The Institute For Youth In Policy
International Essay Contest
Globalization: Proceed With Caution
A Critical Analysis Essay By Divyansh Shah
All of us who currently find ourselves in the midst of an unprecedented globalization,
characterized by a growing economic interdependence between nations and the rise of MNCs,
the establishment of various supra-national and global organizations, and a growing frequency of
international exchanges (in terms of people, goods, services and ideas), which has been
developing since the conclusion of the 2nd World War, must ask ourselves one question: What is
the modernity we seek to create?
Why do I implore us so? Well, because today’s modern world is fueled by globalization,
operating on the basis of global networks of trade, migration, information, ideas and others. In
turn, globalization successfully expands and is opted into by more and more individuals/entities
due to its tag of modernity. Thus, as Anthony Giddens puts it, we may conclude that
“modernity is inherently globalizing.”
Having established the relation between the two processes, let me now establish the pertinence of
the question itself (that which this essay primarily deals with).
On further investigation, one discovers that contemporary globalization is not only highly
inequitable (in terms of access to networks and acquisition of benefits) but also actively coercive
(in its treatment of both individuals and entities). Let us qualify both these statements.
To substantiate the first, we turn to the arguments of AG Frank and Immanuel Wallerstein.
Frank, in his critique of Modernization Theory, refuted the assertion regarding each nation
starting off as underdeveloped and gradually moving toward development (thus, making it an
attractive proposition for underdeveloped nations to ape developed nations of the West). This
would assume the operation of a level-playing field. However, according to him, during the onset
of modernity, while certain societies developed, in others there was a development of
underdevelopment due to the unequal relations imposed by the forces of colonialism and
capitalism of the former.
Wallerstein’s World Systems Model sheds further light upon the same, dividing the world into
three sections- the Core, consisting of highly industrialized countries which wish to maintain
their status and prestige; the Periphery, consisting of underdeveloped countries; and the
Semi-Peripheries, comprising nations which are not utterly underdeveloped but also do not wish
to become peripheries (and so actively work towards initiation into the Core). It is further
defined by two factors- first, is the proliferation of a paradigm of endless capitalist accumulation;
and the second, is the maintenance of capitalist monopolies. But how does the second transpire?
Well, Wallerstein's entire argument is contingent on the myth of the free market. He argues that
in order for there to be a perfectly free market, perfect knowledge is crucial, which is never the
case. Even more importantly, in so far as every producer wishes to monopolize the market in
order to maximize profits, a monopoly of the core is prevalent. It produces a good/service and
then monopolizes it, extracting profit at the highest possible rate. At best then, what transpires is
a trickle down effect, wherein producers emerge in the semi-peripheries and eventually in the
peripheries. However, in the process, the price of the good depletes and by the time it reaches the
periphery, the profit which can be extracted is minimal; this is succeeded by a switch to another
product/service. Britain’s Lancashire cloth production is a relevant illustration.
Thus, these ideas explain the historical socio-political and economic processes at work which put
underdeveloped and developing nations at a natural disadvantage in comparison to developed
nations in terms of access to both global networks and their benefits.
Moving to the second, then. The coercive dimension of globalization has been studied by several
scholars, the most significant of which I find to be Susan Strange, Jessica Mathews, and
Elizabeth and Ozioko.
Strange’s central argument asserts that the impersonal forces of world markets are now more
powerful than the states to whom ultimate political authority over society and economy is
supposed to (conventionally) belong. This declining authority is reflected in two primary forms-
a growing diffusion of authority by the state to other institutions and associations (and to local
and regional bodies), further resulting in a morphing of state function; and a growing asymmetry
between the larger states with structural power and weaker ones without it. This is fueled by the
twin ‘neglects’ of technology and finance. While exponential technological change has been a
primary cause of the shift in the state–market balance of power (through better transportation,
communication etc.), the rise of finance has resulted in the supply of capital and demand for
innovation being dictated by the market (resulting in the primacy of trans-national corporations
and forging of a state-corporate nexus).
Mathews’ arguments mirror Strange’s to a great extent. She brings our attention to the power
shift which occurred following the conclusion of the Cold War, bringing no mere adjustment
among states but a novel redistribution of power among states, markets, and civil society. Here,
she specifies two classes of institutions- NGOs and international economic institutions. With
respect to the former, she notes their increasing influence (negotiating power) in decisions of
considerable magnitude (citing successful NGO pressure on the NAFTA to take cognisance of
environmental and labor concerns), capacity for cross-border operations and galvanisation of
domestic opinion. With respect to the latter, she notes the expansion in their mandate, for
instance how during the 1980s, the World Bank began attaching conditions to loans related to
recipient governments’ policies on poverty, the environment, and military spending, previously
considered national prerogatives.
Elizabeth and Ozioko elaborate on the multiple manners in which state sovereignty is eroded by
the forces of globalization, most notably political and cultural sovereignty. Political erosion
(entailing a decline in the power of national governments to direct their economies and determine
their own political structures in the face of market forces) is triggered by the institutionalization
of international political structures (“Global Governance” as developed by Craig Murphy)
and the growth of both specialized and general international organizations (driven by rules-based
regulatory frameworks demanding the conformity of members). Cultural erosion arises out of the
diffusion of two sets of cultural phenomena- firstly, the proliferation of individualized (Western)
values expressed in social constitutions that recognize individual rights and identities and
transnational and international efforts to protect “human rights”; and secondly, the adoption of
Western institutional practices emerging out of the European Enlightenment. Thus, there is a
popular perception that multiculturality is under threat from the growing influence/acceptance of
Western values (resulting in the acculturation of vulnerable cultures). They eventually conclude
by stressing that sovereignty in a globalized world no longer signifies final authority.
There are also other ideas like that of the Political Trilemma (Dani Rodnik) and
Neo-Eco-Imperialism (Vandana Shiva).
This erosion in state capacity and sovereignty has direct implications for the citizens of all
nations, in particular those from vulnerable socio-economic backgrounds, as the state’s power to
provide for them depletes and they are forced to turn to the even more impersonal and
profit-driven market forces.
Having qualified both statements, let us return to the original question posed. The fact of the
matter is that if we don’t question ourselves (and scrutinize our actions), we shall only contribute
to the creation of a modernity and globalization which is defined by a lack of equity (in terms of
access and benefits), violent coercion (of both individuals and entities- the state, in particular),
and gross inequality.
Therefore, this essay may also be read as a call-to-action (by you, the reader, in whatever
capacity) hoping to amass the revolt of enough cogs in order to alter the whole machine.
References
1. Heywood, Andrew. “Global Politics”, UK: Palgrave Foundations, 2011, pp. 1-136.
2. Hirst, Paul and Thompson, G. “Globalization in Question” (Third Edition), UK: Polity
Press, 2009, pp. 25-52.
3. Ritzer, George and Paul D. Paul, Globalization: A Basic Text (Second Edition), UK:
Wiley Blackwell, 2015, pp. 14-53.
4. Held, D and et. al. “Rethinking Globalization” in Held, David and Anthony McGrew
(eds.) The Global Transformations Reader: An Introduction to the Globalization
Debate,(Second Edition). Cambridge: Polity Press, Blackwell Publishing, 2003, pp.
60-67.
5. Ritzer, G. and Dean, P. Globalization: The Essentials, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 2019, pp.
55-92.
6. Keohane, Robert O. and Nye Jr, Joseph S., “What’s New? What’s Not? (And So What?),
in Held, D and McGrew, A (ed.), The Global Transformations Reader: An Introduction to
the Globalization Debate (2nd edition). Cambridge: Polity Press, Blackwell Publishing,
2003, pp. 75-84.
7. Held, David and Anthony McGrew (eds.) The Global Transformations Reader: An
Introduction to the Globalization Debate (Second Edition). Cambridge: Polity Press,
Blackwell Publishing, 2000, pp 1-42.
8. Mcgrew, A. “Globalization and Global Politics” in Baylis J., Smith and Owens (eds.),
The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations, New
York: Oxford University Press. 2017, pp. 15-31.
9. Chatterjee, P. Our Modernity (SEPHIS) and (CODESRIA), Rotterdam/Dakar. 1997 pp.
3-20. Sanjeev Kumar H.M., “Contesting Modernity: Crisis of Democratization in South
Asia,” India Quarterly, LXIV (4), October-December 2008, pp. 124-155.
10. Vandana Shiva, “Ecological Balance in an Era of Globalization,” in Frank J. Lechner and
John Boli (eds.), The Globalization Reader, Oxford: Blackwell, 2004: pp. 422-429.
11. Kirsten Foot, “Actors and Activities in the Anti-Human Trafficking Movement,” in Jorge
Heine and Ramesh Thakur (eds)., The Dark Side of Globalization, Tokyo: UN University
Press, 2011, pp. 249-265.
12. Bull, Hedley. “Beyond the state system?” in Held, David and Anthony McGrew (eds.)
The Global Transformations Reader: An Introduction to the Globalization Debate
(Second Edition). Cambridge: Polity Press, Blackwell Publishing, 2000, pp 577-582.
13. Elizabeth, A. and Ozioko, M. V, Effect of Globalization on Sovereignty of States, UN
Document, 2000, pp. 256-270.
14. Susan Strange, “The Declining Authority of States,” in Frank J. Lechner and John Boli
(eds.), The Globalization Reader, Oxford: Blackwell, 2004: pp. 219-224.
15. Jessica T. Mathews, “Power Shift,” in David Held and Anthony McGrew (eds.), The
Global Transformations Reader: An Introduction to the Globalization Debate (Second
Edition). Cambridge: Polity Press, Blackwell Publishing, 2003, pp. 204-212.
16. Coffey Peter, Riley, Robert, Reform of the International Institutions - The IMF, World
Bank and the WTO, Part-2, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2006, pp. 12-84.
17. Dash, P., Shaw, Khandelwal, “Evolution of G20 Process: From Crisis Management to
Development Cooperation”, G 20 Digest, pp. 5-12. Available at: https://www.g20-
insights.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Dash_Shaw_Khandelwal_Evolution_G20.pdf.
18. Woods, N. “International Political Economy in an Age of Globalization”, and Watson, M.
“Global Trade and Global Finance”, in Baylis J., Smith and Owens (eds.) The
Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations, New York:
Oxford University Press. 2017, pp. 243-257, 417-428.
19. Editors, CFR. "What does the World Health Organisation do?" Council on Foreign
Relations, 29 Jan. 2021, New York: 1-14.
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/what-does-world-health-organization-do.
20. Lee, Kelley and Julliane Piper, “The WHO and Covid-19 Pandemic”, Global Governance
and Review of Multilateral Organizations, 2020. https://brill.com/view/journals/gg/gg-
overview.xml.
21. Donatella della Porta, et al, “The Study of Social Movements: Recurring Questions” and
“Social Movements and Democracy”, Social Movements in a Globalising World, UK:
Macmillan, 1999, pp. 3-23; 223-248.
22. Keeley, B. “International Migration: The Human Face of Globalization”, OECD, 2009,
pp: 9-40.
23. Inglis Christine et al (edited), “Introduction,” in The Handbook of International
Migration, New Delhi: Sage Publication, 2020, pp. 1-17.
