Globalisation

The term ‘globalisation’ is widely used to describe a variety of economic, cultural, social, and political changes that have shaped the world over the past 50-odd years. Because it is a complex and multifaceted phenomenon, globalisation has been credited with a wide range of powers and effects. Its proponents claim that it is both ‘natural’ and an inevitable outcome of technological progress, and creates positive economic and political convergences. Critics argue that globalisation is hegemonic and antagonistic to local and national economies. This article argues that globalisation is a form of capitalist expansion that entails the integration of local and national economies into a global, unregulated market economy. Although economic in its structure, globalisation is equally a political phenomenon, shaped by negotiations and interactions between institutions of transnational capital, nation states, and international institutions. Its main driving forces are institutions of global capitalism – especially transnational corporations – but it also needs the firm hand of states to create enabling environments for it to take root. Globalisation is always accompanied by liberal democracy, which facilitates the establishment of a neo-liberal state and policies that permit globalisation to flourish. The article discusses the relationship between globalisation and development and points out that some of the most common assumptions promoted by its proponents are contradictory to the reality of globalisation; and that globalisation is resisted by more than half of the globe's population because it is not capable of delivering on its promises of economic well being and progress for all.     

Globalisation and women in India

Globalization arrived in India through an external and internal alignment of political and economic forces that led to the opening of the country to the outside world. The five processes under globalization are: 1) commercialism wherein more services become monetized and incomes are received in money rather than in kind; 2) more capitalization; 3) foreign trade becomes important for the production and distribution process; 4) greater financialization develops; and 5) international capital moves freely. These changes affect women more than men in different ways. Capitalization results in more self-employed marginal farmers becoming wage workers, making it less possible for women to manage domestic duties alongside their productive work. In general, macro-economic policies affect women through the household, market, and gender relations. In countries like India where women suffer from serious discrimination, whatever affects the household will worsen women's position. Thus, the process of liberalization, privatization, and globalization will put the clock back for women and for the poor in general.     

Globalisation,Universities and Professors

Globalisation has an increasingly profound impact on a broad range of human activities in political, economic and cultural areas. From the perspective of higher education, globalisation raises a number of challenges and concerns, particularly in preparing students--our future leaders of commerce and politics--to adequately address the demands of an ever-increasing global interdependence. Colleges and universities worldwide are responding to this challenge with an array of exchange programmes and curricular initiatives, and a recent international survey of the academic profession indicates that professors worldwide support these efforts. However, this support is considerably weaker among teachers than researchers. This has implications for policies and programmes that focus on developing more globally minded university teachers, in order to prepare our youth to adequately meet the challenges of globalisation.     

WorldWideWhale.Globalisation/Dialogue of Cultures?

This article questions the assumption that globalisation has fostered cultural dialogue. In order to understand how globalisation has specifically impacted the sphere of the cultural, it starts by examining the way cultural practises are transformed in its wake. Does globalisation yield new, global forms of culture? To address this conundrum, this article takes the example of a cultural movement that has sought to project itself on a global scale, the anti-whaling culture, exploring both its origins and the distinctive cultural forms it has constituted. It then raises anew the question of dialogue: what of the dialogue between this global anti-whaling movement and local cultures where whaling still occurs? And how does such 'global culture' negotiate with demands for cultural diversity?     

Reading The Economist on Globalisation: Knowledge,Identity, and Power

The UK-based magazine The Economist portrays globalisation as a positive extension of liberal capitalism. While consistent with the magazine's pro-market bent, the rationale for the coverage is complex, since many readers presumably share the magazine's dominant code and do not need persuasion. This paper first explores tactics used to limit discourse on globalisation to realms of economic knowledge, while devaluing knowledge from other domains. Then, using cultural theories of how people read, I argue that coverage provokes reader anxieties about a changing world--while allaying them through tales of a future in which growth continues, the lot of the poor improves, and power remains vested in the institutions, knowledge, and people that have it currently. As such, The Economist provides a utopian vision of the future and tools for shaping identity to fractions of dominant groups seeking to define their strategies in a changing world.     

Globalisation,Transnational Political Mobilisation,and Networks of Violence

This article examines how globalisation processes provide new incentives and opportunities for non-state political entrepreneurs to build transnational political movements. Drawing on the literatures on non-violent social movements and transnational networks, the article examines terrorism and political violence as components of the ‘repertoires of contention’ used by radical transnational groups seeking political change. Examples from both the pre- and post-9/11 periods are provided, and the implications for traditional models of state security are discussed. The article concludes by contending that the combination of increased levels of globalisation and the emergence of new networks of violence is creating a fundamental shift in the international security environment, in which the distinction between internal and external security threats is increasingly blurred. While state security strategies are reflecting these changes, less attention has been paid to the political implications of these changes. New security responses need to also be matched by new sets of political strategies at the global level.     

Reflections on Globalisation,Security and 9/11

The study of globalisation carries important conceptual insights into the contemporary security agenda following the events of September 11th 2001 ('9/11'). This article argues that globalisation can be defined in a variety of ways, ranging from liberalisation to Westernisation, and can also be extended into concepts of supra-territorialisation. In combination, these definitions help to explain the generation of 9/11 style-conflict by providing the political-economic motivation for hyper-terrorism, by facilitating the political identities and activities of non-state actors; and by creating an environment for the global reach of terror movements. Additionally, the interconnection between globalisation and security can be seen in the response of the United States to 9/11 and its striving to project military power on a global scale with declining reference to time and geographical distance, and the varied ability of sovereign states to respond to the challenge of trans-sovereign security problems in the future.     

Globalisation,civil society,and the multilateral system

This paper analyses the significance and scope of globalisation, focusing on its implications for the autonomy of national actors, on the one hand, and on the new demands that global governance imposes upon multilateral action, on the other. It is argued that the current form of globalisation is in fact compatible with some degree of autonomous coordinated social action outside the realm of the market. This allows us both to differentiate between the realities and mystification (i.e. ideology) that underlie the concept of globalisation and to reject the standard discourse and economic therapy offered by certain international organisations to developing countries. If globalisation does not rule out the possibility of autonomous nationallevel action, it also establishes the basis for more solid and effective multilateral action. The factors that support the need for such action in the future are analysed; action that responds to demands for greater management of international public assets, and to calls for more effective global governance. The article ends by identifying the essential characteristics of such a multilateral system if it is to meet the needs arising from a new international reality.