Political Science

Globalization is generally regarded as too broad a topic to be given a meaning for convenience.  As such, it is assumed that the impact that globalisation bears among countries must be determined, which involves determining who the winners and losers are in this so-called market liberalization approach.  

To understand the concept of globalization then, it is said one must confront issues of definition and interpretation immediately (Sombart 1930 Dobb 1946), and the winners and losers must be taken into account (Hodgon, et. al 2001) to decipher the contradictory views about it.  By this end, some critics and advocates argue that it is best to postpone any attempt to define it until one has thoroughly inquired into its impact (Stillwell, 1990).

Globalization, leading economist Joseph Stiglitz, defined it to refer to the breaking down of the territorial barriers to the flows of goods, services, capital, and knowledge, among others through the closer integration of the countries and peoples of the world (Tetreault  Lipschutz 2005).  For Mittelman, on the other hand, globalization is a market-induced process and not policy-led.

These sampling of definitions mirror the wide-array of definitions and complexities of this economically led cross-cultural integration process.  Thus, experts identified trade, finance and investments as its biggest engines, but added the victims include locale structures and cultures.  Moreover, whether results include the centralization of governance, cultural homogenization, and the redistribution of wealth and income within and between nation-states, it is yet to be determined whether such impacts result in winners and losers (Tetreault  Lipschutz 2005).

As commonly argued, men are living at a time when their lives are being radically changed by the integration of economic activities on a global scale.  Experts said that with globalization, territorial barriers limiting the opportunities and threats that confront us are being broken.  Hence, it was stressed that globalization has one common consequence the nations ability to conduct business without reference to any but its own interests is limited.  When that limitation cuts deeply to have lasting effects on a nation-states culture, language, social values, tastes, and market behaviour, among others, we have globalisation (Gurtov 1999).

As a term, globalization is intended to describe the integrating and homogenizing effects that happen when national boundaries are penetrated by powerful forces active above the state level (Gurtov 1999).  Usually economic, these forces are driven by the transnational companies and multilateral lending institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) that seeks to regularise and stabilise world finance and trade in their own interests.

When defined using the network metaphor approach, Globalization may then be investigated in terms of identifiable networks (Nye  Donahue 2000).   As a network, the natural tendency is the creation or expansion of an identifiable network connecting points and people around the globe on some specified dimension or medium.  When defined in terms of specific global networks, the understanding will be clearer because when globalisation is assimilated with interdependence, only part of the story is captured. Most often, countries and actors in different countries are interconnected on specific dimensions, and by virtue of this connectedness have reciprocal impacts on one another, but rarely are the effects of such interactions equal.

To others still, globalization is that place or condition where only the affluent nations who are capable of competing network with one another to intimidate the poor and weak nation-states, but Stiglitz (1999) definition proved otherwise.  For him, globalization may still become a space that invites healthy and balanced interplay of countries in a big field like one big team or family.

In his The Great Divide in the Global Village article published by Foreign Affairs, Scott (2001) theorizes that while globalization opens up opportunities for both affluent and poor nations, the latter remain poor, left in the dark because they are unable to avail themselves of much foreign capital or limited by their capacity to take advantage of the increased market access.  In the end, weak nations become victims of the systematic barriers both locally and internationally.

On the other hand, Dani Rodrik (1997) in his article in Foreign Policy argued otherwise.  He debunked assumptions claiming that globalization only merely constrain national autonomy and instead pointed out how poor nations may be able to escape poverty through the enhanced opportunities made available to those who have skills and mobility to flourish in world markets.  
As an alternative course of action, Rodrik challenges market players to map out a plan that will provide a new balance between the market and society one that will continue to unleash the creative energies of private entrepreneurship without eroding the social bases of cooperation (Rodrik 1997).
Moreover, the deep, complex interactions between forces external to nation states and forces nurtured within them will be a good starting point to study globalisation.  Thus, the aim is nothing short of exploring the depths of hidden meanings of the economic forces to understand the factors that help reshape our society today through globalization.  With this goal in mind, it will also help answer who gains and who loses at this economic issue, particularly in the light of its impact, for example, on the changing national and international distribution of jobs, among others.

As is happening globally today, most large transnational companies, who are seeking to take advantage of differential labour costs to maximize rates of profit,  have often opted on relocating or outsourcing parts of their routine production activities to Third World countries.    Under the pressures of globalization for companies and bank to cut costs, raise profits, boost earnings for investors, and take advantage of a looser regulatory environment, strategic alliances and megamergers are the name of the game (Reich 1998).

In view of this, there is heightened pressure for wage reduction among employees of transnational companies in more affluent nations in its bid to try to keep the local manufacturing businesses competitive.  Unemployment is not remote if these companies go under.  However, depending on the regional patterns of jobs in other sectors, such as the service industries, which may be expanding, it is worth noting whether these workers are losers in the longer term unless there are alternative employment opportunities.

Economists and global market players are in constant argument and debate on the varied impact of globalisation among and between countries.  The impact of globalisation may never be easy to identify, but to understand the issue at hand, it bears noting that different economic occurrences such as regionalism of European and Asian countries, the unprecedented rise of the economy of China and its alleged role in the global imbalance, and the the growth of Australian economy amidst the weakening economic powers, and many other impacts may have to be studied to learn about the ironies and seemingly contradicting impact of globalisation.   To date, globalisation may be said to be evolving and while this is so, determining the winners and losers of globalisation may be premature.  
Given all these realities, the best approach in determining globalisations impact between all economic players, from the United States to China will be best studied and addressed when finding a more sustainable global growth pathway not just for affluent nations but also in threshing out the such sustainable recovery plan for weaker and poor nation-states.