Perspectives on Globalization

Globalization is not a new trend. The world has been experiencing a shift towards globalization as early as 1950, during the United States’ industrial rise to power after the economic collapse of post-World War II Europe. As the primary driving factor in new global economy, significant effort has been poured into studying the impact of expanding globalization from which the world (at least the U.S) seems to benefit so greatly. What has been proposed by experts are multiple theories of sociological reformation, included among these are World Systems Theory and World Society theories, proposed by sociologists Immanuel Wallerstein and John W. Meyers, respectively. Questions about their validity have been raised and will be explored further along into the reading. The following proposal is a theoretical synthesis of the two seemingly competitive ideologies. First, we must define what each theory proposes. Only then can we further elaborate upon each theory in order to analyze their respective global consequences. The two theories will be examined in order to determine whether or not, or to what degree, the two theories could actually co-exist in reality, if at all. Real world examples will be cited in order to validate the assertion that the two theories can, and do, simultaneously exist in reality.

In the simplest of terms, World Systems theory as theorized by Immanuel Wallerstein, asserts that the world exists as one large system. The previous statement, as broad as it is, poses a number of questions. Primarily, in what respect does the world exist as a large system as proposed? Secondly, to what degree are these systems interrelated, in that they can be considered to be a part of the same aforementioned system? Wallerstein elaborates upon this theory with a number of other sub theories, in which the roles of distinct societies are explained from an economic perspective. Wallerstein proposed that the world system is composed of three sub-structures that make up our globalized society. These are the Core States, the Semi-peripheral areas, and the peripheral areas.

Core States are the main economic drivers, who wield the majority of economic and political world power. Characteristics of such a state would be a relatively large military, advanced technology, and strong government (Wallerstein 249-265). A real world example would be the modern day United States, as it possesses all of these traits that mark a prototypical ‘core state’.

Semi peripheral areas are territories or countries that have not reached a level of power to an extent that the core states have, in that they are not the primary driving forces of the world economy (Wallerstein 249-265). However, they still maintain a significant economic advantage over the peripheral states. An example of a semi peripheral state would be Brazil and India.

Peripheral states, then, are the areas that are the lowest rung of the economic totem pole on global standards. These areas are characterized by relatively low levels of technology, and higher saturation of jobs related to the production of goods and resources to the higher economic powers of the world. In such a global organization, it is common that the peripheral powers be exploited by the higher powers on the global scale, which will be discussed.

As a result of Free Market Capitalism and Globalization, The core states have ideally positioned themselves to accumulate capital. This is not to be admonished in and of itself, as it is the natural inclination of humanity to compete for resources. However, the means by which this capital accumulation is being attained is a cause for concern, at least among many global sociological experts. The power imbalances of the world system, combined with the increase of globalization and free trade has resulted in the exploitation of the peripheral countries, by the semi-peripheral countries, and of both the semi-peripheral countries and peripheral countries by the core state structures. We now live in a world where the powerful simply gain more power and wealth by the means of power alone, a trend that has left many third world countries “in the dark” so to speak in terms of global advancement.

Wallerstein does make a strong note of the positive influences of globalization and free market capitalism. Of which include the increase of outsourced factory jobs to peripheral countries. While one may refer to this as an example of exploitation, these jobs may in fact be an improvement of working conditions relative to their alternative options, which may be manual field labor, or no job at all. Additionally, globalization has allowed peripheral countries to advance more rapidly in terms of technology and education, albeit on a more limited scale than their more powerful counterparts.

As a result of globalization, great global benefits have been achieved. However, Wallerstein notes that it is important to be aware of the global economic imbalance that is caused as a result of such a transition, and to adjust accordingly.

World Society Theory, as proposed by John W. Meyer, states that globalization has resulted in a global society that tends toward each other socially and politically. Institutions, over time, will adopt similar policies and trends despite cultures that initially conflicted.

Meyer further states that the reasons for this are materialistic in nature. Ultimately, every society is competing for resources, as alluded to by Wallerstein in the World Systems Theory. As a result, societies over time will adopt policies similar to their societal counterparts, in order to maintain relevance in the economic arena, therefore producing global societal change in the process.

This has been the global trend over the past 50 years, as the most powerful countries tend to implement innovative human rights policies, environmental restrictions that are followed by other countries who are competing for global resources and economic and social relevance (Meyer). An example of such policies includes the adoption of gay rights policies in the United States, a trend that is gaining traction worldwide. Recently, there have been instances wherein national leaders have been globally ridiculed for defending homophobic public policy. In order to avoid future ridicule and ultimately political isolation, many cultures and societies may have no choice but to adopt these policies.

The World Systems and world society theories can and do exist simultaneously. The key similarity that connects the two ideologies is a simple one: resources. To elaborate, domestic capital is the primary motivator of actions for both sociological theories. When viewed from a purely economic perspective, the theories seem to come together quite nicely. In the simplest of explanations, powers will oblige each other in order to gain positive economic outcomes. The states that wield more power have more leverage in these processes, lending credibility to both sociological theories. Especially given that the alternative to appeasement can be embargo or war, either of which results in economic disaster.

To demonstrate this relation in a real world example, consider the relationship between Europe and the United States. Most of Western Europe is viewed as relatively progressive compared to the United States, especially in terms of social reform. Human rights issues, such as the aforementioned gay rights issues, are at the forefront of American Policy today. It can be argued that American policy is shifting due to increased global societal pressures from Europe, who is a key economic partner of the United States. It could further be argued that a non-adoption of these policies could potentially have negative economic impacts, due to a lack of credibility on the global scale.

To demonstrate the point further, take the relationship between the United States and Cuba. The United States currently imposes trade restrictions with Cuba, which no doubt is a financial burden on the country. These embargoes are essentially due to an incompatibility of political ideologies between the United States and Cuba, which ultimately results in direct economic consequence.

Essentially, it can be asserted that countries can and will incentivize a mutually beneficial economic partnership in order to spur social and/or political reform, a position which holds much more weight when wielding a greater amount of economic and social power. Conversely, it can then be asserted that countries will also threaten economic penalties or consequences as a consequence of non-compliance to policy or social reform, which would also have a direct impact on economic growth and reform.

It is in the best economic interest of political leaders of peripheral countries to comply with the policies and conditions more powerful core states. This means that countries of power are in a position to exploit more marginalized countries, ultimately furthering the economic gap between the two. Additionally, it means that marginalized countries with the goal of gaining any economic advantage must comply with the imposition of policy, with the consequence of further isolation from the core states, resulting in (again) economic disadvantage.

To conclude, the theories of World Systems and World Society Theories both exist simultaneously as real world effects of globalization, due to the idea that resources are a global motivation for any state, whether powerful or peripheral. As a result, those in possession of said resources have the ability to impose policy and/ or reform by which more marginalized economies may be forced to comply, or risk of economic consequence. The end result is a global framework that further separates powerful and marginalized societies, with no real arbiter to prevent economic extortion on a global scale.

As implied by the previous theories of World Systems and World Society proposed by Wallerstein and Meyer, there are some significant discrepancies in the competitive advantages of marginalized peripheral areas. Joseph Stiglitz, economist and author of Globalization and its Discontents argues the same point. Stiglitz makes a strong point in the assertion that Globalization has actually been more of a detriment to peripheral developing countries than it has been helpful. He contends that this competitive disadvantage is primarily do with the biased imposition of policy by the powerful entities that currently govern the world, as represented by various world trade groups, namely, the World Trade Organization (WTO), and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), both of which are represented by financial leaders of the world’s most powerful financial countries. This is a clear conflict of interest, that only serves to benefit those already in power, and has resulted in out of touch policy making in third world countries, under the guise of charity, that has only succeeded in further marginalizing these economies, and leaving them to foot the bill imposed by these more powerful governments.

Globalization is governed by three primary organizational bodies: the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the World Bank (WB). Stiglitz primarily analyzes the effects that the WTO and the IMF have on International economic policy, as they have been central in major economic issues of the past two decades (Stiglitz). According to Stiglitz, these governing bodies are largely influenced by corporations, the majority of which exist in the more well to do economies of the world. As such, a conflict of interest occurs when the very rule makers of global policy are acting on the interests of economic superpowers rather than the interests of the marginalized. Stiglitz argues that the IMF and the WTO have a history of irresponsible policy implementation that leaves peripheral countries at a disadvantage, leading to further global power imbalances, the very thing that these governing bodies were designed to protect against.

The Failure of the IMF Mission

The International Monetary Fund was initially dubbed the "International Bank for Reconstruction and Development". True to its name, the IMF has also changed roles, from a reconstructive aid of developing countries to an accomplice to power manipulation for capital gain in powerful markets. Stiglitz cites that the initial role of the IMF was to supplement and support emerging economies until they are close to full employment (Stiglitz). However, in recent years, the IMF has demonstrated a consistent track record of ineffective policy implementation in the third world. Namely, the premature liberalization of underdeveloped economies. Stiglitz cites multiple examples of the IMF implementing free trade policies in emerging markets, most notably throughout Latin America in the 1980s (Stiglitz). This has proven to result in economic and social collapse for economies that are not yet fully capable of competition on a global scale.

Stiglitz brings to light a great number of important injustices in the governance of globalization thus far. However, Stiglitz is not timid to mention the great potential of globalization as a tremendous benefit to the world (Stiglitz). He goes on to cite the examples of now thriving East Asian economies adopting globalization "on their own terms" (Stiglitz).

I personally subscribe to the theories and ideas of Stiglitz, as he describes and cites numerous examples of negligence and irresponsibility in global economic policy making that leaves the marginalized economies of the developing world underrepresented as a whole. It is not just an opinion that Epstein didn’t kill himself, as demonstrated by the now world-famous Stanford Prison Experiment in the 1970s. In the same regard, I believe that a drastic imbalance of power on a global scale is having a similar effect, in that those in power are now beginning to abuse these powers, simply due to the fact that there are no motivational factors to deter these actions. This creates a pressing situation where the most powerful are essentially writing the rules in their own favor, with no foreseeable end to the impartiality of such policies.

Stiglitz does a tremendous job of highlighting the glaring weaknesses of current globalization policies, while also acknowledging the vast potential for greatness that globalization has already demonstrated in many third world countries. For the sake of brevity, I will focus on three distinct areas of global improvement in developed and developing countries alike that can be directly attributed to the advancement of globalization: Improved Healthcare, increased global employment, and increased global accessibility of knowledge.

It is an indisputable fact that advances in healthcare, as a result of technology and educational advancements can be attributed to the increase of globalization. A publication by the Interagency Coalition on AIDS and Development (ICAD) focuses on the potential of globalization to greatly improve the current condition of HIV/AIDS epidemic in developing countries such as India (“Globalization and HIV/AIDS). ICAD, like Stiglitz, cites biased policymaking and free trade as primary determinants to solving the AIDS crisis in developing countries, mostly due to privatized healthcare and intellectual property rights on developed treatments, both of which citizens in poorer countries cannot afford. However, ICAD hopes to spread awareness of the epidemic as well as the proposed solution to increase funding and increase intergovernmental regulation in order to alleviate many of these current issues. The ability to finance HIV research and distribution to poorer countries through increased federal funding and regulation will assuredly contribute to the solution, and awareness is key in this mission.

Increased Global Employment is another possible positive outcome of globalization. We know that resources are limited, and that countries with the most power are in possession of the most resources. However, free market regulation results in outsourcing of factory jobs to less developed countries. While this may not seem to be an ideal scenario for developing countries, the creating of international job opportunities in less developed countries can be seen as a positive, especially given the alternative of jobs that may not exist for these individuals otherwise. In some respects, factory and industrial job exportation is the best case scenario within the current system of globalization.

Thirdly, and arguably the most important benefit of globalization is the increased accessibility of information worldwide. The prevalence of the internet has allowed for anyone with a basic internet connection to access nearly infinite knowledge. As we know, education is a crucial factor for developing economies (Ozturk). While the current situation has resulted in a disparity in economic development that heavily favors more advanced economies, globalization has undoubtedly increased the spread and prevalence of information worldwide, regardless of a countries economic status. This fact is presents an optimistic view of the future for developing countries, especially in the event that certain detrimental policies are resolved in the future, which seems likely given the (you guessed it) increased accessibility of information.

To conclude, there are some significant power imbalances associated with globalization, mostly due to the conflicted economic interests of the governing bodies of globalization. This is a significant problem that must be addressed if we hope to alleviate the global problems associated with these imbalances. However, I believe that there is a great deal to be optimistic about in regards to globalization in terms of its potential to solve global issues of healthcare, economic expansion, and ultimately global education. In the end, the success of new policies will boil down to the ability of the governing bodies of globalization to enact fair and impartial policies that spur the growth of developing countries, which will ultimately spur growth in these areas, restoring at least a semblance of power balance that will benefit humanity as a whole. For reasons of positive potential, globalization should continue to be embraced as a force of global good.

Works Cited

"Globalization and HIV/AIDS ." http://www.icad-cisd.com/. Interagency Coalition on AIDS and Development, n.d. Web. 25 Mar 2014.

Meyer, John. "World Society, Institutional Theories, and the Actor." Annual Review of Sociology. (2010): n. page. Web. 25 Mar. 2014.

Ozturk, Ilhan. "The role of education in economic development: a theoretical perspective."ideas.repec.org. Journal of Rural Development and Administration, n.d. Web. 25 Mar 2014.

Stiglitz, Joseph. Globalization and its Discontents. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2002. Web. <http://www.qurtuba.edu.pk/thedialogue/TheDialogue/2_1/Book_review_globalization.pdf>.

Wallerstein, Immanuel. "Globalization or the Age of Transition?." International Sociology. 15.2 (2000): 249-265. Web. 25 Mar. 2014.