The multivariate technique of factor analysis is used to combine several indicators of economic integration and international transactions into a single measure or index of globalization. The index is an alternative to the simple measure of openness based on trade, and it produces a ranking of countries over time for 23 OECD countries. Ireland is ranked as the most globalized country during the 1990?s, while the UK was at the top during the 1980?s. Some of the most notable changes in the rankings are the decline of the US, Canada, and to a lesser extent Japan. Norway also receives a lower ranking. There are notable improvements in the ranking for Finland, Italy, Portugal, Spain and Sweden. For Portugal and Spain the changes seem to follow EU membership in the mid 1980?s.
This paper addresses a complex of globalization issues: the effect of globalization on the skill premium; the effect of globalization on unemployment; the relative importance of globalization and exogenous technical change; the effect of globalization on the ability of national governments to conduct independent social policies. Thinking about these topics has been dominated by a large empirical literature concluding that trade has played a relatively minor role in the rise of the skill premium, while exogenous skill-biased technical change has played a major role. This paper replaces the focus on inter-sectoral substitution at the heart of the Stolper-Samuelson theorem with attention to intra-sectoral relations between inputs. Specifically, I assume that out-sourcing and unskilled labor are highIy substitutable and that equipment and skilIed labor are complementary , that production methods are flexible, and that the country undertaking out-sourcing has a significantIy different structure from that providing it. Globalization then offers a simple and immediate possible explanation for the prominent stylized facts regarding the emergence of the skill premium and for the presence of skill-biased technical change. Trade vs. technology remains as an empirical issue, though, because exogenous neutral technological change offers an alter-native possible explanation.
One of the most conspicuous features of politics at the turn of the millennium is the emergence of issues which transcend national frontiers. Processes of economic internationalization, the problem of the environment and the emergence of regional and global networks of communication are increasingly matters of concern for the international community as a whole. The nature and limits of national democracies have to be reconsidered in relation to processes of social and economic globalization; that is, in relation to shifts in the transcontinental or interregional scale of human social organization and of the exercise of social power. This paper seeks to explore these changing circumstances and to examine, albeit tentatively, their implications for democratic theory.
In the context of what is generally referred to as a globalizing world, we have become accustomed to speak of new forms of multilevel governance. The paradigmatic shift from government to governance signals the presumable end of the modern Westphalian state system in which the governments of territorial nation-states held exclusive or sovereign governing powers (Hueglin 1999). Instead, we now detect that acts of governing are carried out by a plurality of governmental and nongovernmental actors below and above the nation-state. Since these acts, by international organizations as well as regional governments and civic movements, affect citizens directly, a growing democratic deficit of accountability has been recognized. Democratic political theory and practice therefore have begun a search for viable models of global democratic governance. By recognizing territorial group rights alongside with individual rights and freedoms, federalism, or, more precisely, the theory and practice of the modern federal state, provide such a model in principle. This is by no means undisputed. In his search for models of cosmopolitan democracy, David Held, perhaps the most prominent global democracy theorist at the moment, had to admit that he substituted "federal" for "cosmopolitan" because of the controversial meaning of federalism in Europe (1992), and especially so in Britain where federalism, with the American model in mind, was seen as synonymous with federal government and centralization. In newly federalizing polities, however, Spain, Belgium and South Africa among others, federalism is understood as a safeguard of local and regional autonomy, or, more generally, as a means to the organized recognition of territorial group rights and their democratic inclusion into the body politic. In the context of globalization, it would have to mean both, as it of course always does, the establishment of effective and democratic governance on a world scale, and at the same time the retention of significant levels of autonomy and self-government for states, regions, localities and other collective actors. In this presentation I want to address three questions: 1. What exactly is globalization and does it exist? 2. What exactly is federalism and why do we need it? 3. What kind of federal institutions can serve global governance? ; Departamento de Economía
The technological development is a kind of constraint and considering this fact is vital in terms of the globalization processes studied. In the past fifty years close relations have been developed between science and technology. The other driving force is the change of the relation between consumers and the industry. The accelerating technical development of the last fifty years did not refer to national boundaries. Technology, along with the scientific development that preceded it, will not remain within the national borders, but it will disseminate and will take along the cultural background needed for its usage. Economic and political globalization is based on this process. Technology-based globalization, in its wider sense, will take place anyway. Its extent and nature depend on the economic and political methods and efforts. Fighting against technical globalization is like tilting at windmills, through which you lose the chance to ensure an appropriate place for yourself in the globalizing world.
I study a model of geopolitical organization endogenizing the size of nations, of their public spending and of their degree of openness. The optimal geography may not be a stable equilibrium and the Alesina-Spolaore bias toward too many nations tends to be confirmed. However, multiple equilibria can emerge with globalization backlash associated with large nations and high protectionism and equilibria with smaller countries and high openness which are also Pareto superior. A dynamic version of the model shows stable paths of decreasing size of nations, increasing globalization and (at least initially) increasing public spending. Such a process seems consistent with the historical experience, but it may converge toward a steady state with excessive globalization, too many countries and typically too much government spending.
Argues on the notion that global free trade and investment are responsible for poverty, inequality, lowering of standards and harming social progress. Concerns of anti-globalist critics on globalization; result of the mistaken arguments against globalization; criticism against national politicians and international bureaucrats.
This paper discusses research that is designed to examine the historical trajectory of structural globalization as an attribute of the whole world-system. Did the globalized world economy arrive all at once in a rapid and recent transition from national to global economic networks? Or is the process of international integration a long-term trend that has been going up for centuries only to be noticed recently because it has reached such a high peak? Or, alternatively, is globalization a cyclical phenomenon in which the world-system alternates between periods of national autarchy followed by periods of international economic and political integration?
"Like everyone else, economists like to break out of the narrowness of their discipline and speculate on a larger theme, painting on a bigger canvas. Like John Kenneth Galbraith, they may even make money while having fun. In the process, they may even illuminate and inform, doing good while doing well. The task I have been assigned is an intellectually challenging one: does the growing globalization of the world economy and the presumed growth then in interdependence promise to constrain national sovereignty; and, does it equally threaten to compromise democratic accountability within nation states?"
Metadata only record ; The book draws on Stiglitz's personal experience as chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under Bill Clinton from 1993 and chief economist at the World Bank from 1997. During this period Stiglitz became disillusioned with the IMF and other international institutions, which he came to believe acted against the interests of impoverished developing countries. Stiglitz argues that the policies pursued by the IMF are based on neoliberal assumptions that are fundamentally unsound
The technology, along with the scientific development behind it, overflows the country, limits, propagates and takes along the cultural background needed for it us. Let's clarify that beside the political and economical globalization, there is a technological globalization too. The economical and political globalization is built on this situation. The widely defined globalization built on technology, is tuning into an inevitable reality. How is it going to be, depends on the political and economical methods and trends.
The paper deals with the role of economic policy and the role of the state in economy on the backgroundof historic experience. It is particularly focused on the changing role of the state in the globalization processand the impact of recent globalization trends on economic and political decision-making.
The "Battle of Seattle" only entered the main political agenda of Sweden in September 2000, during the IMF protests in Prague. In this article, the roots and development of "the globalization movement" in Sweden is examined. In particular, the relation between it and the Swedish Labour movement is discussed. The article begin by tracing the roots of the globalization movement in various new social movements, and continue with the complex relation between the movement and Social Democracy. The final section discusses the movement's success in placing its concerns on the agenda. Subsequent events as the EU-demonstration in Gothenburg, the anti-G8 demonstrations in Genoa and the aftermath of September 11th appear to have altered the movement's ability to make its concerns heard.
International audience ; For mercantilism, the main objective of economic action is to increase the power of the Prince (Machiavelli). With the rise of capitalism and the market economy, liberal economists strongly criticized state management of the national economy. The centralization of political power was often seen as a major brake on the market economy and thus on economic development. Since 1990, the history of capitalism seems to have stopped being written within national borders. We are moving from the wealth of nations to the wealth of the world. However, despite the existence of the World Trade Organization, there is in fact no supranational authority capable of imposing rules on multinational markets, which are often speculative and interested mainly in short-term profit, thus threatening the sovereignty of nations. Yet market system generalization is often perceived as a factor of democracy. This statement is debatable. As states have lost most of their economic power, the electorate is the victim of a democratic illusion comparable to Keynes' monetary illusion. The risk is the progressive establishment of international plutocratic systems which, within each state, will defend private interests, sometimes in competition from state to state. War and economic war are not over. ; Pour le mercantilisme, l'objectif principal de l'action économique est d'accroître le pouvoir du Prince (Machiavel). Avec l'essor du capitalisme et de l'économie de marché, les économistes libéraux ont fortement critiqué la gestion étatique de l'économie nationale. La centralisation du pouvoir politique était souvent considérée comme un frein majeur à l'économie de marché et donc au développement économique. Depuis 1990, l'histoire du capitalisme semble avoir cessé de s'écrire à l'intérieur des frontières nationales. On passe de la richesse des nations à la richesse du monde. Cependant, malgré l'existence de l'Organisation mondiale du commerce, il n'existe en fait aucune autoritésupranationale capable d'imposer des règles aux ...
International audience ; For mercantilism, the main objective of economic action is to increase the power of the Prince (Machiavelli). With the rise of capitalism and the market economy, liberal economists strongly criticized state management of the national economy. The centralization of political power was often seen as a major brake on the market economy and thus on economic development. Since 1990, the history of capitalism seems to have stopped being written within national borders. We are moving from the wealth of nations to the wealth of the world. However, despite the existence of the World Trade Organization, there is in fact no supranational authority capable of imposing rules on multinational markets, which are often speculative and interested mainly in short-term profit, thus threatening the sovereignty of nations. Yet market system generalization is often perceived as a factor of democracy. This statement is debatable. As states have lost most of their economic power, the electorate is the victim of a democratic illusion comparable to Keynes' monetary illusion. The risk is the progressive establishment of international plutocratic systems which, within each state, will defend private interests, sometimes in competition from state to state. War and economic war are not over. ; Pour le mercantilisme, l'objectif principal de l'action économique est d'accroître le pouvoir du Prince (Machiavel). Avec l'essor du capitalisme et de l'économie de marché, les économistes libéraux ont fortement critiqué la gestion étatique de l'économie nationale. La centralisation du pouvoir politique était souvent considérée comme un frein majeur à l'économie de marché et donc au développement économique. Depuis 1990, l'histoire du capitalisme semble avoir cessé de s'écrire à l'intérieur des frontières nationales. On passe de la richesse des nations à la richesse du monde. Cependant, malgré l'existence de l'Organisation mondiale du commerce, il n'existe en fait aucune autoritésupranationale capable d'imposer des règles aux ...
