What is Globalization and Its Acute Impact on Modernity?

There is now no other such thing as globalization, which would cause so much controversy, such a wide resonance among representatives of politics, science and even religion in various countries. In addition, it is quite natural. This proves that globalization involves such acute issues of modernity as poverty and wealth, morality, morality, war and peace, national and personal security, and ethnic conflicts. However, not all authors who are speaking now on the problem of globalization have a clear idea about it, are aware of its true depth and breadth, and are based on its scientific analysis (Iyal Smith, 2013) At the same time, widespread attention to this problem is absolutely deserved. Many people intuitively feel that it is in this area that the key to understanding and solving many of their vital problems lies. It should be noted that the attitude of representatives of different regions of the world to globalization is very different. Apparently, Western politicians and economists primarily seek to hide the true economic interests of modern monopoly capital behind the scenery and advertising of globalization. Supporters often present globalization as a universal means for all countries to achieve a qualitatively new level of development, so they call on developing countries to actively engage in this process, open their borders, reduce customs duties, etc. Thus, their supporters present the desire of international monopolies for world domination without shame of conscience as a certain benefit of globalization and civilization (Steger, 2017). This interpretation of globalization is given in order for the underdeveloped countries to remove from the agenda questions about countering the expansion of international monopolies. They insist on the opinion that the globalization of the world economy is irreversible and inevitable, and therefore only people who do not understand the objective laws of development can resist it as an integral feature of civilization.  Under the massive pressure of propaganda about the allegedly positive effects of globalization on the world economy, many scientists and ideologists for some reason do not realize the inextricable link between globalization and the key interests of international finance capital do not understand the threat of losing national sovereignty, further polarization of wealth injustice, etc (Rodrik, 2011). However, the growth of poverty, poverty, hunger, crime, regional conflicts is a direct consequence of the modern international expansion of world financial capital

The supporters of globalization though emphasizes that globalization has an overall beneficial effect on economic well-being; this is however is partially true. The proponents of international integration ignore the grey side of the globalization. Globalization has an adverse effect on political, economic and cultural environment across the world. The present paper aims to represent grey side of the globalization that adversely affect income distribution, imperialism and economic sovereignty. The negative side of globalization needs to be highlighted as it helps to understand the actual picture of globalization.

Arguments Against Globalization: Imperialism and Loss of Sovereignty

The first point supporting the argument is that globalization is just a term used to denote imperialism. To give a correct definition of the essence of globalization, it is necessary to trace the history of the development of monopoly capital from the end of the 19th and throughout the 20th century. The fact is that the 20th century was a period of acute antagonism of opposing social and economic systems, which ended with the formation of a unipolar world (Giddens, 2018) Globalization as a phenomenon was directly connected with the processes of concentration and centralization of capital and the formation of monopolies on this basis, is associated with the entire history of the development of monopoly capitalism. However, the term “globalization” itself was obviously introduced into science by apologists of the interests of transnational capital with the political goal of replacing the term “imperialism” that had compromised itself in the eyes of the world community (Hirst, Thompson & Bromley, 2015). Previously, in the scientific literature, the national interests of individual countries, on the one hand, and the interests of international monopolies, imperialism and international finance capital, on the other, were fairly opposed. The term “globalization”, which allows, as we see, a variety of interpretations, was introduced deliberately to obscure the problems of expansion and domination of monopolies (Mewes & Mau, 2013) In other words, globalization is not some completely new phenomenon, as some of its supporters want to present, but only a modern manifestation of trends that have strong roots in the past period of monopoly development. Of course, the term itself is new, but this cannot be said about the phenomenon of the economic division of the world by the monopolies, which this term denotes.

In order to justify that globalization is a form of imperialism; we need to trace the origin of globalization. To achieve this, it would be legitimate to ask the question: “Is globalization a kind of one-time act or a fairly lengthy historical process?”. Various foreign authors put forward different opinions on this subject. Some attribute the beginning of globalization even to the period of Genghis Khan with his military campaigns with a view to conquering the world. Others link the emergence of globalization with the industrial revolution in Europe (Chandy & Seidel, 2016). Others link globalization with the emergence of large capitalist companies. Some claim that the beginning of globalization coincides with the end of the Cold War and the destruction of the USSR. Ideally, the roots of globalization belong to the period of the emergence and subsequent development of monopoly capital, so it, as a phenomenon (and not as a term), is a definite and recent process. In addition, if this is a process, then it is necessary to determine its terms and stages.

The Impact of Globalization on Income Distribution

The second argument is that globalization hinders sovereignty and independence of individual developing nations. Globalization relies on giant TNCs and TNBs that are striving to take the place of traditional states. It is the transnational economic factors that make up the ever narrower circle of owners of the new globalized world (Ghemewat, 2012). They seek to finally destroy all manifestations of state sovereignty, national independence and cultural identity that interfere with their undivided world domination. Economic globalization is complemented by informational globalization. Many authors, who are speaking now about the problem of globalization, consider first its economic and political aspects, often underestimated the essence globalization of information, which it would be fair to call information war. On the one hand, it is necessary to note truly revolutionary changes in the field of informatics and communications, which was the result of scientific and technological progress (Petras, 2016). However, on the other hand, it is clear that economic globalization used the information revolution for its own purposes and at the same time gave it a new impetus to development. NCs as an instrument of globalization have become a means of widespread use and dissemination of scientific, technical and informational innovations. TNCs control information flows and direct them into the channels they need, clearing access to the resources they need in this way. Economic globalization needed information globalization. As a result, a mutually beneficial symbiosis has formed between them, which is increasingly strengthening economic globalization with the help of new information technologies. In addition, in order to penetrate deeper into the economies of various countries and turn them into their appendages, TNCs and international financial capital use the modern range of information media (Internet, satellite TV, mobile phones, telexes, faxes, etc.) (Smith, 2016). The degree of merger economics and informational globalization has grown so much that it allows us to assert already about the emergence of a new single organism, whose influence on various aspects of life in different countries is truly enormous. This influence covers areas such as market relations, the psychology of society, culture and art, even family life and the upbringing of children (Caselli, 2012).

One potential adverse effect of globalization is realized in terms of increasing economic inequality. The integration between nations though increases average income globally but it has also increase inequality in income distribution. The resulted increase in volume of trade of goods and services lead to an increase in average income. There is also an associated increase income inequality (Andree et al., 2014). The view that globalization increases income inequality now exists in two varieties. The version of income inequality, which is less, worsen states that inequality resulted as a byproduct of globalization tolerable. Globalization though increases wage of specialized worker but the same does not happen for other segment of the labor force. This led to an increase in income gap between the two-income groups. The worse version of income inequality however points out that because of globalization wage of low skilled workers slides down. This is due to a lower demand for low skilled workforce (Martell, 2016) On the other hand, in order to produce specialized goods, demand for high skilled workers increases which in turn raises wage of skilled workers.

Globalization’s Adverse Effect on Cultural Identity and Information Dissemination

The worse version of income inequality is more worrying. With globalization production of most goods and services have taken place on international platform. Resulted inequality from globalization depends on matching of skills between different workers. Better is the match between workers and the required skills lower is the inequality. The state of inequality is worse in developing nations including in emerging economies like BRICS. 1 percent in the higher income class in Brazil account 25 percent of national income (Milanovic, 2016). In Russia, share of national income to the top 1 percent increased from 4 percent to 20 percent between 1980 and 2015.

Despite the above arguments against globalization, some authors may argue that globalization has many positive effects. This is true especially if we consider how many developing nations have benefited from technology and infrastructural transfer (Manyika, et al 2014). However, a close look shows that more benefits goes to developed nations. The practice of the developed countries of Germany, the USA, Japan and many developing countries also shows that they took positive points in planning and adapted it to their own conditions. In many countries, both in-house planning and macroeconomic regulation of the economy are carried out in practice. States in the context of globalization, for their preservation and survival, must guarantee themselves reliable sources of their own financing and budget replenishment (Jaumotte, Lall & Papageorgiou, 2013) The ego is achieved through state control over strategic sectors and resources: oil, gas, coal, electricity, transport, wine monopoly, etc. State control is needed not only to fill the budget, but in conditions. In the current globalization, which is not in the interests of all, as some authors try to present, but only in the interests of a few industrially developed and selected countries of the world, many states must retain their ownership of strategic industries and resources (such as oil, gas, coal, defense). industry, transport, communications) for economic stability and replenishment of the state budget. Sustainable economic development, as noted at the international conference in Rio de Janeiro (1992), is impossible without adequate resource support for the economy. It should also be added that the preservation of national sovereignty is impossible without the efforts of the role of the state in the economy, including in the field of planning and macroeconomic regulation. The authors are aware that attitudes towards government planning and regulation may be different and cause different emotions (Kaplinsky, 2013). However, in the face of a challenge from the policy of globalization, it is impossible to preserve its sovereignty without the regulatory and coordinating role of the state.

The influence of globalization on increasing income inequality among countries is questionable. It is true that inequality increases in rich nations, but the same does not happen everywhere (Fujita & Thisse, 2013) One such example is France that avoided growing trend of income inequality started since 1980. Not only France, Belgium, Spain and Hungary also experienced a decline in income inequality. There is even more heterogeneity among the developing nations (Baylis, Smith & Owens, 2017) Inequality often found to be declining in many developing nations. More specifically inequality declines in many nations with increases in degree of openness.

Conclusion

Globalization, although it began far from today, is generally a new, unexplored, most complex and largely unpredictable process. Moreover, it often takes place in seemingly contradictory forms and directions. We have seen, for example, that interstate integration is combined with the collapse of some countries and the intensification of separatism in others; that against the background of the growth of nationalism, there is a significant reduction in sovereignty. The most important for a long period will remain the problem of collisions and combining national and supranational, group and world interests. Only some kind of institutional solution of this gigantic problem can establish a more or less stable new world order.  Naturally, this requires time, during which a profound revolution in the worldview of elites and peoples should occur, as a result of which national problems will first be considered first through the prism of the common, and then in the context of the common (regional and world). In the meantime, the ideas of a new order in most nations are completely inadequate with recognition of the need for a reasonable reduction of sovereignty, the search for the most effective, attractive and successful forms of supranational organizations and the interaction of their members. Therefore, it will be better if some processes stretch in time, if integration goes slower, but is stronger and conflict-free. There is no special need to hurry (except for solving some, for example environmental problems). If changes are inevitable, we need to understand what changes are coming and how, and try to work out the rules of the game in the international arena, as well as ways to control violations. Then there will be adequate ideological justifications for globalization, without which the process always goes much harder.

References

Andree, P., Ayres, J., Bosia, M., & Massicotte, M. J. (Eds.). (2014). Globalization and food sovereignty: Global and local change in the new politics of food. University of Toronto Press.

Baylis, J., Smith, S., & Owens, P. (Eds.). (2017). The globalization of world politics: an introduction to international relations. Oxford University Press.

Caselli, M. (2012). Trying to measure globalization: Experiences, critical issues, and perspectives. New York, NY: Springer Books. 

Chandy, L., & Seidel, B. (2016). Is globalization’s second wave about to break? The Brookings Institution. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/research/is-globalizations-second-wave-about-to-break/

Fujita, M., & Thisse, J. F. (2013). Economics of agglomeration: cities, industrial location, and globalization. Cambridge university press.

Ghemewat, P. (2012). Actually, the world isn’t flat [Video]. TED Global 2012. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/pankaj_ghemawat_actually_the_world_isn_t_flat

Giddens, A. (2018). Globalization. In Sociology of Globalization (pp. 19-26). Routledge.

Hirst, P., Thompson, G., & Bromley, S. (2015). Globalization in question. John Wiley & Sons.

Iyal Smith, K. E. (2013). Sociology of globalization: Cultures, economies, and politics. New York, NY: Routledge

Jaumotte, F., Lall, S., & Papageorgiou, C. (2013). Rising income inequality: technology, or trade and financial globalization?. IMF Economic Review, 61(2), 271-309.

Kaplinsky, R. (2013). Globalization, poverty and inequality: Between a rock and a hard place. John Wiley & Sons.

Manyika, J., Bughin, J., Lund, S., Nottebohm, O., Poulter, D., Jauch, S., & Ramaswamy, S. (2014). Global flows in a digital age: How trade, finance, people, and data connect the world economy. McKinsey Global Institute. Retrieved from https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/strategy-and-corporate-finance/our-insights/global-flows-in-a-digital-age

Martell, L. (2016). The sociology of globalization. John Wiley & Sons.

Mewes, J., & Mau, S. (2013). Globalization, socio-economic status and welfare chauvinism: European perspectives on attitudes toward the exclusion of immigrants. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 54(3), 228-245.

Milanovic, B. (2016). Global inequality: A new approach for the age of globalization. Harvard University Press.

Petras, J. (2016). World development: globalization or imperialism?. In New Perspectives on Globalization and Antiglobalization (pp. 47-60). Routledge.

Rodrik, D. (2011). The globalization paradox: Democracy and the future of the world economy. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.

Smith, J. (2016). Imperialism in the twenty-first century: Globalization, super-exploitation, and capitalism’s final crisis. NYU Press.