-->

Introduction

Instinctively, globalization is a process motivated by, and ensuing in, increasing cross-border trading of goods, services, currency, individuals, information, and culture (Held et al 1999, p. 16). Sociologist Anthony Giddens (1990, p. 64, 1991, p. 21) recommends to look upon globalization as a decoupling or “distanciation” involving space and time, at the same time as geographer David Harvey (1989) and political scientist James Mittelman (1996) examined that globalization brings about a solidity of space and time, a attenuation of the planet. Sociologist Manuel Castells (1996, p. 92) gives emphasis to the informational features of the global economy when he characterizes it as a financial system with the capability to work as an element in real time on a terrestrial level. In a comparable context, sociologist Gary Gereffi (1994) talks about global commodity chains, whereby production is in line on an international extent. Management academic Stephen Kobrin (1997, pp. 147-148) portrays globalization as determined not by foreign trade and investment but by mounting technological extent and information flows. Political scientist Robert Gilpin (1987, p. 389) characterizes globalization as the ever-increasing interdependence of nations in commerce, investment, and macroeconomic procedures. Sociologist Roland Robertson (1992, p. Cool contends that globalization denotes both to the compression of the globe and the amplification of perception of the planet all together. Similarly sociologist Martin Albrow (1997, p. 8Cool describes globalization as the dissemination of practices, values and technology that have an affect on individual’s existence internationally.” This study intends to look into the ethical consideration of the process of globalization.

Recent Perceptions on Globalization

This part of the study will be presenting the different perceptions of globalization. In this context, with accordance to the academic work done by Petras (1999), the concept of globalization has been utilized in a diverse number of perspectives. Contexts such as the worldwide independence of countries, the development of a global framework, and accrual on a worldwide scale, the international community and a considerable number of other concepts are anchored in the more universal motion that the accrual of capital, trade and investment is not anymore constricted to the nation-state. In its more universal context, globalization signifies the cross-national course of goods, investment and technology. For quite a number of proponents of the globalization concept, these courses, both their range and intensity, have generated a new world order, with its individual institutions and frameworks of authority that have changed the preceding frameworks connected with the nation-state. (Petras, 1999)

Globalization is similarly defined as principally, the progressive incorporation of the national economies of both advanced and developing countries. (O’Neill, 2004) It has been defined in business academies as the generation and distribution of products and services of a standardized kind and quality on a global basis. (Moore, 2001) Similarly, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) have taken note that a number of countries perceive globalization as a form of westernization and prefers to shun on the said perception, nonetheless, such withdrawal from globalization are considerably expensive and are considerably detrimental to those in poverty. (Hill, 2000)

With accordance to the work of Moore (2001), recent academic works put forward that globalization as it has been established is a myth. The globalization argument provides them with a couple of alternatives. The accessible alternatives are that choosing their nation or choosing the world. Nevertheless, the said alternatives are not valid anymore considering the fact that it fails to recognize the function and actuality of regions and clusters. Although it is considerably a long way from achieving a singular market for the world, a considerable amount of commercial activity of the big firms transpires in regional blocks. National administrations, trade accords such as the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and cultural diversities segments the globe into the triumvirate of North America, the European Union, and Japan. Merely a number of industries are an international strategy superior. For a considerable number of manufacturing services acquiring a national or regional strategy makes for more sense. (Moore, 2001)

Moore (2001) is adamant that the majority of Multinational enterprises (MNEs) in North America bring in the preponderance of their sales within their home nation or by selling to members of the triumvirate— the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the European Union, or Japan and a diminutive cluster of Asian and Oceania countries. He contended that it is an actual fact that over 85 percent of all vehicles put up for sale in North America are created in North American industrial units; over 90 percent of the automobiles generated in the European Union (EU) are put up for sale in that region; and more than 93 percent of all vehicles recorded in Japan are created within the bounds of their country. In the specialty chemicals area, over 90 percent of all paint is created and utilized regionally by triumvirate-instituted Multinational enterprises (MNEs) and the similar is accurate with other products such as steel, heavy electrical equipment, energy and transportation. He takes account that all these set of actions as all fundamentally local or regional.

Moreover, he noted that another myth regarding globalization is the perception that Multinational enterprises (MNEs) build up one international product for the global market and are then capable, by means of their immense economies of scale, to take over local markets all over the place. The actuality is these Multinationals have to acclimatize their products for the individual national market. He contended that globalization, as a considerable number of individuals have discussed it, does not subsist nor has it ever subsisted, on account of a single global market with free trade and that current period’s actuality of triumvirate-based construction and allocation will continue the actuality long into the future (Moore 2001).

On the other hand, Dalton (1999) articulates a negative inspection of the actual development of globalization in the Information Technology (IT) arena. He took note that globalization is the incorporated markets, universal currencies, and declining trade impediments. Information Technology (IT) supervisors are being demanded on to serve up their companies’ close-minded interests by acquiring beyond geographic impediments - in other words, to consider locally, function globally. Yet the augmented flow of goods and information among regions and nations, and the homogeny of products and measures internationally, have come at several consequences. The effects of the economic problems in quite a number of potions of the globe demonstrate to the interconnected nature of business markets, and the requirement for improved information flow. He sustained that the actual circumstances is something less. While quite a number of commercial organizations utilize electronic supply-chain or value-chain systems to work together with suppliers or customers, the majority constricts those dealings to their own backyards. (Dalton 1999)

Opposing the paradigm of a standardized world future, Hall contends that globalization has its own unexpected requirements, and that the very procedures which characterize worldwide economic and cultural actions bear within themselves their individual pressures and inconsistencies. In such a way that one could to broaden their markets into new fields, multinational companies are discovering that it is progressively essential to become accustomed to the specific demands of local customers, which denotes the adjusting their activities and production lines to go with local cultures in addition to other regional aspects. In satisfying these new demands, the configuration of the multinational corporation is swiftly shifting from a centralized organization with corporate head offices in the North, to an extra bendable amalgamation of diminutive and semi-independent units, better capable to act in response to local circumstances. It may all be merely another stratagem premeditated to masquerade the similar old corporate objectives, nonetheless, as Hall put forward, it just may probably lead to a more varied and volatile international culture than that normally predicted (Arbel, 1994).

Contemporary Globalization

The world was in the process of remarkable change even prior to the dreadfulness of September 11 in 2001. Both democratic systems and the market economy have propagates on an international scale since the decline of communism, and ground-breaking improvements in communication and information technology have assisted in triggering a progressive interdependence involving nations at an unparalleled velocity. Furthermore, the conclusion of the Cold War indicated the dislodgment of ideological stubbornness in favor of an impassioned chase on the direction of economic development and competition for capital and technology. Economic statecraft, in which countries utilize trade, loans, grants and investment to manipulate the activities of other countries, is now becoming more imperative.

The procedure of globalization is frequently acknowledged to be distinguishing of contemporary and modern international developments. Contemporary procedures of globalization have several facades: technological, cultural, religious, economic and political. Among these said facades, none of which are considered good or bad. All of which should be acknowledged as vague, with probability for both good and evil, nevertheless in the existing stage of globalization it is imperative to specify the diverse facades of globalizations and empathize with a probability to track down the good. Globalization signifies a couple of separate set of circumstances. Initially, it denotes that political, economic and social actions are developing into a global scope. Secondly, it denotes that there has been an augmentation of degrees of communication and interconnectedness involving the states and societies. (Held, 1991) Among these relationships are those instigated by the progressive materialization of an international economy, the development of international connections which creates contemporary types of collective decision-making, the improvement of intergovernmental and pseudo-supranational institutions. (Giddens, 1990) The effects of globalization are contentious and not automatically positive. Extreme issues rise regarding the accountability of such varied global organization and agencies like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which opposes the very concept of an autonomous state.

On the other hand, the term “globalization” similarly considered as elusive and multifaceted by other academics. Even though globalization is an actual and remarkable strengthening of current international models, it is not necessary to embrace its existing direction as unavoidable. Cynics of contemporary international developments demands for the improvement of popular accountability on the side of national and global institutions, for more command of the general public over these institutions, for a proper internationalism, and for fair choices to the criminal actions of international financial institutions (Crossette, 2000; Frank, 2000:16, 19; Hutton and Giddens, 2000; Lemisch, 2000: 10). If at all possible, outside demands on international financial institutions such as the World Bank will show the way to substantial internal modifications, or to the failure and downfall of such institutions. (McCorquodale and Fairbrother, 1999)

Debates on Globalization

Globalization is unmistakably all over the place. Kim and Weaver (2003) took note that globalization has taken over our consciousness in a number of forms. Essentially, it is an all-encompassing term for the emergence of an international community in which economic, political, environmental, and cultural events in one portion of the world promptly come to have meaning for individuals in other parts of the globe. It is similarly taken into consideration as the accomplishment of capitalism (Teeple, 2000). Globalization portrays the change of the foremost setting of capital accumulation from the national to the global level (Teeple, 2000). In globalization, individuals around the world are more associated to each other than ever before. Data and finances flow more speedily than ever. Worldwide communication is considered ordinary (Porter, 2004). Nevertheless, this observable fact has both constructive and destructive consequences. Incorporated in the destructive aspects are the speedy increase of illnesses, prohibited drugs, crime, terror campaigns, and unrestrained migration. Among globalization’s advantages are a distribution of essential knowledge, technology, investments, and resources.

To those who have faith and accept the rationale of globalization, the observable fact has accomplished a number of important contributions in shifting the situation of the world. Majority of experts possess the same opinion that it has developed communication, transportation, and information technologies internationally. As in the humanizing examination, the disparaging understanding considers globalization as showing the way to convergence, even though foreseeing the destructive rather than advantageous end results (Guillen, 2001). With the exception of the above-mentioned advantages, it has similarly tendered benefits in trade. In proportion to the work of Taylor (2002), periods of intensifying international trade have commonly been times of financial development. Furthermore, Taylor (2002) claimed that quite a number of the advantages of globalization are not from the products that are freighted but from other means in which trade outlines the economic situation. Moreover, trade frequently carries with it an affluence of skills and institutions such as technology, training, administration, accounting, external supervision of businesses, and even disclosure to knowledge in such fields as bank regulation, antitrust procedures, and environmental fortification.

Specific organizations have been labeled as the major shapers of globalization. These organizations include the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and the World Trade Organization. The World Bank’s principal duty is to assist developing nations to grow in a more competitive rate. The IMF provides loans so that nations can preserve the value of their money and reimburse foreign liabilities while the WTO assists in the attenuation of the impediments in trade and trading contracts. Nonetheless, notwithstanding the demanding functions that these organizations carry out, two among them have encountered serious criticisms. The IMF has been disapproved of subjugating developing nations further, more willingly than assisting them. Exploiting of the enormous indebtedness of these nations, the IMF has called for all-embracing economic restructurings on the direction of drastic liberalization or free-market systems (Bullard et al., 1998; Madrick, 1998). Alternatively, it is admonished that wealthy nations have the furthermost bargaining authority in the WTO at the expense of those nations in poverty.

Consistent with Guillen (2001), there are five important arguments in globalization. On the subject the first important argument, countless policymakers, publicists, and academics acquire it in a patently obvious comportment that globalization is in actual fact transpiring devoid of backing their assertions with information (Ohmae 1990, Naisbitt & Aburdene 1990). Quite the opposite, Hirst and Thompson (1996) contended that globalization is not unparalleled in global history and foreign investment and trade are concerted in the supposed triumvirate – Western Europe, North America, and Japan. In total, they contend that the economy is developing into a more international scale but not more global.

In the second arguable concern, Meyer and Hannah (1979) contended that nation-states are perceived as portraying convergent structural resemblance, even though there is a decoupling in the midst of objectives and configuration, purpose and consequences. As a counteraction to this, quite a few contended adjacent to globalization tendering convergence. Giddens (1991) stated that globalization has to be acknowledged as a dialectical occurrence, in which procedures at one extremity of a distanced relationship frequently fabricates deviating or even opposing incidences at another (Giddens, 2000; Held et al, 1999). In addition, Guillen (2001) took note that it is possible that the most contentious feature of the convergence argument has to do with the consequence of globalization on discrimination across and within nations. With empirical support, it can be stated that the improvement degrees across nations seems not to be congregating in consequence of globalization (Guillen, 2001).

The third important argument, alternatively, takes into consideration whether the progression of globalization has outgrown the ascendancy arrangements of the international structure of nations and destabilized the power of the nation-state. Vernon’s (1971) contend that the extension of multinational corporations generates disparaging political apprehensions, and Kennedy (1993) similarly stated that national governments are being defeated in terms of control, and that globalization wears away the arrangement of labor and developing countries, and debases the environment are among the foremost argument the this issue. On other perspectives, Pierson (1994) contends that the welfare state has deteriorated not so much on account of globalization but for the reason of such circumlocutory activities of conservative governments as lessening in the revenue base of the nation and showing of aggression on the power of interest groups, particularly labor. Both arguments have a variety of encouragement from diverse social scientists.

The fourth important argument in globalization has to do with whether it is simply a continuance of the development toward modernity or the commencement of a new period (Guillen, 1999). At this point, Giddens (1991) disputed that modernity is intrinsically globalizing, and that globalization makes the methods of association concerning diverse social circumstances or regions turn out to be networked across the earth’s surface all together. On the other side of the discussion, Albrow (1997) contends that globalization is a conversion, not a conclusion, and the changeover to a new period more willingly than the highest point of the previous.

The fifth and final argument, conversely, circles around in the context that globalization has to do with the ascent of a global culture. In this context, it has been disputed that globalization encourages culture determined by signs, descriptions, and the aesthetic of the standard of living and the sense of self (McLuhan, 1964; Levitt, 1983; and Sklair, 1991). Quite the opposite, it has been contended that customer differentiation should not be mistaken for isolation and that people and groups intends to take possession of the international into their own practices of the contemporary, and that utilization of the mass media internationally aggravates struggle, sarcasm, selectivity, and, on the whole, organization. (Zelizer, 1999; Apparudai, 1996)

Conclusion

Cultural relativism is a member of the communitarian custom, which states that there are features of community and human harmony for which justice is not precursor. In this context, implementing the conventions of justice to cultural customs may possibly bring about a moral decline more willingly than an enhancement – in the same way that a family that starts to converse in the language of entitlements rather than love may perhaps be perceived to be carrying out less well. If cultural relativism is accurate, and communities can manipulate what is correct and erroneous, then the cultural relativist have got to perceive incursions on native ways of life and the wearing away of such culture as a ominous object. As McDonald’s are in motion into the avenues of Prague, for instance, the cultural relativist may perhaps perceive this as a hazard if it reduces features of Czech culture. Critics from this perception emphasize that demolition of old ways is the usual passenger of progress on the whole. Culture is by no means permanent, so when it transforms, it does not equate of transformation as becoming better or worse. The thought that overall the tendency is that individuals live better and more inclusive existence with more resources is recognized as creative destruction. Third World and indigenous arts have flourished on the jagged playing field of today’s international economy.

On this examination, transformation in culture and community need not be perceived as a catastrophe. The cultural relativist nonetheless may perhaps hypothesize that where a number of the most solid characteristics of smaller economies cannot refuse to accept being transplanted, an imperative characteristic of the moral understanding of societies has been permanently altered. The arguments over ethics and morality in the worldwide background are overwhelmed by difficulties of what is the topic of the discussion and what affects globalization has on the characteristics of societies in a global structure.

References

Albrow M. (1997). The Global Age. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press

Appadurai A. (1996). Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. Press

Arbel, C (1994) Globalization. The Architecture Review. Vol. 196

Bullard, N., Bello, W. and Mallhotra, K. (1998) ‘Taming the Tigers: The IMF and the Asian Crisis’,Third World Quarterly 19(3): 505–56.

Castells M. 1996. The Rise of the Network Society. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell

Crossette, Barbara (2000) “Making Room for the Poor in a Global Economy.” New York Times (April 16): 4.

Dalton, G (1999) ‘Globalization: Global Gravity Companies Seek End-To-End Information Systems. (Industry Trend or Event): A joint research and editorial project with InformationWeek’s partners in the U.K., Germany, and France’, 18 January

Frank, Ellen (2000). “Global Democratization: Spotlight on the United States.” New Politics 8:14.

Gereffi G. 1994. The organization of buyerdriven global commodity chains. In Commodity Chains and Global Capitalism, ed. G Gereffi, M Korzeniewicz, pp. 95-122. Westport, CT: Greenwood

Giddens A. 1990. The Consequences of Modernity. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press

Giddens A. 1991. Modernity and Self-Identity. Cambridge, MA: Polity

Giddens A. 2000. Runaway World: How Globalization is Reshaping our Lives. New York: Routledge

Gilpin R. 1987. The Political Economy of International Relations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press

Guillen MF. 2001. The Limits of Convergence: Globalization and Organizational Change in Argentina, South Korea, and Spain. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press

Harvey D. 1989. The Condition of Postmodernity. Oxford: Blackwell

Held D, McGrew A, Goldblatt D, and Perraton I. (1999). Global Transformations. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press

Hill, P (2000) ‘IMF Defends Push for Globalization’, The Washington Times, 13 April p.10

Hirst P. and Thompson G. (1996). Globalization in Question. London: Polity

Hutton, Will and Anthony Giddens (2000). “Is Globalisation, Americanization?” Dissent (Summer): 58-63.

Kennedy P. (1993). Preparing for the Twenty-First Century. New York: Random House

Kim, T.S. and Weaver, D.H. (2003). Reporting On Globalization: A Comparative Analysis Of Social Patterns In Five Countries’ Newspapers. Gazette: The International Journal For Communication Studies Copyright © 2003 Sage Publications. London, Thousand Oaks & New Delhi, Vol 65(2): 121–144

Kobrin SJ. 1997. The architecture of globalization: state sovereignty in a networked global economy. In Governments, Globalization, and International Business, ed. JH Dunning, pp. 146-71. New York: Oxford Univ. Press

Lemisch, Jesse (2000). “A Movement Begins: The Washington Protests Against IMP/World Bank.” New Politics 8: 5-11.

Levitt, T. (1983). “The globalization of markets”. In Harvard Business Review, Vol.61 No. 3, pp. 92-102.

Madrick, J. (1998) ‘The IMF Approach – The Half-Learned Lessons of History’, World Policy Journal Fall: 39–42.

McCorquodale, Robert and Richard Fairbrother (1999). “Globalisation and Human Rights.” Human Rights Quarterly Vol. 21: pp. 735-766.

McLuhan M. (1964). Understanding Media. London: Routledge

Meyer JW, Hannan MT. 1979. National development in a changing world system: an overview. In National Development and the World System: Educational, Economic, and Political Change, 1950-1970, ed. JW Meyer, MT Hannan, pp. 3-16. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press

Mittelman JH. 1996. The dynamics of globalization. In Globalization: Critical Reflections, ed. JH

Mittelman, pp. 1-19. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner

Moore, K (2001) ‘The Myths of Globalization.’ Ivey Business Journal. Volume 1.

Naisbitt J, and Aburdene P. (1990). Megatrends 2000. New York: Morrow

Ohmae K. (1990). The Borderless World. New York: Harper Business

O’Neill, T (2004) Global Market. Business Economics. Volume 1

Petras, J (1999) Globalization. Journal of Contemporary Asia. Volume 1.

Pierson P. (1994). Dismantling the Welfare State? Reagan, Thatcher, and the Politics of Retrenchment. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press

Porter, K. (2004). Americanization vs. Globalization: Are these words synonymous? In About Inc. Available at: [http://globalization.about.com/library/weekly/aa112801a.htm]. Accessed: [23/01/04]

Robertson R. 1992. Globalization: Social Theory and Global Culture. London: Sage

Sklair L. (1991). Sociology of the Global System. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf

Taylor, T. (2002). The Truth about Globalization. Public Interest. Volume 24.

Teeple, A. (2000). What is Globalization? In S. McBride (ed), Globalization and its Discontent, Macmillan. Basingstoke, England.

Vernon R. 1971. Sovereignty at Bay: The Multinational Spread of U.S. Enterprises. New York: Basic Books

Zelizer V.A. (1999). Multiple markets: multiple cultures. In Diversity and Its Discontents: Cultural Conflict and Common Ground in Contemporary American Society, ed. NJ Smelser, J Alexander, pp. 193-212. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press