Jan Aart Scholte, Globalization - A Critical Introduction (2000)

• BA in International Relations from Pomona College (USA); MA and DPhil in

International Relations from the University of Sussex.
• Professor in the Department of Politics and International Studies at Warwick
University, where he also serves as Acting Director of the Centre for the Study
of Globalisation and Regionalisation.
• Taught at the University of Sussex, Brighton and the Institute of Social
Studies, The Hague.
• Main publications: Globalization: A Critical Introduction (Palgrave, 2000;
2nd Edition Forthcoming in 2005); International Relations of Social Change
(Open University Press, 1993); Contesting Global Governance (Cambridge
University Press, 2000), Civil Society and Global Finance (Routledge, 2002).
• Forthcoming: Civil Society and Global Democracy (Polity Press, 2005); and
Encyclopedia of Globalization (co-edited with Roland Robertson, Routledge,
2006).
 Basic Conclusions
“Little consensus exists on the subject in respect of definitions, evidence,
explanations, implications, value judgment and prescriptions.” (2)

Chapters 1-4: General Definition / Chronology / Causal Dynamics

• Globalization is a transformation of social geography marked by the growth of

supraterritorial spaces. However, globalization does not entail the end of
territorial geography. Territoriality and supraterritoriality coexist. (8)
• Although globalization has made “earlier” appearances, the trend has unfolded
strongly since 1960s. However, it does not need to go on indefinitely and could
possibly reverse. (8)
• Globalization is an uneven trend, occurring mainly among propertied
professional classes in the North, in city areas, and among the young. (8)
• Globalization is driven chiefly by rationalist knowledge, capitalist production,
various technological innovations, and certain regulatory measures. (8)
Competing Definitions: What exactly is “globalization?”

• Globalization = Internationalization (enhanced cross-border relations) (15)

Redundant; State interaction = century old process
• Globalization = Liberalization (enhanced trade across the world) (15)
Redundant; Free trade = century old process
• Globalization = Universalization (emergence of global culture) (16)
Redundant; Spread of culture = millennia old process
• Globalization = Westernization (spread of Western control) (16)
Redundant; Imperialism/modernization = age old process

• Globalization = Deterritorialization (spread of supraterritoriality; social space

is no longer mapped in terms of territorial places, territorial distances and
territorial borders - 16; increasing number of ‘global’ activities - 55)
“Only the last notion gives ‘globalization’ a new and distinctive meaning - and
… identifies an important contemporary historical development.” (3)
Has ‘globalization’ brought continuity or change?
• Change in Production?
Yes: “knowledge society”; new means of
communication/transportation/data processing (20)

No: agriculture, manufacturing remain central; capitalism continues (21)

• Change in Governance?
Yes: Loss of sovereignty on state level; possible elimination
No: Sovereignty on state level remains strong
Maybe: Expansion of politics into substate (municipal/provincial) and
suprastate (regional/global) realms; new multilateralism (IOs, global
firms, global civil society) (22)

• Change in Culture?
Yes: ‘cultural synchronization’
No: increased cultural diversity, possible clashes of civilization (23)
“Globalization’: Liberation or shackles?
• Liberation?
Yes: globalization = emancipatory force; win-win (25)
No: globalizatgion = global apartheid; undermines security, equity, democracy
(25)
• Less ‘human’ security?
Yes: neo-liberal forces undermine economical, ecological security; spread of
intolerance and fundamentalism; cultural imperialism destroys traditional
identities; unsettling of any and all truth leads to relativism (28-29)
No: “End of History” prepares ground for “perpetual peace” (29)
• Less equity (social justice)?
Yes: neo-liberal forces deepen social hierarchies (intra- and interstate) (29)
No: raising all boats (Friedman); promote notion of equality (30-31)
• Less democracy?
Yes: Elites hold control; democratic governance on global level is
impossible (32)
No: technology helps democratization; people are empowered
(Friedman) (31) [e-parliament; UN parliament initiative]
Three (economic) perspectives of globalization

1. Neoliberal perspective: The world is best served by FREE

MARKETS. Government intervention is NOT permitted. (34)

2. “Reformist” (Keynesian) perspective: Markets are good.

However, they are not perfect. Government MUST intervene to
CORRECT MARKET FAILURES. (New Deal; welfare state) (36)

3. “Radical” perspective: Markets are NOT good. Local not global.

Small not big (Arundhati Roy).
Three historic phases of globalization (“global consciousness”)

1. 1600s: Emergence of ‘global imagination’ - world religions;

scientific revolution; Enlightenment; humanism; capitalism (63-65)

2. 1850s - 1950s: Incipient globalization - telegraph, telephone,

radio, television; cars; aircrafts; global products; early global
banking; proliferation of IOs (65-74)

3. 1960s - today: Full-scale globalization - global markets; global

production; global banking; global corporations; global challenges;
global tourism; world wide web (74-86)
Four main ‘causes’ of globalization

1. Rationalism: (93ff)
- secular global consciousness
- anthropocentric view of world as home of human species
- belief in scientific “universal” truths
- pursuit of efficiency
2. Capitalism: (95ff)
- global markets, goods, production, banking

3. Technological Innovation: (99ff)

- air, electronic, digital; ecological change caused by technology
4. Regulation: (101ff)
- standardization
- liberalization
- property rights
- international law
Part II: Implications of Globalization

“In sum, globalization has bee a powerful force of social

change, but the changes to date have not been epochal. The
contemporary globalizing world remains capitalist, bureaucratic,
communitarian and rationalist … .” (110)

⇒Analysis of current social order by means of focusing on

• structure of production (Ch. 5) - capitalist
• structure of governance (Ch. 6) - bureaucratic
• structure of communities (Ch. 7) - communitarian
• structure of knowledge (Ch. 8) - rationalist
Agent-structure debate (91)

Core question:
What causes social change? Is it agent driven OR is it a result of
social structures?
⇒ Methodological individualism: The aims and decisions of
individual actors shape the social structures.
⇒ Methodological structuralism: The organizing principles of
social relations (eg, patriarchy, nationalism, rationalism,
capitalism etc.) shape the social structures.
⇒ Structuration argument: Both agent choices and structural
dispositions shape the social structures.
“The account of globalization developed in this book
is a structuration argument.” (92)
How has ‘globalization” affected the modes of production?

From Ch. 4 (Causes of Globalization):

“Capitalism has spurred globalization in four principle ways.”
• global markets (economy of scales)
• global accounting (tax advantages)
• global sourcing (highest productivity at lowest costs)
• global mobility (move where conditions are in your favor)

=> “globalization has offered capitalists a way to counter the

strategies of socialism and economic statism that rose in
much of the South during the mid-twentieth century.” (98)
How has ‘globalization” affected the modes of production? (cont’d)

Findings of Ch. 5: Globalization has

• substantially strengthened the position of capitalism as the prevailing
structure of production
• facilitated the extension of surplus accumulation to consumer, finance,
information and communications sectors
=> Consumerism! Stock market frenzy! Trade in hard-, software, servicing
and content (e.g., Lawtank)
• encouraged major shifts in the organization of capitalism, including
- rise of offshore centers (China, India, etc.)
- rise of transborder companies (Bertelsmann, Nestle, etc. - cartels!?)
- rise of corporate mergers & acquisitions (hotels, banks, phone companies)
- rise of economic oligopolies (Microsoft, media, cement, cars)
How has ‘globalization” affected the structure of governance?
Findings of Ch. 6: Globalization has
• led to emergence of ‘post-sovereign’ governance
⇒ new non-statist forms of governance; however, States remains “crucial to
governance;” governance remains “deeply bureaucratic” (132)
⇒ “end of sovereignty” (135)
⇒ decline of ‘welfare state’; less redistribution of wealth (140)
⇒ less inter-state wars (McDonald’s effect?); more intra-state wars (142)
• spurred several shifts in the main attributes of ‘States’
⇒ transborder cooperation & constituencies (e.g., environment) (138)
• promoted moves toward multilayered governance
⇒ regionalization - EU, NAFTA, APEC, etc. (anti-globalization?); transworld
(multilateral) governance - WTO, IMF, etc. (148)
⇒ proliferation of international legal instruments (150)
• encouraged some privatization of governance
=> NGO involvement in policy formulation & execution (accountability?) (152)
How has ‘globalization” affected the structure of community?
Findings of Ch. 7: Globalization has
• loosened some links between nations and states
⇒ no end of “the national project”, but diversification of nationhood (ethno-
nations, region-nations, transworld nations) (160)
⇒ [complication]
• helped develop nonterritorial communities (class, gender, race, religion etc.)
⇒ feminist, pacifist, liberal (!), socialist, black, ecologist, gay&lesbian etc.
⇒ [complication]
• encouraged the rise in cosmopolitan bonds (vision of single global community)
⇒ ‘global village’; ‘think globally, act locally’; ‘global solidarity’ etc.
⇒ [completion; see also O’Neill’s “cosmopolitan justice”]
• increased ‘hybridity’ in many personal identities
⇒‘identity surfing’ (181); “lost souls”? (161)
⇒ “significant challenges for the construction of community?” (181)
How has ‘globalization” affected the structure of knowledge?
Findings of Ch. 8: Globalization has
• not weakened [but strengthened?] the hold of rationalism as dominant
theory of knowledge
⇒ rationalism (ie, secularism, anthropocentrism, scientism, instrumentalism)
remains dominant, but there’s more reflexive (ie., self-critical) rationalism
• given rise to some anti-rationalist knowledges (religious revivalism,
ecocentrism, postmodernism = not objective but context bound/relativist knowledge)
⇒ defensive reaction; search for identity (Huntington); minority tendency (189)
⇒ eco- vs. anthropocentrism (Norgaard!); Gaia concept (Midgley) (190)
• promoted some shifts in ontology, methodology and aesthetics
⇒greater appreciation of limitations, dangers of rationalism (185; Norgaard)
⇒ new notions of space - post-territorial, global; time - fast & busy! (Ontology)
⇒ new need for interdisciplinary modes of inquiry (while disciplinary tribalism
continues), visualization, global language (English) (Methodology)
⇒ global aesthetics (commodification?!); greater hybridization; new art forms.
 Summary of social change through globalization?

“…we have found important shifts: in production, in governance, in

community and in knowledge. To this extent contemporary
globalization has certainly not marked ‘the end of history’. On the
other hand, we have also found underlying continuities: of capitalism,
of bureaucratism, of communitarianism and of rationalism. A more
global world could in principle bring deeper structural transformations
in these areas; however, forces in the (thus far) predominantely
neoliberal course of contemporary globalization have favoured the pre-
existent social order.” (203)
Part III: Policy Issues (ie., Costs and Benefits of Globalization)

Ch. 9: Globalization and (In)security

Ch. 10: Globalization and (In)justice
Ch. 11: Globalization and (Un)democracy

Overall conclusions:
1. “In each case contemporary globalization is found to have
yielded both positive and negative outcomes. … this book
places greatest emphasis on the downsides, particularly as they
are largely avoidable. In other words, the harms have resulted
not from supraterritoriality as such, but from the policies that we
have adopted towards it.” (206)
2. “A host of reformist measures … could make our globalizing
world a happier place.” (206)
Globalization and (In)security? (232)

Issue Positive Change Negative Change

Peace Less interstate war; More destructive power; global
possibility of arms control reach; more intra-state conflict
Nat. Environment Greater ecolog. awareness; Heavy pollution; downward
technology exists pressure on conservation; fear
Subsistence Rapid growth for some Increased poverty, little progress
overall
Financial Stability Lots of capital available Volatility and crises hurt many
Employment Lots of new jobs Lots of job losses
Working Condition Some improvements Undermining of social contract;
not enough workers’ rights
Identity Multiple possibilities Loss of tradition and self
Social Cohesion New transworld solidarity, Loss of locality; little business
less state control responsibility; exclusionary club
Knowledge Fundamentalism?? Fundamentalism; insecurity
Globalization and (In)justice? (234)

• Globalization has had significant effects on various types of

social stratification, including with respect to class, country,
gender, race, urban/rural, and age. (234)

• Although contemporary globalization has helped to narrow

social hierarchies in certain respects, on the whole it has tended
to widen gaps in life chances. (234)

• These injustices are not inherent to globalization, but have

mainly flowed from neoliberal approaches to the new
geography. (234)

“The challenge …is to formulate and implement

workable alternatives [to neoliberalism].” (259)
Globalization and (Un)democracy? (261)

• Globalization has undermined conventional liberal democracy with

its focus on national self-determination through a territorial state. (261)

• Devolution of power to substate agencies has potential (but not

necessary) democratizing effects. (261)

• Suprastate regimes have developed substantial democratic deficits.

(261)

• Nonofficial supraterritorial channels (global markets,

communications, and civil society) have sometimes enhanced, but
often undermined democracy. (261)

“The future requires not a reversal of globalization, but a concerted

search for new concepts and practices that can make democracy
work iin post-territorialist, post-sovereign politics.” (282)
 Ch. 12: Human Global Futures
“… changes in policy approaches (in particular away from
neoliberalism) could produce greater security, equity and
democracy.” (283)
“…the approach promoted here can suitably be characterized as
ambitiously or thickly reformist.” (286)
- major manipulations/restrictions of market dynamics
(toward a veritable global social-democracy)
- push for several reforms of globalization (eg, abolition of
offshore finance centers)
- call for increased opportunities for the development of
alternatives to established social structures

“against neoliberalism” ; “against radicalism” (286/7)

Toward the ‘end of history’? (ie, Scholte’s reform agenda)

1. Enhancing human security Enhancing FREEDOM and

EQUALITY?
2. Enhancing social equity
=> Idealism? Progress-
3. Enhancing democracy
orientation?

YES!

“Admittedly this chapter has provided only a sketch of more

progressive politics of globalization. …further political calculation
…is needed to determine the most effective ways of overcoming
resistance against and building momentum for a programme of
ambitious reform of globalization.” (312)
Toward the ‘end of history’? (ie, Scholte’s reform agenda)

1. Enhancing human security (283)

• improve global regime for arms control (CTBT, NWC)

• upgrade suprastate mechanisms for conflict management (peacekeeping)
• enhance global environmental codes, laws, institutions (World
Environmental Organization, global codes of conduct, recycling, green life)
• economic restructuration w/emphasis on education, employment, health,
shelter (more grassroots ownership; int’l organization provide safety nets)
• dept relief for poor countries, more social spending
• public-sector regulation of global financial markets
• increase public policies aimed at job creation (global public works projects)
• intensify suprastate promotion of better labor standards (ILO)
• protect cultural diversity through “interculturalism”
• enhance social cohesion through trilateral partnerships (public, private, civil)
Toward the ‘end of history’? (ie, Scholte’s reform agenda)

2. Enhancing social justice (297)

• counter monopoly tendencies in global capitalism (rules, anti-monopoly court)

• global taxation (Tobin tax; supraterritorial corporate taxation; bit tax; patent tax
• abolition of offshore finance centers (Liechtenstein, Monaco, Cayman Islands)
• North-South redistribution through global economic regimes (IMF, WTO, WB)
• gender-sensitive governance (enforcement through CEDAW)
• more women leaders in business, civil society and government
• greater attention to equal representation of race, religion, age, sexual
orientation, rural population, etc.
Toward the ‘end of history’? (ie, Scholte’s reform agenda)

3. Enhancing democracy (302)

• increase local government involvement in global policies (decentralization,

subsidiarity)
• enhance popular input in regard to global policies (referenda, UN parliament)
• enhance representation of nonterritorial constituencies (UN Civic Assembly)
• enhance democratic scrutiny of suprastate organizations
• enhance transparency of suprastate governance
• more independent policy evaluations at the suprastate level (reports)
• enhance civil society input (as long as it’s coming from democratic,
accountable bodies)
Toward the ‘end of history’? (ie, Scholte’s reform agenda)

4. Implementation Challenges

• convince the rich and powerful that neoliberalism isn’t good for the world
• convince nat’l governments that sovereignty thinking isn’t good for the world
• build up the institutional capacities to implement the changes proposed in 1-3
• educate the people about the importance of the changes proposed in 1-3
• maintain respect for cultural diversity

“I hope that this book will, while clarifying globalization

intellectually, also be part of that process of building
constituencies for more humane globalization.” (317)