Thoughts on the Evolution of Globalization and Development

Manwë was known for many things, but wisdom and power are two that lead the rest of his attributes. Join the Councils and discuss the more weighty matters of Tolkien Fandom.

Thoughts on the Evolution of Globalization and Development

Postby Bilbo25 » Sat Jan 20, 2018 9:21 pm

I. Introduction

In his 1955 treatise on the subject of international relations entitled The Study of International Relations; Philip Quincy Wright averred that “international relations” is a collective term under whose aegis a number of disparate fields are linked by virtue of their global attributes, (Wright, 1955, pp. 3-8). Among the fields of study, he argued fell under the umbrella of international relations included but, were not limited to the following: international cultural studies; international economics, finance and trade; international law; international politics, world geography, and world history id: (Wright, 1955, pp. 3, and 6). Wright asserted that before a discussion on international relations could commence that a question needed to be answered regarding the scope and the nature of the discipline. The Study of International Relations, is one of the first, and possibly even the first text to ask the following questions: First, ‘is the study of international relations confined only to the study of the interactions between nation states; and by extension does it follow that international relations also entails studying the various civilizations, cultures, groups, and societies that make up the various nation-states? Second, when taken together do these groups form a larger international community to whom the states are answerable. Third, do the processes underpinning the exchanges between the states and their various component parts with other nations allow for the dissemination of not only physical goods and services, but for theoretical exchanges as well that include but are not limited to the transfer of diverse sociocultural, socioeconomic, and sociopolitical theories and their underlying ideas, id: (Wright, 1955, p. 4)? For example, how does globalization or lack thereof affect the dissemination of sociopolitical and socioeconomic theories. Before proceeding to address the foregoing question about the relation between sociopolitical and socioeconomic development it seems prudent to address the appurtenant subject of globalization.


Section II: Globalization

Modern scholarship credits Reiser and Davies with the first known usage of the verb globalize and other derivatives in the text of their 1944 volume, Planetary Democracy: An Introduction to Scientific Humanism and Applied Semantics. Jan Aart Scholte noted in the various editions of Globalization: A Critical Introduction published 2000 and 2005 respectively; that (Reiser & Davies, 1944) defined globalization as a form of universalization through which the various cultures of the world could achieve a global citizenship similar to that advocated by Thomas More and Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus, id: (Scholte, 2005, p. 16) summarizing (Reiser & Davies, 1944).

Scholte argued in the opening chapters of his study on the subject of globalization that (Reiser & Davies, 1944) was the first of a multitude of definitions that have attempted to define the concept of globalization. The host of definitions he contended arose from the different focuses of the various commentators, (Scholte, 2005, pp. 15-17). For example, many credit Theodore Levitt’s “The Globalization of Markets” that appeared in the May-June 1983 issue of the Harvard Business Review with introducing the terms to the world at large. Levitt limited his treatment of globalization to those trends related to international corporate practices of various multinational corporations and global corporations, id: (Levitt, 1983).

When the questions posed by Quincy Wright are considered in light of Frank M. Russell’s 1936 work entitled Theories of International Relations, Nicholas John Spykman’s 1944 posthumous tome The Geography of Peace, and Reiser and Davies’ 1944 volume Planetary Democracy: An Introduction to Scientific Humanism and Applied Semantics, it could be argued that these works prefigured the development of the modern theories of complex interdependence and globalization. The resulting existence of an innumerable number of definitions for the words “globalize” and “globalization” tends to answer each of Wright’s questions in the affirmative.
Vidya S.A. Kumar’s 2003 article “A Critical Methodology of Globalization: Politics of the 21st Century?”, that appeared in the Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies during the summer of 2003 affirmed Scholte’s thoughts regarding the multiplicity of definitions, see: (Kumar, 2003, pp. 90-91). Kumar’s article examined definitions of globalization propounded within various social sciences specifically, she scrutinized definitions from the disciplines of sociology, economics, law, political science, and international relations. Her discussion of globalization within the legal realm is particularly noteworthy, because, as one of the exemplars of globalization she cited the definition developed by Anthony McGrew for the 1998 volume entitled Emerging Legal Certainty: Empirical Studies on the Globalization of Law.

[W]e can begin to conceive of globalization as a process which generates flows and connections, not simply across nation-states and national territorial boundaries, but between global regions, continents and civilizations. This invites a definition of globalization as: "an historical process which engenders a significant shift in the spatial reach of networks and systems of social relations to transcontinental or interregional patterns of human organization, activity and the exercise of power (Kumar, 2003, p. 98) citing (McGrew, Law and the new world order: Global legal interaction and contemporary patterns of globalization, 1998, p. 327)


McGrew’s definition cited by Kumar is important for two reasons. First, the definition provides a linkage between the fields of law and international relations. The definition articulated by McGrew in 1998 provided the foundation for the international relations volumes, the Global Transformations: Politics, Economics, and Culture; and its successor The Global Transformations Reader that McGrew co-authored, see: (Held & McGrew, The Global Transformations Reader: An Introduction to the Globalization Debate, 2003) and (Held, McGrew, Goldblatt, & Perraton, 1999). Second, the definition like those advanced by (Baylis, Smith, & Owens, The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations, 2014), (Keohane & Nye, 2011), and (Baylis & Smith, 1997) all view globalization as being indivisible from a state of interconnectedness and interdependence. Kumar citing the definition provided in the first edition of The Globalization of World Politics edited by John Baylis and Steve Smith affirmed the centrality of the notion of an intensification on a reduction in the state of interconnectedness and interdependence that exists between nation-states (Kumar, 2003, pp. 98-99) citing (Baylis & Smith, 1997, p. 7). Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye in their seminal text Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition first published in 1977 that is now in its fourth edition, argue that globalization and its opposite de-globalization are merely processes that either serve to strengthen or weaken the bonds between the nations, regions, civilizations and cultures of the world, id: (Keohane and Nye 2011, 225).

We define globalism as a state of the world involving networks of interdependence at multi-continental distances, linked through flows and influences of capital and goods, information and ideas, people and force, as well as environmentally and biologically relevant substances (such as acid rain or pathogens). Globalization and de-globalization refer to the increase or decline of globalism (Keohane and Nye 2011, 225).


Vidya S.A. Kumar emphasized that a proper understanding of globalization requires an understanding and acknowledgement the term may refer to both phenomena and the processes underpinning those occurrences, id: (Kumar, 2003, pp. 88-89). Held and McGrew’s 2003 volume, The Global Transformations Reader like its 1999 precursor identified eight dimensions affected by the processes of globalization and de-globalization, (Held, McGrew, Goldblatt, & Perraton, Rethinking Globalization, 2003, pp. 67-73), and (Held, McGrew, Goldblatt, & Perraton, 1999, pp. 16-27). These eight dimensions fall into two broad categories, the first category deals with the spatial and temporal attributes of the processes of globalization and de-globalization, id: ((Held, McGrew, Goldblatt, & Perraton, Rethinking Globalization, 2003, p. 69), and (Held, McGrew, Goldblatt, & Perraton, 1999, p. 17) The second category addresses the organizational characteristics of the various processes, id: (Held, McGrew, Goldblatt, & Perraton, Rethinking Globalization, 2003, p. 71), and (Held, McGrew, Goldblatt, & Perraton, 1999, p. 19).


Section III. Democracy and democratic political community development

(Held, McGrew, Goldblatt, & Perraton, 1999) argued that the diversity of transformations occurring as a result of contemporary globalization are unique in large measure because of their depth, scope and width across sociocultural, socioeconomic and sociopolitical arenas resulting in higher intensity interactions, over a more extensive series of networks than existed in previous long cycles, (McGrew, Models of Transnational Democracy, 2003) (Held, McGrew, Goldblatt, & Perraton, 1999, pp. 444-446) (Modelski, 1987). The structural nature of these transformations involve by their very nature a series of evolutionary processes governing the development of political spaces and political communities in such a way that they are able to address both the internationalization of previously regional concerns; and the politicization of subjects that have heretofore have been excluded from the political realm, id: (Held, McGrew, Goldblatt, & Perraton, 1999, pp. 77 and 444-446). The area experiencing the greatest revolution involves the political community and alterations to the political power structures brought about through the development of the concept of the “democratic political community and novel forms of political agency. In his 1993 volume The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late 20th Century
Samuel Phipps Huntington argued that modern processes of democratization and de-democratization have occurred in a series of Kondratiev like waves within a series of three cycles of varying lengths that have their origins in the American and French Revolutions of the eighteenth century. Huntington placed the beginning of the first wave of democratization at beginning of the Jacksonian period in the United States of America id est about 1828, see: (Huntington, 1991, p. 16). Arend Lijphart extended Huntington’s thesis about the Third Wave of democratization arguing that the new millennium witnessed conclusion of the Third Wave as defined by Huntington, and the transition into the Reverse Third Wave projected by Huntington in 1991, id: (Lijphart, 2000, pp. 265-266).
Anthony McGrew averred that the contemporary processes of democratization that characterize the third wave have stimulated the development of four models of transnational democracy capable of regulating and governing globalization and de-globalization processes. He described the four models as Liberal-internationalism, Radical – democratic pluralism, Cosmopolitan democracy, and Deliberative (discursive) democracy respectively, (McGrew, Models of Transnational Democracy, 2003, pp. 500-506). Each of these forms of democratic political community possesses a distinct set of attributes that can be modified to suit a given situation,
The flexibility present in McGrew's four models are necessary because, as with other attributes of globalization the dissemination of democracy occurs unevenly. The literature related to the spread of democracy as it relates to globalization is replete with examples that support the tendency of globalization and democracy to occur and develop disproportionately. Charles Tilly asserted that the disproportionate diffusion of democracy resulting from globalization is the result of durable categorical inequalities inherent in globalization process.

Durable categorical inequality refers to organized differences in advantages by gender, race, nationality, ethnicity, religion, community, and similar classification systems. It occurs when transactions across a categorical boundary (e.g., male-female) (a) regularly yield net advantages to people on one side of the boundary and also (b) reproduce the boundary (Tilly, 2003, p. 37), see also: (Tilly, Relational Studies of Inequality, 2000).


Tilly maintained that the proper analysis of the levels of inequality engendered by globalization required a detailed examination of five characteristics: One, scope of governmental authority; Two, the extent of citizen participation in politics and government; Three, equality of access to government; Four, the extent to which citizens influence and control government action; Five, the ability of governments to protect their constituencies, partisans and general populace (Tilly, 2003, pp. 38-41).
In his article entitled “Global Linkages, Vulnerable Economies, and the Outbreak of Conflict” Valpy FitzGerald reasoned that leaving the durable inequalities described by Tilly leave the economies of globalizing nations particularly vulnerable to negative economic forces, id: (FitzGerald, 1999, pp. 58-61). Furthermore, Lijphart’s analysis demonstrates the inequalities and conflicts noted by both FitzGerald and Tilly can be exacerbated when a developing nation that is ethnically diverse attempts to institute a presidential form of government based upon a majoritarian foundation instead of a parliamentary form with proportional representation as its basis see: (Lijphart, 2000, pp. 267-270). Unchecked durable inequalities and socioeconomic instability can result in the de-democratization and deglobalization of civilizations, societies, and nation-states (Tilly, Inequality, Democratization, and De-Democratization, 2003, pp. 41-43) and FitzGerald, 1999, p. 61); while simultaneously giving rise to intractable conflicts. Chester Crocker and his colleagues defined an intractable conflict; as one that has resisted settlement over a prolonged period of time (Crocker, Hampson, & Aall, 2005, pp. 4-5).

Section IV. The Effect of Geography on Globalization and Democracy and Democratic Political Community Development

Ricardo Hausmann implied in “Prisoners of Geography” that globalization, the diffusion of democracy and the development of democratic political community are constrained or accelerated by the geographical, topographical, and climatological features of the various nations, id: (Hausmann, 2001, pp. 46-51). Hausmann’s thesis is neither new, nor is it novel Nicholas John Spykman demonstrated how geographic and topographic considerations affect the political outlook, foreign policies and policy objectives of nation-states. In “Geography and Foreign Policy, I” published in February of 1938, Spykman asserted that importance of geography and topography derive from the fact that these physical characteristics condition particularly relative size, world location, and the topographical characteristics inform policy considerations, id: (Spykman, Geography and Foreign Policy, I, 1938, pp. 29-31), and (Spykman & Nicholl, The Geography of Peace, 1944, p. 22). Subsequently, in “Geography and Foreign Policy, II” published the following June 1938, Spykman maintained that a nation-state’s locational attributes are not unidimensional because, the policies and practices of nations are informed not only by their relative location on the world map; but, also by the geographic region in which a nation is situated. and the topographic elements inform policy considerations because, they affect the durability of the infrastructure and the extension of networks (Spykman, Geography and Foreign Policy, II, 1938, p. 213). In the second part of the series Spykman argued that smaller nation-states, regions, and provinces that abut a national border tend to be more cognizant of changes across the borders than do national governments with capitals far removed from their borders. In the body of the article Spykman offered a number examples across the globe that but were not limited to Belgium, Bolivia, Manchuria, and Puerto Rico, id: (Spykman, Geography and Foreign Policy, II, 1938, pp. 214-216).

The man who once formulated the foreign policy of Manchuria had to do so with one eye on Japan and the other on Russia; every international gesture of Belgium is conditioned by the fact that she lies between France and Germany and across the Channel from Great Britain… (Spykman, Geography and Foreign Policy, II, 1938, p. 213).


John Spykman and Abbie Rollins approached such transfers from a sociopolitical perspective in their two-part article from the summer of 1939 entitled “Geographic Objectives in Foreign Policy, I” and “Geographic Objectives in Foreign Policy, II” respectively. Spykman and Rollins contended that the expansion and contraction of boundaries and frontiers tend to occur where such changes will result in the minimum of damage, id: (Spykman & Rollins, Geographic Objectives in Foreign Policy, I, 1939, p. 392). The same holds true for maritime and riverine borders as well, id: (Spykman & Rollins, Geographic Objectives in Foreign Policy, II, 1939).
If the processes of globalization, the dissemination of democracy and the development of democratic political community are bound by geographic, topographic, and climatic conditions present in the various nation states; can these factors help to explain why, landlocked nations like Bolivia, Mali, Paraguay, and Uzbekistan are slower to develop democratic institutions

Section V. Case Study and Concluding Remarks

Arend Lijphart in his article entitled “The Future of Democracy: Reasons for Pessimism, but Also Some Optimism” discussed the Bolivian experiment with presidential democracy providing a concise summary of the unique hybrid that is the Bolivian system of government that blends elements of parliamentary and presidential forms of democracy, id: (Lijphart, 2000, p. 271). He concurs with the assessments of both R.A. Mayorga and J.J. Linz that the Bolivian system of democracy is fundamentally “parliamentarized presidentialism” see: (Lijphart, 2000, pp. 271-272). The long term sustainability of Bolivian democracy and its democratic community requires the acquisition of a port on the Pacific coast as vehicle to develop greater stability in the spatio-temporal dimensions of its efforts to engage other nations. Enhancing the connections and network extensions Bolivia possesses on the regional and global levels will allow for the country to focus on strengthening the organizational dimensions particularly fostering and nurturing improvements to the infrastructure and distributional processes. The enrichment of the eight dimensions of Globalization articulated by (Held, McGrew, Goldblatt, & Perraton, Rethinking Globalization, 2003) and (Held, McGrew, Goldblatt, & Perraton, Global Transformations: Politics, Economics, and Culture, 1999) will fortify the democratic systems Bolivian democracy and its democratic community by facilitating exchanges of political culture with other democratic nations that have older and more established democracies.

References
Baylis, J., & Smith, S. (1997). Introduction. In J. Baylis, & S. Smith, The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations (First ed., Vol. One, p. 700). New York City, New York, USA: Oxford University Press.

Baylis, J., Smith, S., & Owens, P. (2014). Introduction. In J. Baylis, S. Smith, & P. Owens, The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations (p. 648). New York City, New York, USA: Oxford University Press.

Crocker, C. A., Hampson, F. O., & Aall, P. (2005). Introduction: Mapping the Nettle Field. In C. A. Crocker, F. O. Hampson, & P. Aall (Eds.), Grasping the Nettle: Analyzing Cases of Intractable Conflict (First Edition ed., Vol. One). Washington, DC, USA: United States Institute of Peace.

FitzGerald, V. (1999, September). Global Linkages, Vulnerable Economies, and the Outbreak of Conflict. Development, 42(3), 57-64. Retrieved April 16, 2014, from http://www.palgrave-journals.com/develo ... 10061a.pdf

Hausmann, R. (2001, January-February). Prisoners of Geography. Foreign Policy(122), 44-53.

Held, D., McGrew, A., Goldblatt, D., & Perraton, J. (1999). Global Transformations: Politics, Economics, and Culture (First Edition ed., Vol. One). Redwood City, California, United States of America: Stanford UP.

Held, D., McGrew, A., Goldblatt, D., & Perraton, J. (2003). Rethinking Globalization. In D. Held, A. McGrew, D. Held, & A. McGrew (Eds.), The Global Transformations Reader: An Introduction to the Globalization Debate (Second ed., Vol. One, p. 624). Malden, Massachusetts, USA: Polity.

Huntington, S. P. (1991). The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late 20th Century (First ed., Vol. One). Norman, Oklahoma, USA: University of Oklahoma Press.

Keohane, R. O., & Nye, J. S. (2011). Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition (Fourth Edition ed., Vol. One). New York City, New York, United States of America: Longman-Green.

Kumar, V. S. (2003, Summer). A Critical Methodology of Globalization: Politics of the 21st Century? Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 10(2), 87-111. Retrieved May 5, 2014, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2979/GLS.2003.10.2.87

Levitt, T. (1983, May-June). The Globalization of Markets. Harvard Business Review, 92-102. Retrieved October 28, 2016, from https://hbr.org/1983/05/the-globalization-of-markets

Lijphart, A. (2000). The Future of Democracy: Reasons for Pessimism, but Also Some Optimism. Scandinavian Political Studies, Bind 23 (New Series)(3), 267-273. Retrieved November 11, 2016, from https://tidsskrift.dk/index.php/scandin ... 3420/25585

McGrew, A. (1998). Law and the new world order: Global legal interaction and contemporary patterns of globalization. In V. Gessner, & A. C. Budak, Emerging Legal Certainty: Empirical Studies on the Globalization of Law (First ed., Vol. One, p. 456). New York City, New York, USA: Ashgate.

McGrew, A. (2003). Models of Transnational Democracy. In D. Held, A. McGrew, D. Held, & A. McGrew (Eds.), The Global Transformations Reader: An Introduction to the Globalization Debate (Second ed., Vol. One). Malden, Massachusetts, USA: Polity.

Modelski, G. (1987). Long Cycles in World Politics (First ed., Vol. One). Seattle, Washington, USA: University of Washington Press.

Reiser, O. L., & Davies, B. (1944). Planetary Democracy: An Introduction to Scientific Humanism and Applied Semantics (First Edition ed., Vol. One). New York City, New York, USA: Creative Age Press.

Scholte, J. A. (2005). Globalization: A Critical Introduction (Second ed., Vol. One ). New York City , New York, USA: Palgrave Macmillan.

Spykman, N. J. (1938, February). Geography and Foreign Policy, I. The American Political Science Review, 32(1), 28-50. Retrieved October 20, 2016, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1949029

Spykman, N. J. (1938, April). Geography and Foreign Policy, II. The American Political Science Review, 32(2), 213-236. Retrieved October 20, 2016, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1948667

Spykman, N. J., & Nicholl, H. R. (1944). The Geography of Peace (First ed., Vol. One). New York City, New York, USA: Harcourt-Brace. Retrieved October 23, 2016, from https://www.questia.com/library/55865/t ... -the-peace

Spykman, N. J., & Rollins, A. A. (1939, June). Geographic Objectives in Foreign Policy, I. American Political Science Review, 33(3), 391-410. Retrieved October 24, 2016, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1948794

Spykman, N. J., & Rollins, A. A. (1939, August). Geographic Objectives in Foreign Policy, II. American Political Science Review, 33(4), 591-614. Retrieved October 24, 2016, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1949493

Tilly, C. (2000, November). Relational Studies of Inequality. Contemporary Sociology, 29(6), 782-785. Retrieved November 3, 2016, from www.jstor.org/stable/2654085

Tilly, C. (2003, March). Inequality, Democratization, and De-Democratization. Sociological Theory, 21(1), 37-43. Retrieved November 6, 2016, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3108607

Wright, P. Q. (1955). The Study of international Relations (First ed., Vol. One). New York City, New York, USA: Appleton, Century and Crofts.
User avatar
Bilbo25
Ranger of the North


 
Posts: 4931
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2001 8:44 pm
Top

Return to Philosophy: Councils of Manwë

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron