¡Descarga Globalization: Hyperglobalist and Transformationalist Perspectives y más Apuntes en PDF de Historia del Derecho Español solo en Docsity! Globalization may be thought of initially as the widening, deepening and speeding up of worldwide interconnectedness in aH aspects of contemporary social life, from the cultural to the criminal, the financial to the spiritual. But beyond a general acknowledgement of a real or perceived intensification of global interconnectedness there is substantial disagreement as to how globalization is best conceptualized, how one should think about its causal dynamics, and how one should characterize its structural consequences, if any. It is possible to distinguish three broad schools of thought. Interestingly, none of these three schools map directly on to traditional ideological positions or worldviews. Moreover, none of the great traditions of social enquiry -liberal, conservative and Marxist -has an agreed perspective on globalization as a socio-economic phenomenon. The hyperglobalist thesis • Ohmae • globalization defines a new epoch of human history in which 'traditional nation-states have become unnatural, even impossible business units in a global economy' • Hyperglobalizers argue that economic globalization is bringing about a 'denationalization' of economies through the establishment of transnational networks of production, trade and finance. • In this 'borderless' economy, national governments are relegated to little more than transmission belts for global capital or, ultimately, simple intermediate institutions sandwiched between increasingly powerfullocal, regional and global mechanisms of governance. • '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 belong ... the declining authority of states is reflected in a growing diffusion of authority to other institutions and associations, and to local and regional bodies' • economic globalization is constructing new forms of social organization that are supplanting, or that will eventually supplant, traditional nation-states as the primary economic and political units of world society. • considerable normative divergence between, on the one hand, the neoliberals who welcome the triumph of individual autonomy and the market principie over state power, and the radicals or neo-Marxists for whom contemporary globalization represents the triumph of an oppressive global capitalism • But despite divergent ideological convictions, there exists a shared set of beliefs that globalization is primarily an economic phenomenon; that an increasingly integrated global economy exists today; that the needs of global capital impose a neoliberal economic discipline on aH governments such that politics is no longer the 'art of the possible' but rather the practice of 'sound economic management'. • the hyperglobalizers claim that economic globalization is generating a new pattern of winners as weH as losers in the global economy. • The old North-South division is argued to be an increasing anachronism as a new global division of labour replaces the traditional core-periphery structure with a more complex architecture of economic power. • Against this background, governments have to 'manage' the social consequences of globalization, or those who 'having been left behind, want not so much a chance to move forward as to hold others back' .they also have to manage increasingly in a context in which the constraints of global financial and competitive disciplines make social democratic models of social protection untenable and speH the demise of associated welfare state policies • Globalization may be linked with a growing polarization between winners and losers in the global economy. But this need not be so, for, at least in the neoliberal view, global economic competition does not necessarily produce zero-sum outcomes. • Neo-Marxists and radicals regard such an 'optimistic view' as unjustified, believing that global capitalism creates and reinforces structural patterns of inequality within and between countries. But they agree at least with their neoliberal counterparts that traditional welfare options for social protection are looking increasingly threadbare and difficult to sustain. • For those who are currently marginalized, the worldwide diffusion of a consumerist ideology also imposes a new sense of identity, displacing traditional cultures and ways of life. The global spread of liberal democracy further reinforces the sense of an emerging global civilization defined by universal standards of economic and political organization. This 'global civilization' is also replete with its own mechanisms of global governance, whether it be the IMF or the disciplines of the world market, such that states and peoples are increasingly the subjects of new public and private global or regional authorities • Accordingly, for many neoliberals, globalization is considered as the harbinger of the first truly global civilization, while for many radicals it represents the first global 'market civilization' • the rise of the global economy, the emergence of institutions of global governance, and the global diffusion and hybridization of cultures are interpreted as evidence of a radicaHy new world order, an order which prefigures the demise of the nation-state • the authority and legitimacy of the nation-state are chaHenged: national governments become increasingly unable either to control what transpires within their own borders or to fulfil by themselves the demands of their own citizens. as institutions of global and regional governance acquire a bigger role, the sovereignty and autonomy of the state are further eroded. • there is evidence of an emerging 'global civil society'. • the hyperglobalist thesis represents globalization as embodying nothing less than the fundamental reconfiguration of the 'framework of human action' The sceptical thesis • conomic interdependence are by no means historically unprecedented • Rather than globalization, which to the sceptics necessarily implies a perfectly integrated worldwide economy in which the 'law of one price' prevails, the historical evidence at best confirms only heightened levels of internationalization, that is, interactions between predominantly national economies • In arguing that globalization is a myth, the sceptics rely on a wholly economistic conception of globalization, equating it primarily with a perfectly integrated global market. • . By contending that levels of economic integration fall short of this 'ideal type' and that such integration as there is
