|
|
Globalization: Just another Word for American Dominance Globalization, an economic, political and cultural phenomenon, has swept through the world in the twentieth century. Globalization supposedly brings the world together economically, politically and culturally. Instead, globalization has brought the world farther apart than it originally was, and more inequalities exist now. There is no static definition of globalization, as it is a concept that can mean multiple things, depending on what a definer believe in. I believe a somewhat accurate definition would be Globalization refers to the multiplicity of linkages and interconnections between the states and societies which make up the modern world system. It describes the process by which events, decisions, and activities in one part of the world can come to have significant consequences for individuals and communities in quite distant parts of the glove.” The question posed “is globalization a form of American economic and cultural imperialism?” is one of many differing opinions. Neoliberalists would argue that globalization is good for the economy, but I choose to argue otherwise. I believe that globalization is Americanization of the world, and global capitalism is taking place, where workers are being exploited at the expense of developed countries in North America and Western Europe. I will structure the essay by showing what six different authors have written in their books about globalization. The authors will be grouped into two groups, one of which shows the benefits of globalization from economic, cultural, and political standpoints, and the other, which shows the negative aspects of globalization of the same three facets. Globalization is a form of cultural imperialism and Americanization, and I will set out to justify why this is so, and what the worldwide implications of globalization are. . In “The Political Economy of Globalization”, Ngaire Woods describes the international economy by saying “economic openness, such as has been experienced over the past decade or so, should be conducive to an invigoration of multilateralism.” Woods says that multilateralism and openness depend on each other, as “multilateralism will be strengthening and deepening as more countries integrate into the world economy and more markets converge.” As more money is pumped into the global economy, more trade occurs, and thus global relations are taking a healthy stride forward, as relations will keep growing for the better. In the first post World War II decades (1945-1985), global economic expansion took place mostly in OECD countries. OECD stands for Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, and includes countries such as the United States, Canada, United Kingdom and Germany. In wake of the debt crisis, in the 1980’s with Mexico and other countries, “large numbers of developing countries began to liberalize their economies, dismantling trade barriers as well as domestic production subsidies.” As a result of opening their countries to trade and westernization, the developing countries saw large increases in the number of exports and imports, and more trade with OECD countries occurred. This led to more participants in the international trade market, creating new, important ties between states. Furthermore, “globalization at the end of the twentieth century involves an unprecedented degree of functional integration among otherwise internationally dismembered activities.” This is made possible by a rapid flow of capital, resulting from technological advances and changed policy in the industrialized countries. The rapid flow of capital has been directly linked to increased trade, because of the global economy. Governments have been aware of this increased capital flow, and “have turned their policies towards what they think is necessary to attract foreign capital.” Many state-owned companies became privatized; creating joint ventures in which the government extends directs influence over. In summary of Woods’ ideas, she describes economic globalization as “a transformation in the production, distribution and marketing of goods and services and an expansion of the international trade regime to include virtually all countries of the world economy.” Globalization will create a worldwide economy, in which non-industrialized states will have a say in the global economy, and both import and export numbers will increase significantly, creating more wealth, as well as creating long-term trade, which can be advanced by greater global cooperation. John Dumbrell looks at the political effects of globalization, and if it as a form of American imperialism in his book The Making of US Policy. Dumbrell writes, “The notion of Americanism includes optimism about human behavior and perfectibility, a pragmatic belief in the solubility of the world’s problems.” There also seems to be an idea of justice and liberty only being achieved if the right choices are made, and America always makes the right choices. This has had a direct effect on American foreign policy, as they have tried to stick to their idea of capitalism. Globalization has further portrayed “United States decision makes as responding to threats to the vital assets of the U.S. or taking advantage of the opportunities that the internal system gives U.S. leaders to increase the security of the nation by expanding its military strength or by making alliances.” America therefore has approached globalization with the continuing desire to be the world’s number one economic and political leader, and to take globalization to a new level with the spreading of capitalism worldwide. America had an alternative to the multilateralist New World Order, and this was to be the “globocop”. The role of the American globocop was to act as the worldwide policing body thus retaining “America’s political ability and will to act unilaterally, rather than through the United Nations or ad hoc international coalitions.” This was justified as America felt they needed to protect the interests of the world and themselves, thus creating a balanced world. Malcolm Waters, in his book titled Globalization, look how globalization affects the world from a cultural point of view. Cultural globalization has “four elements which establish cultural, social and phenomenal linkages.” These four elements are the individual self, the national society, the international system of society and humanity in general. “The individual self (1) is defined as a citizen of national society (2) by comparison with developments in other societies (3) and as an instance of humanity (4).” As well, the international system, will depend on the giving up of sovereignty by national societies, and then sets standards for individual behavior and “provides reality checks on human aspirations.” The individual self, is seen as a global person instead of a part of a local collectivity. National society is seen as the increase of international dependency; the international system of societies is the formation of a state that can only exist globally, and finally humanization is “the global establishment of the view that humanity cannot be differentiated by race, class, and gender.” The social processes of globalization consist of the four aforementioned elements, and globalization will have direct impact on these internal dynamics.
|
