Authors like Wallenstein, Cooper, and Hobsbawn hold that a specific historical demarcation of globalisation does not exist. Instead, what exists is a randomly conjoined shamble of recent eras starting from the seventeenth century onwards. However, Wallenstein and fellow theorists ascribing or contributing to the literature on globalisation have their earliest point of intersection lying in their definitions of globalisation. All conform to the idea of globalisation as a sort of acceleration and intensification of world integration. Beyond this point, the various globalisation theorists diverge into various specialties ranging from political, social, economic, cultural, and even moral among others as the guiding grounds for this concept of globalisation.
This paper shall carry out a comprehensive survey of the evolution of globalisation in the world. Globalisation in its normative sense is a prehistorically determined manifestation of humanity’s need to connect with fellow human beings and use such connections to improve their material basis. Since the globalisation phenomenon has developed for over five centuries now, some aspects that define contemporary globalisation are a repeated manifestation of earlier forms of globalisation such as exclusivity tendencies, which are now common among developed countries like the US that mirrors the concept of nationalism that was definitive of the second wave of globalisation’s collapse. Just as exclusivity is a reaction to transnational corporations, nationalism was in response to imperialism, particularly colonialism. The next section features a thorough discussion of the characteristics of the first, second, and third waves of globalisation by laying emphasis on the causes of failure in order to highlight possible land mines in contemporary globalisation. Finally, the paper gives a brief analysis of the key performances and perceptions of globalisation follows, which naturally ends in a list of criticisms of globalisation and the concurrent recommendations.
History of globalisation
Some of the fundamental explanatory theories of globalisation such as Marxism and its concept of capitalistic or materialistic nature of humanity and the consequent capital accumulation as the bane of their existence date back to the 17th century (Abu-Lughod 39). Over the years, other individuals have joined this line of thought and used it to explain some phenomenal occurrences in world history such as slavery and its contribution to the industrialisation of the West. Berg further develops this thought by asserting that the plantations and industrial manufacturers in this era had a particular inclination towards free labour, which can be used to explain the US’ tendency to oppress the working class (337). In the past, capitalistic or elitist minorities have reaped greater harvests when the majority of the labour market was in shackles and so these oppressive methods are all that they know, the foundations of most New World economies. In the attempt to make his idea even more plausible, Berg points out the existent parallels between the Atlantic slavery and the 21st century global labour market. He rightfully posits that both eras feature oppressive regimes imposed against the labour force by a minority capitalist class (Berg 339).
Within the context of contemporary globalisation, other players such as human rights activists have made this kind of operation a hanging crime. However, the individual needs of the workforce or even their personal affairs are rarely a matter of importance to employers. In fact, it is only in the last decade that employers have become acquainted with the idea of content employees reeling in better results and production that unhappy attaches (Berg 335). Consequently, most firms are belatedly employing specialists to direct them on how to improve the employer – employee, and employee – employee relationship in a bid to encourage loyalty to their firms and increase chances of better returns.
In presenting a history for globalisation, which as observed earlier does not fit into a neatly demarcated window, this paper provides general information based on the various schools of thought that inform globalisation as understood in the context of actual events in world history and at times drawing parallels between one era and the other. The seventeenth century is renowned for the initial packaging of globalisation as an economic wave that traversed the entire world (Bairoch 302). Prominent features of this era include economic prosperity of the existent empires at the time namely the Song Dynasty in China, although for this society, this period also marked their collapse economically due to preoccupation by distractions such as the warfare instigated by the European empires.
The success recorded in economic matters was due to free markets, liberty, and fraternity. This period also heralded the discovery of the Americas by the European powers of the day. The consequent availability of wealth reserves, which these powers discovered in the Americas enabled them to participate in the initially Asian – dominated Trans Atlantic trade. Additionally, they were able to resettle into the Americas and thus population increased alongside the diversity of trade. However, this economic growth was contentious because soon enough the European powers that had acquired a new fortune started to instigate the creation of hegemonies. An example is Spain, which featured a minority elitist group that tried to dominate the market forces (Robertson “The Historical Context and Significance of Globalisation” 558). Consequently, merchants, traders, and other economic actors moved to less oppressive regimes like England and Netherlands, causing the cumulative wealth to shift alongside them.
Additionally, nationalism grew especially among the countries or territories that were subject to colonisation by these original empires. The result was independence from the powers that were at the time. However, this independence’s worth is debatable since most imperial powers still have their tentacles clutching at the heart of such nations’ economies, especially when they attach self-serving conditions to any aid that they offer their former colonies. Nevertheless, concluding on that not would have an adverse effect on the interpretation or understanding of globalisation by developing states, which explains why a study of the history of globalisation is expedient: it highlights past mistakes and enables future generations to learn from these and thus avoid pitfalls. Ideally, globalisation is a noble concept. It frowns upon state – centred reforms on matters that clearly fit within the specs of global problems (Bairoch 311). An example of such a matter would be environmental regulation or boundary delimitation in the International Law of the sea. These issues involve more than just one nation, state, or country and so it is necessary to employ global dispute resolution or decision-making mechanisms in handling them. Moreover, within economics, the return of transcending national borders in trade are irrefutably higher than those that an individual state can accrue if left to its own devices.
This permeability of borders increases third world countries’ opportunities for growth and development directly through investing in better economies and indirectly by learning from their predecessors in development in terms of technologies and minefields to be avoided in the relevant sectors. However, all these aspects fall within an idealistic globalisation, which most inhabitants of the world hope to achieve and would already have achieved were it not for the pursuit of selfish interests by some capitalistic “founding fathers” of the world. The history of globalisation is demarcated by humanity’s failure to overcome the issues or challenges that come with geography and by its inability to adopt democratic imperatives of globalisation (Griffin 800). The founding fathers did not realise that they could not defeat the phenomenon of ‘human interconnectedness’ for humanity throughout the corridors of history displays this characteristic of seeking to interact within its parameter as extensively as possible. Therefore, a minority few could never truly impose controls on society that could bind it indefinitely for there would always be a struggle and contention to break free from oppression. Consequently, it would be expedient for the first world countries in the world today to understand this basic truth and cease trying to control others while holding themselves above the law.
First wave of Globalisation
At the onset of this era is the vulnerability experienced by China namely the plague and the distraction staged by the Eurasian warlords. These two variables dealt an almost deadly blow to the once upon a time globally superior Song Dynasty. As the Chinese economy dwindled, the European states rose to fill the resultant gap in the trade (TransAtlantic). They grew rapidly because of the inherent intensity of competition among them as well as the aforementioned bonus of discovering the Americas and its expansive wealth reserves. Consequently, the European states had the requisite incentive coupled by adequate means to join in the lucrative intra Asian trade of the day (Gunder 209). The historical globalisation evolution that traversed three centuries is often understood in allusion to the so-called “European Cultural Exceptionalism”. However, the above analysis has the effect of giving credit for this evolution to the new wealth in the Americas and the inter-competitiveness of European states, which facilitated great returns in terms of profits from the investments made by these states. However, soon enough, the first wave of global capitalism reared its head when the minority elitists attempted to create hegemonies in Europe using this amassed wealth. The results were self-defeating because the wealth and development quotient shifted. Traders moved to other less oppressive and more enterprising regions where leaders sought to expand wealth rather than abuse it at the expense of the majorities that formed the bulk of the labour forces. This move explained the migration of economic development institutions and personalities from Spain to England and the Netherlands.
This move marked the first wave of globalisation as evidenced by the shift from intersecting regional markets to actual global markets. As people travelled everywhere to trade, they moved into new geographical territories carrying flora and fauna from various indigenous habitats and letting them to flourish in new environments. Consequently, the global population increased and these environments involved as per the organisms inhabiting them. These fundamental pioneer changes led to the destabilisation of practically all the nations of the world. Consequently, it was necessary that they find a way to cope. Examples of the changes that transpired consequent to this globalisation include the increased economic activities in England pursuant to the legal developments in commercial and other relevant laws to incorporate international or foreign parties. Specifically, the Lloyds Club registered a growth of insurance law, especially with regard to marine insurance, which increased the confidence of investors to invest in unprecedented ventures such as carriages across the continents. Moreover, class relations were revolutionised and an example is the Lloyds club mentioned above, which initially started as a social meeting place where the merchants of the days would congregate to talk about their ventures and developments in the trade sector, but later evolved to a commercial intersection point in England with the formal structures befitting of its international participants.
However, these developments were not always progressive or positive. Due to the increase in human interactions, social conflicts multiplied in frequency and complexity, which led to wars and rumours of war that were detrimental to the globalisation process. They also heralded the establishment of the legal framework, such as in common law and principles of equity. Additionally, the increase in majorities’ aggregate wealth threatened the fortunes that minority elites had amassed, and thus the capitalistic class sought to put the masses in their places by oppressing them through the formation of hegemonies and extracting maximum produce from them at minimum wage rates. The respective nations, states, and countries’ response to these changes determined the future of their economic standing as well as the present’s accumulation of wealth opportunities.
Notably, most sovereigns were unable to cope with the changes and in the face of industrious and malevolent minority elites, they did not stand a chance. Consequently, the elites reaped most rewards from this wave of globalisation. Nevertheless, many citizens gained empowerment through the amassing of wealth, thus attaining the status of neo-minority-elitists (Gunder 43). Additionally, the nature of trade had diversified to include products from all corners of the earth and so the economic sector was ripe with opportunities created by the unregulated market forces of demand and supply, which resulted in industrialisation and urbanisation.
Politically, this wave affected the countries that were unable to promote their economic prowess and image of being industrially affluent or worthy of others’ respect. Such states’ automatic dependency on the economic super powers made them vulnerable to colonisation, which meant the loss of their autonomy. Additionally, with the increase in their wealth reserves, old world countries’ insecurities over the safety of their security measures capitulated (Giddens 21). Consequently, most of them set in place stringent security measures aimed at protecting their wealth and the welfare of their citizens. This reversion to protectionism, albeit inadvertently, dealt a near-fatal blow to the budding globalisation practices of the day because the borders of various countries were once more impermeable and their finance policies aimed at increasing state gains even though at the expense of foreign investors.
Second wave of globalisation
The definitive characteristic of this wave of globalisation was the accompanying technological revolution of the nineteenth century. Industrialisation bloomed and blossomed into an increase in consumer markets and groups throughout the world (Slater 209). For instance, in the cotton processing industries in the west, demand culminated in the need to import additional cotton to satisfy just the local needs. Democratisation also evolved in the application as most nations seemingly unanimously saw the importance of this fundamental principle in obtaining sustainable global leadership. As more people migrated into previously uninhabited areas and became neighbours to the natives, human interconnectedness increased and people cooperated to produce higher profits. This aspect also contributed to diversity in production because as more people migrated with various strains and breeds of crops and animals respectively, the environments in which they settled to practice agriculture changed and so various segments of society produced differently, thus increasing diversity. Simultaneously, democratisation–based globalisation principles were spreading with the increased interactions between various races of humanity.
However, as in the first wave, the global residents in this era made the blunder of deviating from the principles of equitable democratisation by seeking to conquer weaker players to boost their own security. This thinking hinged on the premise that by conquering another state or nation, a country created an image of being invincible, which would garner respect among its peers. Nevertheless, this thinking was misguided because the secret to security and well-being rests on emphasising on both political and economical empowerment.
The existing countries had an urgent need to dispense with the clogging effect of hierarchies in the structures of their respective national institutions, thus promoting a coherent and coordinated institutional framework (Huberman14). Compliance with these standards resulted in more result-oriented economic participation of states. Most of them invested heavily in infrastructure, communication, and human capital, which simply means that their education systems were modelled to produce multiple workers incessantly through the respective generations of industry.
However, the ultimate effect of these progressive efforts by states once more met the defeatist strategies employed by the minority elite class that felt threatened by the success of the majorities. Consequently, once again, they elected a counterproductive measure to impede mass development and this time settled on colonisation. This move was a short-term distraction for various empires. For instance, the empire of Japan used colonisation as a space-filler to distract its constituents from the unhealthy competition transpiring within its own economy and between itself and like-minded affiliates abroad. The US used this forum to reinforce its global image as a super power, find uninhibited access to international wealth reserves, and create a forum to instil the precepts of social Darwinism, which it esteemed to be necessary to achieve its status and standing, and thus hoped to assimilate other nations. The United States and the other empires in this era were seeking to create hegemonies of the world, with each empire perceiving its beliefs and logic to be superior and thus fodder for emulation by weaker and less civilised nations.
However, the empires also sought to protect their own autonomy and individuality by having as many as possible conform to their policies, thus reducing the chances of rebellion or attempted conquer by peers. Unfortunately, this strategy was short-lived as the consequent evils far outweighed the good expected and promised by these imperial powers. First, colonisation gave rise to racism, which led to the ugliest recordings of human atrocities throughout history ranging from ethnic cleansings to holocausts. The most evident effect that had an adverse effect on globalisation was the creation of the “victim mentality” that is impeding most third world countries’ development. The final blow to this wave was the two World Wars and the Depression that occurred within a decade of the war (Kiely 45). These were the blatant consequences of states and countries being exclusive and monopolising the global economy. Alternatively, had they instituted policies that emphasised on empowerment, cooperation, democratisation, and global development, the world would have been spared the gross insecurity that came with the depression period. Yet, all these happenings were due to particular states seeking to be laws unto themselves and on the other hand, world states maintaining a determined stance to protect their autonomy and hegemony both at home and on the international arena even though this meant war. Consequently, this confrontation sparked a second world war that was closely followed by fascism (Robertson “The Three Waves of Globalisation” 38).
Third and current wave of globalisation
As noted above, the second wave of globalisation culminated in the World War II. However, after the second extensive loss of lives and of the yields of previous globalisation regimes, world states were more malleable and easy to be entreated to comply with the democratisation agenda. At the forefront of pushing for a global world order was the United States, which led to the popular dogmatic phrase, viz. American globalism. One of the solutions accorded by the United States was a strategy to revive its fallen rivals by planning their state affairs and their construction of their social lives (Strinati 144). This move was a far-reaching obligation undertaken by the United States and it soon became apparent to its government and to the world at large that it could not possibly shoulder the burden that came with managing the affairs of other countries. Apparently, even if it could, the other countries were not necessarily eager to have their affairs looked into and determined by a former rival. The fear for hegemony was still ripe and so at this point, the idea of forming multilateral institutions to handle global issues was born. The objective of these international instruments was to prevent a recurrence of the historical blunders of nationalistic strategies aimed at benefitting single states at the expense of the rest of the world. Some of the institutions created include the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the World Trade Organisation (WTO). Additionally, a system for resolving international disputes amicably was instituted in the quest to avoid a third world war. These developments took the form of the International Court of Justice, (ICJ). Notably, whereas the world applauds the United Nations’ seemingly philanthropic efforts, it has become apparent that they were partly an attempt to maintain its hegemony.
Nonetheless, this third wave reformist environment presented an avenue for the dissolution of the empires created during the tenure of the second wave of globalisation. A manifestation of this suitability of the environment is the intensive human rights activities that resulted in the abolishment of slavery, or the feminist movement that resulted in the affirmative action prohibiting discrimination against minorities and by extension relaxing the rigid protectionist laws against refugees and immigrants.
However, the effects of colonisation did not wear off easily and they are still felt up to date. The most crippling effect is the inability of independent states to participate in the globalised economy. Neo-colonialism is still apparent in the qualifications stipulated by aid givers upon the countries partaking of that aid. Consequently, developing countries have developed a negative view towards globalisation because to them, it seems like an extension of colonisation. This assertion holds because the various international institutions are not equitable in their treatment of these new world states. Although they exist in the international arena and in most forums seek equal representation in the discharge of their rights under the universality principle, these states are notably lagging behind in terms of economic development, hence the term “developing” countries. Consequently, it is not equitable to subject such countries to the same sanctions or interest rates that a nation like the United States can withstand comfortably. This move is clearly in contravention with the principles of equity that have been adjudged as a subsidiary source of international law. Whereas the Unites States may only flinch when paying a fine imposed by the IMF, a third world’s economy may stand in jeopardy of collapsing courtesy of the crippling fines.
However, the view that globalisation is a form of neo-colonisation is grossly inaccurate because globalisation is a viable and positive move (at least the intention of the original idea was positive and viable). However, in its current operative state, it may be difficult to dissuade these prejudiced states of their hard-learnt perspectives. Presently, globalisation neither emphasises on democratisation nor strengthens social reforms. The WTO directives emphasise on production at the expense of local producers’ goods lacking a market especially when the various free trade agreements entered into by states as required by the WTO open up the borders to cheap imports that flood the local market (Strinati 151). The overall effect of this scenario is the inhibition of local growth and development while providing a market for old world countries to dispose of their products.
Another defining characteristic of this new wave of globalisation is the incorporation of multinational or transnational corporations, which are devised to take advantage of the foreign resources and markets. This aspect has resulted in the expansion of global production networks to expedite the process of transactions across the globe. The effects of registering such corporations in developing countries are adverse, and they range from environmental degradation due to the concept of nationalist status acquired by such foreign firms to lay-offs for the indigenous workers. The TNCs are to be treated as closely as possible to indigenous industries and this element touches on emissions. Consequently, such industries could pollute the environment of the various nations with impunity simply because national laws may not cater for their classification of emissions, yet in their parent country, such conduct is clearly forbidden. Additionally, the issue of profit repatriation may leave the host country at a disadvantage, as that could the employment policy (Strinati 159). However, annexed to the concept of multinationals is the obviously flawed requirement by the IMF for the privatisation of major state assets and especially for those developing nations that have defaulted on their payments. Privatisation has the long-term effect of increasing the cost of living of the ordinary citizen so that the aggregate bills for basic usages may well exceed the minimum wage threshold.
Performances and principle perceptions of globalisation
As observed from the first and second waves of globalisation, there is a possibility of a failure of the current third wave of globalisation and this would possibly result from nations resorting to nationalist practices. In a bid to avoid this scenario, the current regime of globalisation is focusing on the enhancement of civil societies’ central role. Civil societies manifest the point of intersection between the economic and political arms of globalisation. However, towards these ends, there have been notable difficulties in the execution of effective policies and these are briefly discussed below. They include:
Extending or deepening democratisation worldwide
This aspect manifests in the event of privatisation, where international institutions require the developing countries to implement the same and the result is the formation of monopolies in pursuit of attaining maximum profits in the immediate future. It adversely affects the economy of the developing country because available funds and resources shall be redirected at the expense of investing in human capital and infrastructure (Stiglitz 201). As a result, the discontent in these countries culminates in warfare and debts. On the opposite end, since the imperialistic first world countries are the only parties benefiting from such oppressive tactics, corruption levels in such states are exacerbated. However, analysts proscribe a short lifespan for such methodology of capital accumulation by comparing it to that of the empires of the old (Huber 628). The reason why these old empires like Japan were dissolved was because they sought to act as a law to themselves, but principles of human interconnectedness inhibited such impunity (Krugman and Venables 867). Similarly, the same principles cannot suffer modern hegemonies’ survival at the expense of defenceless third world countries.
As noted above, the requisite foundational base of globalisation is democratisation. However, just as democracy withers in poverty-struck societies, so shall it die in an unsustainable environment (Giddens 28). Consequently, the tendency of contemporary or modern industries to focus on the yields of production without giving due regard to the sustainability of the procedures they are putting in place shall cost them dearly in case of a failure of the third wave of globalisation, which is inevitable if they continue to act without due regard to the environment. However, since the issue of environmental regulation is global in its reach, it is necessary to form regulatory policies at a global level because presently, there is a lacuna in the development of the law regarding international environmental policies.
This challenge was only recently defined, and it is apparent in the resistance of states, which in effect identify themselves and justify their sovereignty by their inherent definitive characteristics, to the amalgamation of their cultures with other nationalities. This aspect inhibits diversity and encourages states to set up protectionist barriers to international interactions in a bid to protect their security and well-being (Williamson 54). However, this has the adverse effect of defeating globalisation.
Criticisms of globalisation
This element is manifest in the consumption of cheap consumer goods by old world countries and this is exacerbated by the encroachment of “sweatshops”. Such areas where cheap labour is procured under almost inhumane working conditions are numerous in the world and mostly located within Export Promoting Zones (EPZs), such as the maquiladoras on the Mexican borders (Bennett 69). Here, the government promotes investment in the manufacturing industries by instituting incentives such as reduced tax rates, increased subsidies on imports necessary for production, and minimum regulation by labour laws, hence the low wages. They are the epitome of capitalism and unfortunately, they currently form part of the definition of the third wave of globalisation.
Increased social inequity
This factor can be attributed to the expansion of the economic market without maintaining the equilibrium by enhancing redistribution channels, which reeks of capitalism because it focuses on fulfilling the interests of the rich minority and thus the gap between the rich and poor widens by the day. At the state level, it is manifest in the application of protectionist policies by developed states such as in the issuance of visas and dealing with immigrants. This move denies developing countries an avenue of development. Additionally, the World Trade Organisation’s regulations practically amputate developing countries limbs, thus making it impossible for them to catch up with the rest of the world (Chang 22). For instance, by setting up policies that allow the flooding of local economies with cheap imports that outdo the local goods the WTO hinders indigenous development.
Globalisation has not alleviated the levels of political inequality much as it has purported to do so by instituting equitable principles like the universality principle, which is evident in the exclusion of some states from major decision making protocols yet the decision supposedly ought to govern them. Additionally, in the administration of sanctions, as observed in this paper, it goes against the principles of equity to impose the same amount and level of sanctions on a developing country as that on a developed country (Monbiot 81). This assertion holds because such sanctions have the effect of crippling some developing countries’ economies yet the old world countries could easily meet the demands imposed on it without breaking a sweat for the same offense. Ultimately, this scenario has the effect of demoralising some nations and increasing others’ impunity.
This factor refers to the global preference for some cultures and obvious disdain for others. For instance, the American culture stands out as a civilised culture, whereas some African cultures seem repugnant, and this view increases the divide amongst states and threatens the peace. Such differing views led to the Cold War (Sklair 65).
Examples of this phenomenon include deforestation, depletion of fossil fuels, minerals and fisheries, and pollution. The consequences are far reaching and they include the depletion of the ozone layer leading to the melting of polar ice caps and global warming, which result from the accumulation of gases in the stratosphere due to accumulated heat. These effects may not be immediate, but they have adverse effects on the human population such as the increase in certain types of diseases such as cancers and depletion of resources for future generations, such as fossil fuels and forests (Giddens 98). Globalisation does not seem to have any mechanisms to handle these issues and this aspect gives rise to the questioning of its integrity.
It may be helpful to target global or international institutions in a bid to produce public goods. Institutions like the International Monetary Fund should be refurbished into a Central World Bank with no influence of any individual nations or states. Additionally, besides the ICJ, it is expedient to come up with an additional institution focused on the resolution of international criminal and civil matters. Either way, the objects of these global institutions should be founded upon principles of democratisation for it is deepening and widening to cover the entire globe uniformly. An aspect of democratisation is the devolution of authority.
Secondly, since presently most states have working institutions that they may feel pained to depart from or it may appear to be hegemony-inspired to require them to do so, it would be better to have them adapt their respective domestic institutions to meet global standards and requirements. This way, they would have the capacity to address issues that arise at the global level.
Third, on matters that require global cooperation such as sustainable environment policies, it would be necessary to institute mechanisms that are equipped to garner such cooperation accompanied with a failure to comply with the guidebook providing sanctions. Moreover, in view of the issue of equitability discussed above, there is a need for a system to analyse the various sanctions accorded concerning non-compliance with environmental regulation, as well as any other breach to come up with an equitable sanction for each respective nation dependent on its capacity.
Fourth, it would greatly assist the globalisation process, which is founded on protectionism, to avoid exclusivity in nations or states. Instead, it would be more prudent to encourage migration and mobility. In the very least, this move would be a portrayal of having transparency in view of globalisation. An appendage to this recommendation touches on the need to advance empowerment strategies instead of instigating futile security and well being measures aimed at selfish existence. This empowerment could be done in the form of educating the citizenry to take to diversity and shun discrimination. It would have the effect of avoiding a multiplicity of bloody conflicts that occur annually throughout the globe due to discrimination based on race, ethnicity, gender, or even sexual orientation. The empowerment could also inform the world on the history of globalisation in order for countries and states to learn from past mistakes and avoid the minefields. For instance, it is important to recognise that materialism shall always be a priority for humanity because human survival hinges on temporal self-sufficiency.
Finally, even if transnational corporations continue in operation, they should endeavour to work through national cultures as opposed to destroying them. Pacesetters in this strategy include MTV and the McDonalds. McDonald’s in China and other Asian countries have fish as the main meat in their burgers, which is pursuant to preference of fish to red meat by the Asian consumers. This aspect has the effect of achieving consumers’ buy in especially because they feel that their culture is not perceived as inferior to the foreigners.
This paper has carried out a comprehensive overview of the history of globalisation following the three waves of globalisation spanning the past four centuries. It has adduced that the malignant cancer threatening globalisation is selfish state practices grounded on nationalist and protectionist principles and that the solution lies in the extensive democratisation of the process. It has explored the various anti-globalisation criticisms including environmental degradation and political inequality among others and proposed recommendations such as the empowerment of states by educating them on the advantages of embracing diversity and avoiding cultural homogenisation. It also mentions the possible resources to handle the faulty international institutions like the World Bank (disbanding) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) (transformation into a World Central Bank). Finally, it has dispelled the false impressions held by most developing countries on the negativity of globalisation, which were adopted due to the attempted hegemony by old world countries, and posits that by applying the recommendations set out above, globalisation shall be revolutionised to a more equitable and thus more acceptable channel for economic development in a sustainable environment.
Abu-Lughod, Janet. Before European Hegemony: The World System AD 1250–1350, New York: Oxford University Press, 1989. Print.
Bairoch, Paul. “International industrialisation levels from 1750 to 1980.” Journal of European Economic History 11.2 (1982): 268–333. Print.
Bennett, Tony. “Theories of Media, Theories of Society.” Culture, Society, and the Media. Ed. Michael Gurevitch, London: Methuen, 1982. 30-55. Print.
Berg, Maxine. “From Globalisation to Global History.” History Workshop Journal 64.1: (2007): 335-340. Print.
Chang, Ha-Joon. Kicking Away the Ladder, London: Anthem, 2002. Print.
Giddens, Anthony. Runaway World: How Globalisation is Reshaping Our Lives, London: Profile Books, 2000. Print.
Griffin, Keith. “EconomicGlobalisation and Institutions ofGlobalGovernance.” Development and Change 34.5 (2003): 789–807.
Gunder, Frank. ReORIENT: Global Economy in the Asian Age, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1998. Print.
Huber, Richard. “Effects on Prices of Japan’s Entry into World Commerce after 1858.” Journal of Political Economy 79.3 (1971): 614-28. Print.
Huberman, Michael 2011, International Labor Standards and Market Integration Before 1913: A Race to the Top. Web.
Kiely, Ray. The Clash of Globalisms: Neo-Liberalism, The third Way, and Anti-Globalism. Leiden: Brill academic Publishers, 2005. Print.
Krugman, Paul, and Anthony Venables. “Globalisation and inequality of nations.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 110.4 (1995): 857–80. Print.
Monbiot, George. The Age of Consent: A Manifesto for a New World Order, London: Flamingo, 2003. Print.
Robertson, Robbie. “The Historical Context and Significance of Globalisation.” Development and Change 35.3 (2004): 557–565. Print.
Robertson, Robbie. The Three Waves of Globalisation: A History of a Developing Global Consciousness, London: Zed Books, 2003. Print.
Sklair, Leslie. Globalisation: Capitalism and its Alternatives, Oxford: Oxford University, 2002. Print.
Slater, Don. Consumer Culture and Modernity, Cambridge: Polity, 1997. Print.
Stiglitz, Joseph. Globalisation and its Discontents, Harmondsworth: Penguin, 2002. Print.
Strinati, Dominic. An Introduction to Theories of Popular Culture, London: Routledge, 1992. Print.
Williamson, Jeffrey. “Winners and Losers Over Two Centuries of Globalisation.” tional NBER Series Working Paper 9161 (2002): 1-60. Print.