Recent literature on the concepts of globalisation have identified three waves or perspectives in globalisation theory, mainly the; globalists, sceptics and transformation lists or post-sceptics, as articulated by some writers (Friedman, 2006 and Holton 2005).
Friedman (2006) postulates that the globalist theory defines an era where national economies have become less important and at most have become non-existent, as a result of globalisation technology that is being driven by advanced technological advancement.
This has led to the instantaneous free movement of capital, Trans-National Companies (TNC’s) and Multi-National Companies (MNC’s), which is triggered by economic interdependency. Legraine (2002), Hopkins (2006), Friedman 2006 and Hopper (2007) argue that this can be to a greater extent be attributed to relaxation of restrictions on the movement of money and technological advancement which has allowed innovations, such as; cell phone banking, money markets and internet banking, inter alia.
Robinson (2008) argues that the globalist wave is mainly characterized by many multinational and transnational corporations. These Multi-National Companies and Trans- National Companies are not contained or restricted by any national boundaries. They are able to operate on their own terms, since they have the financial and legal muscles to manipulate national laws and policies to their advantage.
In a few cases where the nation states policies and laws are too rigid for these companies, they move out to other states where policies are flexible and allow for the exploitation of workers and make maximum profits. The global economy has drawn people into a global village, where everyone can be affected by the action of one company which can then have ripple effects elsewhere e.g. the relocation of a manufacturing company from one city to another may have major impacts on the sector and growth of the city it has withdrawn from.
The irony of these interactions is that they favour the powerful at the expense of the weak
and thus ultimately increasing the rate of social-polarization. Wolf (2004) notes that both Marxists and economic liberals have reached consensus on the basis that the world has become more globalized than ever before, however they differ in terms of quantifying the effects of globalisation on whether it has more negative effects than positive36.
In summary, globalists argue that globalisation is more economically driven, thus incubating economic changes that have political and cultural implications. Evans (2004) and Crouch (2004) argue that nation-states lose power and influence or even sovereignty over their territories as a result of this process of economic inclusion. Elite states and powerful organizations dictate and define the agenda and terms of development. Since many countries are not strong enough to resist these global pressures, they end up relaxing their policies to suit foreign investors. This has more negative consequences than positive ones in social democratic and welfare states. The example of structural adjustment in Africa and in other developing regions is important in capturing the nature of globalisation in disempowering nation states. Globalists view transnational and global forces taking over from nations as the main sources of economy, sovereignty and identity, in all forms, be it culturally, economically or political.
Pieterse (2004) notes that globalisation impacts negatively on culture, as it is leads to the decline of national cultures and promotes homogenised global cultures. In this state of cultural globalisation, the cultures of the hegemonic power and its allies dictate the agenda, and this is fuelled by the media. For instance the American culture is the most dominant because it is the hegemony and own many media co-operations. Politically nation-states in the hyper globalist perspective are overpowered and outplayed by transnational organizations, such as the World Bank, Green Peace, United Nations, International Monetary Fund, inter alia (Keane 2003).
The sceptics argue in contrast to the hyper globalist body. Their main proposition is that globalisation is not new and that the processes being viewed and identified as new under
36 See Cornwall and Eade (2010): Deconstructing Development Discourse: Buzzwords and Fuzzwords; Chapter Six titled ‘Globalisation’ under the theme Definitions and debates by Shalmali Guttal.
globalisation are processes are not, nor are they even occurring everywhere to be granted the status of being viewed as global. Hopkins (2006) writes that sceptics argue that globalisation is un-even, thus exacerbating social-polarization and inequality. Sceptics see the global economy as being unequal and not as inclusive as it proponents claim - nor is it experienced the same way in various regions globally. Robinson (2008) writes that some areas in sub-Saharan Africa are much less integrated than the powerhouses of East Asia, Europe and North America, with global inequality rising and protectionism still rife, for example in Europe and the USA in response to imports from growing Asian economies.
Hopkins (2006) and Peterson (2005) maintain that sceptics argue that the global economy is inter-nationalised and triadic rather than global and that its internationalisation is not unprecedented.
In summary, sceptics are critical of globalisation and question whether free trade does exist or it is just an illusion to deceive those being exploited in the process and questions of whether such initiatives can be treated as plausible and sustainable solutions still linger.
Wolf and Wade (2002) have argued that liberal policies and integration into the global economy alone cannot be seen as the main reason for these countries successful economic growth because protectionism and state policies play a key role in defining the countries fortune. In some other regions, globalisation has had the opposite effects. For instance in Africa poverty and inequality is rife and social-polarization is higher now than it was before globalisation was in culmination stages. As it stands the continent chances of having a competitive advantage over the global super-powers in even bleaker now, as it continues to be exploited for its natural resources in the global economy.
The third wave (transformationalists) paradigm proposes that globalisation has led the establishment of new global political forms. These global political forms have created a platform where global issues, such as; environmental issues, terrorism, health issues, international laws and treaties, economic crisis amongst others can be discussed in a quest to forge (Keane, 2003). The transformationalists like Holton (2005) and Legraine (2002) postulate that nation states under globalisation, have not necessarily been eroded, but have been transformed and become more flexible to an extent that they share their sovereignties with other entities, such as; global governance, global economies, TNC’s and MNC’s. This
view is in contrast to the hyper-globalist proposition, which argues that there is a removal of nation state. Hopkins (2006) notes that the transformationalists' argument that asserts inequalities have always been there and their nature have remained constant are in fact correct in this assertion. However the economic gap and other inequalities have become more visible because the poor and rich live adjacent to each and diverse conditions are observable.
In summary transformationalists are critical of hyper-globalism and argue that there is a more dynamic picture, however they differ from sceptics in that they acknowledge that globalisation is changing the world, even though not at the extent that hyper globalist claim.
This section has been able to present a brief synopsis of the different globalisation theories as articulated by diverse writers. The next section will discuss different forces of globalisation that are shaping the world and have a direct or indirect impact of the different regions developmental objectives.