) where in national boundaries have become outdated economic entities. In their opinion, globalisation has given birth to a sole global market wherein multinational entities from various nations dynamically vie with one another. Simply put, hyperglobalists argue that current globalisation marks a new period wherein populations across the globe are ever more placed under the controls of the global marketplace (Held 1999). According to Westra (2010), neoliberal hyperglobalists approve the increase in global prosperity and play down the reality of increasing inequality among and within individual countries, whilst Marxist hyperglobalists criticise the widening of inequality. On the contrary, the sceptics believe that globalisation is basically a myth which masks the truth of a global marketplace ever more fragmented into three main regional unions wherein territorial states continue to be highly dominant. They claim that current globalisation is not radical or unknown, since present-day interdependence is similar in extent to the latter part of the 19th century (Westra 2010). Skeptics, similar to hyperglobalists, emphasise the economic facet of globalisation, claiming that it promotes the growth of regional economic organisations like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the European Union (EU) that, according to them, minimise economic globalisation (Hudson & Lowe 2004). Skeptics argue that national governments maintain a central position in these ventures, as well as the capacity to control and disentangle economic systems (Yeates 2001). Simply put, the authority of governments has not faded; national autonomy has not worn down; and multinational entities are still under state regulation and maintain national identities. Lastly, according to Zajda and Rust (2009), in the view of transformationalists, current trends of globalisation are envisioned as traditionally exceptional in a way that societies and national governments all over the world are undergoing a course of extensive transformation as they attempt to adjust to a more interdependent and integrated but very risky and unpredictable world. Transformationalists believe that “globalisation is a central driving force behind the rapid social, political and economic changes that are reshaping modern societies and world order” (Held 1999, 7) and is historically unparalleled. They argue that there are two outcomes of interdependence: first is, due to the microelectronic progress, the curtailed value of territory and the removal of physical distance; and secondly, consolidation of domestic and foreign policy fields. Transformationalists believe that transnational, subnational, and national entities are becoming increasingly powerful as state authority fades (Held 1999). Thus, according to Bochel and colleagues (2003), with the weakening power of autonomous states and the diminished role of national boundary, the importance of identity rooted in attributes like racial affinity and religion has developed. This quite generalised categorisation of a very comprehensive literature suggests several major points of contention (Lipson 2005, 180): First is whether globalisation implies the abolition of the territorial state as the main political and economic entity. Second is whether globalisation is a trend confined to the recent decades, or a recurring trend over a number of eras. Another is whether globalisation is naturally or largely, an economic trend, or a varied group of trends (e.g. cultural, political, environmental, and economic) which are significantly independent, although definitely interrelated. Another is whether globalisation is tantamount to homogenisation, or in contrast, to diversity. This shortened overview of the globalisation debate proves that every single perspective on globalisation view it to be the product of a particular force to which the world, due to changing levels of attributed value for its political institution, should react or adapt. And the three major globalisation perspectives are not the least bit suggestions since the power to which the world should adapt is anything but capitalism. Fascinatingly, none of the three globalisation perspectives evolve wholly from established perspectives or ideologies. Under the hyperglobalist approach traditional neoliberal descriptions of globalisation are situated beside Marxist descriptions, whilst within the sceptic traditionalists, and also progressive ones, share parallel ideas of, and assumptions about, the features of present-day globalisation (Westra 2010). Furthermore, none of the grand institutions of social analysis, Marxist, traditionalist, and liberal, has an established description of globalisation as a socioeconomic trend. Within the Marxist perspective globalisation is viewed in somewhat irreconcilable manners as, for example, the expansion of monopoly capitalist imperialism or, otherwise, as a revolutionary type of globalised capitalism (Held 1999, 2). Likewise, in spite of their widely traditional neoliberal foundations, Redwood and Ohmae presented quite distinct descriptions of, and assumptions about, the nature of present-day globalisation. Among the sceptics, hyperglobalists, and transformationalists there is a highly varied scholarly perspectives and general arguments (Held 1999, 2-3). However, according to Held (1999), in spite of this variedness, each of the approach holds common assumptions and ideas about globalisation as regards to its historical path, repercussions for state governance and authority, socioeconomic impacts, underlying processes, and formulation. Nevertheless, among the three major perspectives on globalisation, the transformationalist position best captures the nature of globalisation. There are numerous advantages to taking up the transformationalist perspective when analysing the effect of globalisation on Third World or developing nations. These concern the level to which the perspective acknowledges the intricacy and absence of homogeny of the effect of globalisation within and on various countries. Of use as well is the function of the state as intermediary of the impacts of global dynamics explained in this approach. Tikly (2001) recognises the transformationalist perspective as useful for analysing the globalisation of the education policy arena as it permits an examination of the widened inequality within and between nations and how this is brought about and intensified by the globally integrated education reform plan (as cited in Zajda & Rust 2009, 80). Nevertheless, he states, “exponents of the transformationalist perspective fail to acknowledge the continuing impact and relevance of prior forms of globalisation, especially those associated with European colonisation” (Zajda & Rust 2009, 80). This is mainly significant when analysing the impacts of globalisation on Third World nations. According to Zajda and Rust (2009), certainly, for instance, there are enormous disparities between countries in terms of how strongly their state education agenda reflect the globally integrated education policy arena. Furthermore, the transformationalist approach acknowledges the intricacy of globalisation and takes into account the intra- and inter-core-periphery relationships (Lipson 2005, 179). Per se, intrinsic in the emphasis of the discussion is the notion that globalisation has quite distinct impacts on industrialised major nations in the Western hemisphere than it does in the nations on the margins of the global marketplace which are growing to be more and more disenfranchised. In addition, similar to the transformationalist perspective is the notion that, besides globalisation having distinct impacts between nations, peoples or individuals within nations may be impacted distinctly as well (Yeates 2001). Not like hyperglobalists, transformationalist view globalisation as a free and self-driven force that is exposed to change and pressure. It is expanding in a conflicting manner, including patterns that often work against each other. Globalisation is not a straightforward phenomenon, as argued by hyperglobalists, but a mutual movement of ideas, information, products, services, and images. Communications technology, the mass media, and global migration are deepening the flow of cultural influences (Hudson & Lowe 2004). Transformationalists are correct in arguing that globalisation is a spontaneous and decentred dynamic distinguished by connections and cultural transmissions that operate in a multidirectional path. Since globalisation is the outcome of a large number of interrelated global systems, it cannot be viewed as being forced and steered from a specific location. Instead of losing autonomy, just like what hyperglobalists claim, nations are viewed by transformationalists as reorganising in reaction to unfamiliar types of social and economic entities that are inherently non-territorial, such as international organisations and corporations (Held 1999). Transformationalists believe that the world is no longer state-centred; governments are now pressured to take on a more global and dynamic position toward governance within the multifaceted forces of globalisation. Their arguments do not fill globalisation with any specific ‘purpose’, neither an unavoidably more nonviolent, affluent world, nor an unavoidable appearance of a single world order or an imminent chaos (Bochel et al. 2003). Nevertheless, according to Westra (2010), there is general belief that its structural implications do a lot to enhance the intricacy of contemporary societies and thus their governance, whilst producing an array of unknown transnational issues, from global economic volatility to global warming, which are nearly impossible to mitigate. Other than the structural implications of globalisation, transformationalists have a great deal to articulate about its distributional implications. Specifically, sociologist Manuel Castells states that economic globalisation is related to a fragmented and disconnected world, as inequality between social classes widens whilst most people are still marginalised or barred from its advantages or gains (Yu et al. 2010). This structural inequity and structural segregation, it is claimed, is an unavoidable outcome of market-driven globalisation. Nevertheless, this should not be so if globalisation could be channelled to the principles of social justice. The broad-based model of the transformationalist perspective is hence an assertion for civilised or moral globalisation, merging economic competence and social justice or equality (Yu et al. 2010). As stated by Unay (2006), for Castells and Held, amongst others, this assumes the shape of differences on an agenda for global justice, global equality, and global democracy. It is an agenda which, working up on the reorganisation of current mechanisms of civil society and international control, aims for the free standardisation of globalisation so as to deal with its more generally anomalous distributional and structural implications. Conclusions Who best captures the nature of globalisation? Most apparently, the transformationalist perspective: the sceptic approach is inaccurate for it takes too lightly the extent of global transformation; for instance, global markets nowadays are more highly structured globally than in the past. In contrast, hyperglobalists view globalisation unreasonably as completely a one-way, economic phenomenon. As stated above, globalisation is multidimensional and vastly complex. References Bochel, C., Ellison, N., & Powell, M. (2003) Social Policy Review 15. UK: The Policy Press. Held, D. (1999) Global Transformations: Politics, Economics and Culture. California: Stanford University Press. Hudson, J. & Lowe, S. (2004) Understanding the Policy Process: Analysing Welfare Policy and Practice. Bristol, England: Policy Press. Lipson, M. (2005) “Transgovernmental Networks and Nonproliferation: International Security and the Future of Global Governance” International Journal, 61(1), 179+ Unay, S. (2006) Neoliberal Globalisation and Institutional Reform. University of Manchester: Nova Science Publishers, Inc. Westra, R. (2010) Political Economy and Globalisation. New York: Routledge. Yeates, N. (2001) Globalisation and Social Polity. London: Sage Publications Ltd. Yu, P., Chow, E., & Kao, S. (2010) International Governance, Regimes, and Globalisation. UK: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Zajda, J. & Rust, V. (2009) Globalisation, policy and comparative research: discourse of globalisation. Australia: Springer Science. Read More