Since
the end of twentieth century the term of ‘global’ started to use so much in
many activities including cultural, economic and political. Global politics,
global culture, global economy and so on. All those concepts traditionally
attributable to the states (nation-states) slowly become a global matter. From
Mc Donald’s hamburgers to education, from trade to crime, nearly everything
influenced by the ‘global’ phenomenon. Global! This term has become to
something refers to the internationalization of all of these terms or the
universalization of the well established norms and regimes. On the other hand
globalization for some refers to deterritorialization since it is the
abolishment of the artificial state borders for the ease of the global
activities such as erect of the trade barriers or barriers against to the free
capital flow. No doubt, high technology and revolution in communication and
transportation are the main reasons why the things become global. Contemporary globalization
has reached levels unseen since before 1914. The main motivations behind the
changes associated with globalization unsurprisingly have become one of the
most important subjects of academic debate. This in an effort to define this
new process will seek answers to the questions; Does the viability of the
globalisation process necessarily imply the hegemony of a great power? And Use
the analyses of imperialism from the late 19th to the early 20th
century as the basis for considering whether contemporary globalisation a form
of imperialism?
DEFINING GLOBALIZATION
United Nations General Assembly
in the Fifteenth session defined globalization as “Globalization has different meanings to different people. Some analysts
prefer to use the more specific term “international economic integration”
thereby focusing on the economic and financial aspects. On the other hand,
globalization has reached into political, social and cultural dimensions.
Modern States need to deal with all dimensions.”[1]
Since the end of twentieth century the term of global
started to use so much in the many activities including cultural, economic and
political. Global, in its term refers to increase in the speed and intense of
these activities across the national borders. Scholte distinguished the concept
of globalization as; globalization as internationalization; globalization as
universalization; globalization as westernization and globalization as
deterritorialization.[2]
Globalization may be used as the internationalization of cultural, economic and
political activities or the universalization of the well established norms and
regimes. On the other hand globalization for some refers to
deterritorialization since it is the abolishment of the artificial state
borders for the ease of the global activities such as erect of the trade
barriers or barriers against to the free capital flow. Scholte defined the term
of globalization as a process of
deterritorialization. He means that territorial location becomes less important
to a particular activity. It concerns the growth of supranational relations
between people. [3] Also globalization is often described
as the westernization as the spread of westernized ideas and the norms. In some
respect as the globalization is a process it is the continuance if the
imperialism. Its achievement to realize its meaning simply depends on the
support of the international institutions after the end of twentieth century.
Organizations such International Monetary Fund, United Nations, World Trade
Organization has played a pivotal role for the spread of the notion of
Globalization. On the other hand the term of globalization often called with
term of Liberalization. Especially in the globalization of the economic
activities, liberalization of the economic activities such as reducing the
power of state in the economic activities and the fostering the role of the
supply and demand mechanism or reducing all the barriers for the full and
effective achievement of the International trade.
However Globalization can be all of them. As Ravenhill clearly explained;
“Globalization is an uneven process whereby the barriers of time and space are
reduced, new social relations between distant people are fostered and new centers
of authority are created.”[4]
As
far as the world becomes globalized, there have been many advantages and
disadvantages as the result of this process. Beyond the theoretical discussions
about the meaning of globalization, it surely refers to increasing global
consciousness to an activity. Shortly when an activity has global effects or it
has been started to be used in global manner it become global. Global trade, global culture is the examples
to this. On the other hand global warning, global terror is the bad side of
story. In short according to me things became global when the members of the
globe from different locations agree and ready for the application these
things. For example trade may become global when the nations are willing to
increase their links. On the other hand terror may become global if the
terrorist organizations agreed upon that. Depletion of ozone layer may provide
a global effect because it really effects all over the world so it can be named
as global warning. On the other hand say American nationalism can not be global
because there would be no effect globally nor the people of different nations
would agree to behave as an American Nationalist.
Globalization
is without doubt is the byproduct of revolution in communication. While the things
became more global by the further ease the communication between people. More
importantly the increasing interactions between nations and people causes
emergence of new concept interdependence. Interdependence is a situation
whereby actions and events in one society or part of the world affect peoples
elsewhere.[5]
The interdependence of nations with the mutual links reduces the likelihoods of
wars and leads universally established norms and values which are applicable to
all nations.
As
it has been observed that the process of increasing interactions between states
was termed with internationalization. Thus the main starting point of the
globalization is then the internationalization. However the term global refers
to one step more than the international. This fact was underlined by OECD in
1994 as
“The
word “internationalization”…has proved too limited …Globalization is more
recent phenomenon, a more advanced and complex form of internationalization
which implies a degree of functional integration between internationally – dispersed
economic activities.”[6]
Defining globalization, on the other hand, is not
free from its underlying force. Those underlying forces such as hegemonic
stability of internationalization through the imperialism, often termed with
the globalization as well. In the remaining part of the essay, to come into a
clear conclusion for the globalization, these two forces behind the
globalization will be discussed.
GLOBALIZATION OR IMPERIALISM
The
term “imperialism” often refers to ‘extension of sovereignty or control by one
people over another.’[7]
The seeds of imperialism thrown by the discovery of America and invention of new
sea routes during the rise of colonial and naval powers in Europe, such as
Spain, Portugal and Netherlands.
On
the other hand the new imperialism refers to empire building process of the
European powers and later Japan’s
by conquest and domination of new territories in Africa
and Asia. The main differentiation point
regarding to the old colonial movements and late 19th century
imperialism is the intensification of those colonial movements in the forms of
more active conquests. Expansionist strategies of European Powers were mostly
depending on three main reasons; first and utmost reason was economic. The
implications of industrial revolution necessitated increased trade relations
and new markets, moreover cheap raw materials. On the other hand rise of
nationalism and consequently increasing militarism among the European empires
were accepted as other motivations behind the imperialism.[8]
Internationalisation of domination and subordination, within this process let
the rise of new international theories explaining implications of new
imperialism.
The
question of whether the new imperialism during the 19th and 20th
century is thereby depends on very result of implications of imperialism. No
doubt the internationalization of state activities has provided a very fertile
ground for the globalization. To understand this fact discussing two important
international theories of imperialism has crucial importance.
WORLD
SYSTEM THEORY
One
famous theory in describing economic interpretation of new imperialism is the
World System Theory. This theory is one of the Marxist theories of
international relations. It is origins come from the works of Immanuel Wallestein’s
and as a critique of imperialism. The main rationale behind the Wallestein’s
theory is that, “a dominant core which is exploiting a less developed
periphery,”[9]
who is called this structural world as a world system. He argues that up to now
world empires and world economy and according to him the main distraction
between those two systems is how decision about the resource distribution is
made.[10]
In the former one a centralized political system uses its power to
re-distribute resources from peripheral areas to the central core area. This is
the imperialism what change to the now is the distributor’s name. There is no
more central authority but markets serve as a new re-distributor. In the world
system theory thus peripheries backwardness is relational. What we define as
periphery is non-democratic governments, raw material exporters, manufacture
importers. Wages are below the subsistence there is any more welfare state.
However in the core democratic government provide high wages, import raw
materials, export manufactures and so provide chance for high investment and
welfare states. In the World System Theory the semi-periphery is an area in
which some manufacturing occurs, and some capital concentrate but not to extend
of most advantages areas in the core. Eastern Europe
and Russia
are commonly considered to be semi-peripheral”[11].
This unequal trade relationship obviously widens the gap between north and
south. According to the Schwartz, in the periphery wages and national income
stagnate while the core benefits from low cost inputs that raise the rate of
capital accumulation[12].
This is called transfer of surplus by unequal exchange.
LENINIST THEORY OF
IMPERIALISM
One of the most important and
reliable work in the means of interpretation of economics of new imperial age
is developed by the study of Lenin on theory of imperialism. Lenin in his
famous work, Imperialism, the highest
stage of capitalism, defines the new imperialism as the monopoly stage of
capitalism.[13]
Leninist theory on imperialism mostly focuses on five important symptoms to
describe the monopolistic stage of capitalism. The five common features of this
stage are; creation of monopolies in the capitalist societies, thus creation of
financial oligarchies, export of capital, formation of international capitalist
associations and territorial division of the world by the capitalist powers.[14]
Thus for Lenin imperialism is nothing more than result of inherent competition
among the capitalist states to divide world territories among them. In his
words Lenin defined this highest stage of capitalism as;
"Capitalism has grown into a world system of colonial oppression
and of the financial strangulation of the overwhelming majority of the people
of the world by a handful of 'advanced' countries."[15]
In
establishing such framework for the rationale behind the imperialism, Lenin
also indicated that ‘the end of this process would be in any case being the
self destruction of capitalism, probably by the way of imperialist wars.’[16]
Leninist theory on imperialism that is why shed light to the main reason of
World War I. After WWI, imperial policies and capitalist competition let the
mercantilist tendencies and resulted with the long world wide economic crises
and Second World War. Nevertheless after the control of capitalist competition
with the establishment of new regimes in post world war give raise to the
globalisation of capitalism.
GLOBALIZATION
OF HEGEMONIC POWER
Hegemony
may be defined as domination of international system one or more states. The
dominant state or states clearly influence the foreign policies of the other
state in the system. With the rise of new imperialism British hegemony in the world politics declined by the end of 19th
century, just after consolidation of United States and the Germany as the new
import markets. Loss of its import share and related to this export share also
new financial institutions undermined the United Kingdoms financial control
over the international system. Rise of new powers as a challenger of hegemonic
power, let them to instal their own stystm of international relations.
Eventually the legitimacy of such system has brought stability. This part of
essay will deal with the implications of hegemonic powers in the establishment
and maintenance of the globalized international order.
HEGEMON THEORIES
One
of the most famous theories is hegemonic stability theory. It argues that
hegemony provide stability, thus for international stability existence of a
hegemony is necessary. According to Robert Gilpin, “An international system
is established for the same reason that any political system is created; actors
enter social relations and create social structures in order to advance
particular sets of political, economic or other interests. Because the
interests of some of the actors may conflict with those of other actors, the
particular interest that are most favored by the social arrangements tend to
reflect the relative powers of the actors.”[17]
Thus all the norms and rules also the international organizations represent
the hegemons ideas and values other states due to stability and the benefits
provided by hegemon accepts the superiority of the dominant. It was like that
in the formation of United Nations and the Bretton Woods System as United Kingdom,
United States of America
also follows free trade. That’s why Bretton Woods’s international economy was
in favor for United States
of America. Since it can provide more
efficient products by the luxury given it by its technological competitive
advantage there was no loss in the free trade competition. Actually one of the
main reasons behind the United
Kingdom hegemonic decline was loss of free
trade before and after the World War One. Hegemons very large import market
automatically attracts other countries for following Ricardian Strategies.
Otherwise Caldorian Strategies may establish a core or new import market in the
periphery of the hegemon. The same process challenged United Kingdom
during the industrialization of Germany
and United States of America.
By the end of World War Two United States began to act as a hegemon and Bretton
Woods system provide these fertile environment. Both International Monetary
Fond ( IMF ) and the World Bank (1944 ) established with the conference held in
Bretton Woods. International Monetary Fund’s objective was promoting
international monetary cooperation. On the other hand World Bank established as
an agency for the development and construction of Europe.
Finally General Agreements Trade and Tariff (GATT
) designed to liberalized trade all these instruments was reflecting the norms
and the commitments of hegemons. Another important theory is Long Cycle Theory
that argues simply hegemons emergence and decline in the cyclical periods. Thus
after every World War or a great war a hegemon emerged as the winner and
creates organization. These organizations reflect, values, norms, and laws of
new international system afterward hegemon invites other states to the
organizations that it created. By joining those organizations other states
automatically accepts the very existences of hegemons and its rules. This
acceptance may derive from military interests, security interests, political
interests or more importantly economic interests. Westphalia Treaty and the
emergence of modern nation states reflected international law, and the
sovereignty as new international order. Congress of Vienna was the declaration
of concert members, United
Kingdom, Austria, Prussia, Russia and latterly France
domination over Europe and the rules at the
some put by British hegemony although not all emerged from a total war.
Actually it emerged from industrial revolution, United Kingdom become very powerful
after the defeat of France
in the Napoleonic Wars. This hegemony also forced other states to follow up United Kingdom’s
rules and norms. All of those come from very powerful nature of hegemons. Their
military capabilities, their economies and political powers channel remaining
the states into the may that hegemon or hegemony pursue. The League
of Nations emerged with the some logic that Long Cycle theory has
provided League established by victories powers. On the other hand long cycle
theory argues that hegemonic decline started with diplomatic challenge of other
powerful states. These diplomatic means soon turn the military means and the new
war emerged against to hegemon and the states in its sides. Such kind of attitude happened in the
beginning of World War II when the revisionist powers challenged the victorious
powers of World War I.
Beyond
all of these political explanations obvious economic power of the hegemon should
link its hegemony with the economics. Swartz uses the economic cycles as a
linkage to the hegemony. In all cases new leading sector clusters first emerge
in an existing hegemon or in the country that became hegemonic soon after[18].Those
benefits of the leading sectors of course creates obvious and unchallenged
economic and military power. Swartz clearly assets that all the hegemon has
military superiority like Holland, Britain, us and the Portugal had however, it
is also arguing that it is not a sufficient conditions for a hegemony, however
it is a necessary condition. “The wealth and purchasing power created by a new
cluster of leading sector also creates a form of hegemon that is more durable
than military dominance.”[19]
Another differentiated part of hegemonies they are mostly lender of last
resold. They can credit globally and this is way of maintain global finance. According
to Swartz all the new institutionalized innovations such industrial production
of machines, unionization, and emergence of taylorist methods of production,
electrification of production or Japanese Kanban and Kreitsu, not surprisingly emerges
firstly in potential hegemons. For instance British created first mills and
mill towns. United States
and German entrepreneurs proliferated stock companies controlling multiple
plants in the late 19th century. US firms created the assembly line
and conglomerate.[20]
Spread
of all these economic innovations, eventually lead the economic and later
military superiority of Hegemonic power. Subsequently Hegemonic power gains
legitimacy with the applications of these innovations by other states. Thus the term globalization, from this point
of view, is the byproduct of internationalization of legitimacy of a Hegemon
CONCLUSION
It
is not possible to define the globalization without influencing a number of
theories which are stated above. It is also not possible to not share the
comments of Scholte when he describes the term as “a new line on an old story.”[21]
On the other hand reducing globalization into the imperialism or a hegemonic order
would undermine the very existing of a new age. There is no doubt the term
global is clearly associated with these two forces. As Mittleman described the “US
domestic economy become increasingly enmeshed in international trade as well as
host to foreign direct investment, heralding a new mode of global organization
and this caused emergence of a series structural changes in the global
political economy, called the period of globalization.” [22]
However as he also rightfully argued the term globalization is, in fact, much
more appropriate the era after the decline of American Hegemony.[23]
Thus globalization can be seen as the effects of internationalization resulted
form the imperial movements and the stability achieved by the US Hegemony
especially after WWII.
[1] United Nations
General Assembly, Globalization and State: an overview, Fifteenth session, 8-12
May 2000
[2] Scholte Jan A., Globalization, a critical
introduction, Macmillan Press, New
York, 2000, pp. 3
[3] Ravenhill,
John.Global Political Economy, Oxford University Press, Oxford ;New York, 2005,
pp.132
[4] Ravenhill,
John.Global Political Economy, Oxford University Press, Oxford ;New York, 2005,
pp.132
[5]
Viotti, Paul R. and Mark V. Kauppi. International Relations Theory: Realism,
Pluralism, Globalism, and Beyond . (Third Edition). Allyn and Bacon: Boston ,
1999
[6]
OECD, ‘Investment Patterns in Longer
Term Perspective’ Worrking Papere on International Investment no. 2000/2 OECD
Paris April 2000.
[7] Lecture Notes by Professor Henry, Western Civilization Since 1648, Available at
< http://www.wpunj.edu/~history/study/ws2/set10b.htm>
accessed on 15 December
2008.
[8] Lecture Notes by Professor Henry, Western Civilization Since 1648, Available at
< http://www.wpunj.edu/~history/study/ws2/set10b.htm>
accessed on 15 December 2008.
[9]
Baylis J, Smith S., The Globalisation of world politics, 2nd edition,Oxford
University Press, 2001, P206
[10]
Baylis J, Smith S., The Globalisation of world politics, 2nd edition,Oxford
University Press p206
[11]
Baylis J, Smith S., The Globalisation of world politics, 2nd edition,Oxford
University Press p323
[13] V.I.
Lenin, Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism, Resistance Books, 1999, P.
9
[14] Mommsen J.M.,
Falla P.S, Theories of Imperialism, University of Chicago Press, 1982, P. 48
[15] V.I. Lenin,
Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism, Resistance Books, 1999, P. 9
[16] Mommsen J.M.,
Falla P.S, Theories of Imperialism, University of Chicago Press, 1982, P. 49
[18]
Schwartz H. States versus Markets, 2nd ed., Mac Millan Press ltd., 2000, p71
[19] Schwartz H. States versus Markets, 2nd ed.,
Mac Millan Press ltd., 2000, p72
[20]
Schwartz H. States versus Markets, 2nd ed., Mac Millan Press ltd., 2000, p71
[21] Scholte Jan A., Globalization, a
critical introduction, Macmillan Press, New
York, 2000 pp.34
[22]
Mittleman, J., Globalization,Lynne Rienner Publishers, Boulder, London,1996 pp.
231
[23] Mittleman, J.,
Globalization , Boulder, London,1996 p.217 See also Mittleman,
J (1996) p.236 “The US hegemony started with the Bretton Wood system until the end of
1970s. Thus abandonment of gold parity and the fixed exchange rate created a
new monetary order, this followed by the United States economical decline as
the lender of last resort. While U.S. shares of world output dropped
from one third in the 1950s and 1960s.”
0 comments:
Yorum Gönder