Defining the concept of globalization is very controversial and much disputed among economists, sociologists and political observers. There is no single concept of globalization, and commentators are unable to agree on the empirical evidence for its extent. These divisions are, however, considerably less acrimonious that the essentially normative or ideological confrontations that surround the idea (Ian Clark 1997, 35). A vibrant debate on these issues has developed in which it is possible to distinguish three broad schools of thought, which we will refer to as the hyperglobalizers, the sceptics, and the transformationalists (David Held 1999, 257). The aim of this paper is not to analyze the position of each of these schools but to stress the fact that there is a fundamental disagreement about what globalization is and about whether it is actually taking place at all, because the term is often used vaguely and inconsistently and in a very general way, and consequently is very imprecise (Ian Clark 1997, 20; John Baylis and Steve Smith 2001, 14; Eleonore Kofmanand, Gilian Youngs 2003, 3; David Held et all 2000, 2). The concept of globalization is recent. It comes from obscure origins American and French writings in the 1960s, and finds expression today in all the world's major languages (David Held et all. 2000, 1).
[...] We can say that globalization is basically an economic process with consequences for political, social, cultural spheres (Theodore H. Cohn 2000, 10). II) An attempt at defining the concept of globalization According to David Held et all. (2000, 15) globalization implies a stretching of social, political and economic activities across frontiers, such that events, decisions and activities in one region of the world can come to have significance for individuals and communities in distant regions of the globe. In this sense, it embodies transregional interconnectedness, the widening reach of networks of social activity and power, and the possibility of action at a distance (David Held et all 15). [...]
[...] Considerably more work will need to be done to determine what exactly “globalization” means, because currently we have a variety of definitions with no agreement as to which one is the most pertinent. Taking everything into account, the definition proposed by David Held et all. (1999, 103) seems to me to be the most useful one: “Globalization means a world society without a world state and without world government [ [Therefore] there is no hegemonic power and no international regime, either economic or political”. [...]
[...] Global transformations : politics, economics and culture. Cambridge: Polity. Held, David et all The Global transformations reader : an introduction to the globalization debate. Cambridge: Polity Press. Kanter, Rosabeth Moss World Class. New York: Simon&Schuster. Kofman, Eleonore and Youngs, Gillian Globalization: theory and practice. London : Continuum. Langhorne, Richard The Coming of Globalization: Its Evolution and Contemporary Consequences. Basingstoke : Longman. Martin and [...]
[...] Conclusion My original question was: should we define globalization?” My discussion has demonstrated just how controversial and uncertain the concept is, and I have argued against the supposition of John Baylis and Steve Smith (2001, 14) globalization is synonymous with internationalization because this term includes an intensification of cross- border interactions and interdependence between countries. In fact globalization, as the term itself inflicts, is a global phenomenon which can extend across the world at the same time and can move between places in no time (John Baylis and Steve Smith 2001, 15). [...]
[...] how should we define globalization? Many concepts seem to involve the concept of globalization, such as transnationalization, supranationalization or internationalization. As part of my essay, I advance the hypothesis that globalization could be synonymous with internationalization, because these two terms have various features in common. According to the definition provided by John Baylis and Steve Smith (2001, globalization could be understood as an intensification of cross-border interactions and interdependence between countries. This paper will explore the validity of this claim. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
