Suchergebnisse

What is generally called globalization is a vast social field in which hegemonic or dominant social groups, states, interests and ideologies collide with counter-hegemonic or subordinate social groups, states, interests and ideologies on a world scale. Even the hegemonic camp is fraught with conflicts, but over and above them, there is a basic consensus among its most influential members (in political terms, the G-7). It is this consensus that confers on globalization its dominant characteristics. The counter-hegemonic or subordinate production of globalization is what is called insurgent cosmopolitanism. It consists of the transnationally organized resistance against the unequal exchanges produced or intensified by globalized localisms and localized globalisms.

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.

The process of interaction and integration into a single open system of socio-political, economic and cultural ties on the basis of modern computer and telecommunication facilities is known as globalization. It has effects on the environment, culture, political systems, economic development and prosperity and human well-being in all the societies around the world. It is supposed to be one of the most important features of the modern humankind's development. Most studies of globalization tend to focus on changes occurring in the economic and political spheres.

This paper describes how the forces of the United States Empire are key elements in describing the most recent process of globalization. Empires have always been the key actors in the waves of globalization throughout history. The Empire of the United States of America is not an exception to this history. Military, economic, cultural, and political integration and control from an imperial center are key elements in understanding the forces of globalization in the past and today. This paper describes these forces of globalization as they pertain to the largest and most powerful empire in world history.

Globalization, which covers every aspect of life, has become one of the most debated phenomena in recent years. The concept means freedom and interaction; and for others inequality and exploitation. The effects of globalization are felt extensively in the technological, cultural, sociological, economic and political areas. Despite the widespread literature available, there is not yet a consensus on what the concept of globalization is. For this reason, the aim of this study is to clarify the concept of globalization and to examine the concept with its economic, political and cultural dimensions.

In this article we analyze processes and scales of global integration in historical perspective, starting with the Agrarian Revolution. We connect the main phases of historical globalization with the processes of the development of the Afroeurasian world-system. In the framework of the Afroeurasian worldsystem the integration began several millennia BCE. In it the continental and supracontinental links became so developed long before the Great Geographic Discoveries and thus they could well be denoted as global (albeit in a somehow limited sense). Among some researchers there is still a tendency to underestimate the scale of those links in the pre-Industrial era; thus, it appeared necessary to provide additional empirical support for our statement. It also turned necessary to apply a special methodology (which necessitated the use of the world-system approach). We analyze some versions of periodization of globalization history. We also propose our own periodization of the globalization history basing on the growth of the scale of intersocietal links as an indicator of the level of globalization development.

In this paper, we propose a political-economic approach towards globalization and economic theory. We dialectically arrive to the conclusion that globalization is a process of transforming territorial (national) states into a market state dominated by transnational (or mega) corporations and international (or mega) financial institutions. This represents a new stage in the development of capitalism, a stage we call cybernetic mega-capitalism or capitalism III (Adam Smith's free market capitalism would be capitalism I and Keynes's state interventionism would be capitalism II). Within such a context, we suggest that the existing economic theory is lost in the labyrinth of such a transition. We are afraid that the dynamic of globalization might transform the existing neoclassical economic theory into neuro-neoclassical economic paradigm that might raise many outstanding issues for both economists and politicians such as the issue of global governance or the issue of democratic deficit.

In this paper, we propose a political-economic approach towards globalization and economic theory. We dialectically arrive to the conclusion that globalization is a process of transforming territorial (national) states into a market state dominated by transnational (or mega) corporations and international (or mega) financial institutions. This represents a new stage in the development of capitalism, a stage we call cybernetic mega-capitalism or capitalism III (Adam Smith's free market capitalism would be capitalism I and Keynes's state interventionism would be capitalism II). Within such a context, we suggest that the existing economic theory is lost in the labyrinth of such a transition. We are afraid that the dynamic of globalization might transform the existing neoclassical economic theory into neuro-neoclassical economic paradigm that might raise many outstanding issues for both economists and politicians such as the issue of global governance or the issue of democratic deficit.

For almost three quarters of a century, the US had led the world into a rules-based system of trade-globalization, culminating in the creation of the WTO in 1995 and a rash of subsequent bilateral and multilateral trade agreements. Trump thus proposed a major change to US international economic policy. This paper assesses the extent to which, more than one year on, he has fulfilled those promises, and describes the likely consequences of what has happened. The central thesis of the paper is that it is fortunate that Trump has largely failed to deliver on what he has promised; these failures are in part based on a flawed understanding of the determinants of trade deficits, including the role of trade agreements, and on the political economy of trade agreements themselves. The likelihood is that over time, Trump will continue to move the US towards a more protectionist stance. While the chances are small that he will succeed in any major revision of, say, NAFTA or the WTO—beyond an updating of these agreements, such as by making them more relevant for the 21st century by including provisions related to the digital economy—there are some chances of nightmare scenarios where Trump pulls the US out of NAFTA. In virtually all likely scenarios, the trade deficit will increase and American workers, including those who had been adversely affected by globalization and turned to Trump in desperation, will be worse off. Moreover, while he has by and large failed to deliver (so far) on his campaign promises, there are likely to be significant adverse effects of what he has already done, both to the global trade regime and to US geo-political interests. Section 1 explains the major "accomplishments" to date, including the state of play of some of the trade negotiations. Section 2 identifies flaws in understandings of international trade that underlay Trump's failures. Section 3 explains why Trump is unlikely to succeed in meaningful renegotiations of US trade relations. Section 4 argues that Trump policies are likely to lead to increased trade deficits and shows that, more broadly, his policies, to the extent that they are successful, are likely to lead to decreased competitivity of the US and a lowering of standards of living. Section 5 discusses the global response to America's new protectionism, the likely impact on US economic and geo-political interests, and the long-run impact of Trump's policy on the global international economic order.

This paper is published in its original submitted version. ; The article is devoted to the study of the processes in the modern world educational system in the conditions of globalization. An effort of systematically analysis of the characteristics of the institutional dimension of internationalization and transformation of the educational system in a globalized world. It is proposed to use globalization and the informational and technological revolution to rebuild education in the direction of its democratization and progressive social changes radically. In order to solve these problems there exist a necessity in the education to become a social institution in the interests of the social majority, as it proposed by representatives of modern pedagogy.

This report examines explanations for scepticism towards economic globalization within and across countries, focusing on factors that help to situate the extent of globalization scepticism in Denmark alongside experiences in France and Germany. The report is based on a review of academic literature dealing with attitudes towards globalization and the linkages between globalization and national politics. Globalization is an umbrella term for a broad range of phenomena and has economic, political and cultural dimensions. The diverse expressions of globalization present a challenge when it comes to identifying sources of globalization scepticism because the latter may be directed at different targets, including multinational corporations or the national governments that influence how international economic integration is managed. In addition, perceived consequences of globalization may reflect other changes that are difficult to isolate from globalization, with technological development providing a prominent example. Many studies of individual attitudes towards economic globalization take the distribution of economic gains or losses due to free trade within societies as a starting point. In economies where highly skilled labour is abundant, benefits from free trade are likely to flow towards workers with a higher level of education while low-skilled workers may be disadvantaged. Certain sectors of economic activity may also be more exposed to competition from increasing international economic integration, leaving workers more vulnerable. Employment-related categories are not the only way of distinguishing winners and losers of globalization. For example, low-income consumers may benefit more from free trade than highincome consumers. Gains or losses from globalization may also vary by geographical location, depending on the nature of economic activity in different regions.

The Covid-19 pandemic has exposed many of the weaknesses in our current systems of government and commerce. In this essay, I provide some historical context to the recent era of "hyper-globalization." I then present multiple factors—economic, social, political, technological, and governance-related—that collectively explain why globalization has peaked and is on the retreat. Following this, I use the analogy of a three-legged stool to explain the importance of recalibrating the economy, state, and society so as to realize a healthier alignment among them. Finally, I look at where globalization might be going next and the implications for firms, concluding with some lessons that we can take away from the COVID crisis. JEL CLASSIFICATION: M10, M16, M19

This paper seeks to analyze the prospects for development in a changed international context, where globalization has diminished the policy space so essential for countries that are latecomers to development. The main theme is that, to use the available policy space for development, it is necessary to redesign strategies by introducing correctives and to rethink development by incorporating different perspectives, if development is to bring about an improvement in the well-being of people. In redesigning strategies, some obvious correctives emerge from an understanding of theory and a study of experience that recognizes not only the diversity but also the complexity of development. In rethinking development, it is imperative to recognize the importance of initial conditions, the significance of institutions, the relevance of politics in economics and the critical role of good governance. Even if difficult, there is also a clear need to create more policy space for national development, by reshaping the rules of the game in the world economy and contemplating some governance of globalization. – globalization ; development ; policy space ; initial conditions ; institutions ; markets ; state ; democracy ; governance

This paper discusses the measurement of globalization with a view to advancing the construction of globalization indices. It critically analyzes the types of indices that can contribute to knowledge and policy on globalization. Three issues are particularly highlighted: (a) the focus of measurement (i.e. on activities or policies); (b) the dimensions of measurement (i.e. cultural, ecological, economic, political, and/or social); and (c) the units of measurement (i.e. local, national, regional, and/or global). This paper argues that a workable forward strategy should not seek to identify the single best composite globalization index, but rather should work in an interdisciplinary mode towards a set of complementary globalization indices. These quantitative analyses can then be productively blended with qualitative approaches in a fuller assessment of globalization's extent and impact.