Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
net/publication/250230985
CITATION READS
1 702
3 authors, including:
Tina Zappile
Stockton University
13 PUBLICATIONS 28 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Tina Zappile on 12 August 2015.
45
01 pages 001-120 19/4/05 12:43 pm Page 46
Counting the number of books, articles, dissertations, and op-ed pieces with
the term globalization in their titles the questions above seem to be among
the most paramount in international relations.2 Clearly globalization is almost
universally recognized as a concept worthy of study by social scientists. Often-
times authors use the term globalization as if it is an independent variable
impacting their subject (i.e., dependent variable). Others do not clearly specify
one definition of globalization but instead sidestep definition and classification
and assert an unsophisticated dialectical view that ‘globalization is everything
and its opposite’ (Friedman, 1999: 331). Both approaches overlook the immense
problem of how to operationalize the concept. To operationalize many social
concepts is to participate in debate about their meaning and significance
(MacIntyre, 1973: 8). Power, democracy, freedom, national interest, and sus-
tainable development are a few of the social concepts that are difficult to
operationalize and can be considered essentially contested.
For instance, consider that for democracy to exist most people would agree
there must be some form of free, fair, and competitive elections. Exactly what
constitutes ‘free’, ‘fair’, and ‘competitive’ elections is not always clear.
Elections are necessary but not sufficient for the existence of democracy.
Moreover, as the vast literature on the so-called liberal-communitarian debate
reveals, there are as many definitions of democracy as there are authors on the
subject. While democracy is perhaps a classic essentially contested concept, few
people would discard the concept simply because of its contested nature. What
makes essentially contested concepts interesting to study is precisely because the
concepts themselves are replete with scholarly controversy. In Connolly’s (1983:
20) words:
The internal complexity of the concept, combined with the relative openness
of each of its unit criteria, provides the space within which … disputes take
place, and because of these very features, operational tests and formal modes
of analysis do not provide sufficient leverage to settle such disputes.
46
01 pages 001-120 19/4/05 12:43 pm Page 47
definitions of the concept are so vague as to leave the reader perplexed as to what
is the author’s intended meaning. Lack of definitional consensus, what Connolly
terms internal complexity and contestability, is one of the three elements that
signify a concept is essentially contested. The second element is met by the
controversy over what tangible entities globalization can be applied. Does
globalization involve firms, states, labour, or some combination of real world
objects? The final element of contestation involves how globalization is
appraised; what are its normative implications? Essentially contested concepts
are not exclusively descriptive concepts. They are normative in the sense that
they convey some form of moral, political, or social evaluation. Utilizing
Connolly’s framework enables an assessment of how the concept of global-
ization itself is part of a political process. The way scholars use the concept of
globalization is, in essence, part of a political process of defining, determining
the appropriate units of analysis, and evaluating its implications. Put differently,
globalization – as a social science concept – is distended with such a myriad
of meanings, units of analysis, and normative convictions that the concept’s
meaningfulness must be questioned.
We argue that globalization meets Connolly’s criteria and can be fruitfully
assessed as a contested concept. As a contested concept, globalization is part
and parcel to a political process whereby the term is used by actors for different
objectives. In other words, because of the normative, appraisive element of
globalization, those who use the term often are not only describing a situation,
but are also – implicitly or explicitly – promoting a particular political position.
As such, we question the social-scientific utility of the concept. This is not to say
that globalization is meaningless. Indeed, because of the nature of contested
concepts, globalization is an interesting study in knowledge and concept
formation.
We first present several of the various, sometimes contradictory, meanings
ascribed to the term. Next, we assess what real world objects globalization is
thought to affect. Some authors maintain that globalization is merely an econ-
omic phenomenon while others assign it political, social, and cultural attributes.
We then consider the appraisive features of globalization whereby some
observers claim globalization is threatening national governments, labour, and
societal sub-groups and therefore justify a course of action to alleviate its (ill)
effects. This paper ends with our doubts about the utility of treating globalization
as an independent variable to explain change in the world political economy. In
short, we contend that the discursive properties of the many ‘globalizations’
make the employment of the concept subject to problems of interpretation.
Moreover, authors employing the term invite visceral reactions to their work
based merely on others’ opinions and perceptions of what globalization means.
Our conclusion reflects on the utility of globalization as a social science con-
cept and provides suggestions on how to best obtain value from the use of the
term.
47
01 pages 001-120 19/4/05 12:43 pm Page 48
Defining Globalization
Some authors describe globalization as an exogenous force behoving domestic
firms to create strategic alliances in pursuit of ever more quickly advancing
technologies (Yang, 1995: 2). In this economic-based definition, globalization
‘reflects an altered basis of corporate and national competitiveness as well as
of international investment and commerce’ (Yang, 1995: 2). Corporate com-
petitiveness, in this view, leads to national success for the geographic region
that contains corporate production and services. As an economic concept,
globalization can further be broken into financial and productive features (Cox,
1994).
In a more detailed examination of what globalization means, Barnet and
Cavanagh (1993: 155-60) present four ‘emerging institutions’ that make-up
globalization. First, they point out the rise of a global, perpetual financial
network that allows (electronic) trading. Short-term capital flows have increased
dramatically in the past 20 years, to the point where ‘transactions in foreign
exchange markets are now nearly 80 times larger than world trade’ (Torres, 2001:
1). Second, Barnet and Cavanagh describe what they term a ‘global cultural
bazaar’ of commercialization of cultures via an international communications
network and the export and import of cultural products such as movies. Third,
products from far-flung locations are increasingly available in the markets of
developed countries. In essence, this category represents the fact that increas-
ingly the nationality of goods and services is difficult to determine; leading
Reich (1990) to ask ‘who is us?’ Because of globalization (and regionalization)
‘fewer and fewer issues of trade and investment policy permit appeal to an
unequivocal national interest’ (Rapkin and Strand, 1995: 4). The final feature
presented by Barnet and Cavanagh (1993: 157) is the ‘global factory [which]
is a network of plants, contract, offices, and communications links for the
production of goods, the processing of information, and performance of services
of every description’. Obviously the four categories they use to frame their
discussion of globalization are not mutually exclusive or necessarily easily
measured.
Difficulties in defining the economic foundations of globalization exist in
large part because authors do not offer clear definitions. Krugman and Venables
(1995) for example, develop a simple model to assess how globalization impacts
the gains from free trade for developed and developing countries. They do not,
however, attempt to define globalization. They imply that it is the opening of
trade via global or regional multilateral trade agreements. Also implied in their
model is that trade liberalization affects wages.4 Torres (2001: 1) characterizes
globalization as ‘a process of rapid economic integration among countries driven
by the liberalization of trade, investment, and capital flows, as well as tech-
nological change’.5 Tilly (1995: 1) declares that globalization ‘means an increase
in the geographic range of locally consequential social interactions’. He pro-
48
01 pages 001-120 19/4/05 12:43 pm Page 49
49
01 pages 001-120 19/4/05 12:43 pm Page 50
50
01 pages 001-120 19/4/05 12:43 pm Page 51
51
01 pages 001-120 19/4/05 12:43 pm Page 52
1995; Ostry and Nelson, 1995). National governments are compelled to enact
trade policies (strategic or otherwise) in order to enhance their ‘competitive-
ness’. Even though some pundits argue that national competitiveness is a
potentially ‘dangerous obsession’ because it defeats global (liberal) trade
policies (Krugman, 1994) it remains an important and necessary concept for
political leaders to assess the relative position of countries in the global political
economy (Rapkin and Strand, 1996). Many authors have addressed the reactions
of national government to the globalization of the world economy (e.g., Rapkin
and Avery, 1995; Stubbs and Underhill, 1994). Feeding into the definitional
problem of scale, the reactions of national governments have been nationalistic,
regional, and global orientated policies.8 Ultimately, however, it remains unclear
what aspects of globalization promote or erode national competitiveness and
hence the ‘proper’ response by governments to globalization remains in dispute.
Examining the implications of globalization for business, labour, and the state
is further complicated by the disparate nature of the other real world objects that
globalization supposedly effects. Bitzinger (1994) refers to the globalization of
the production of military arms. We are told that telecommunications services
and automobile production are both globalized (Trebing and Estabrooks, 1995;
Yang, 1995). Globalization impacts and destroys cultures and undermines
‘social justice’ (Roniger, 1995). It affects how people identify themselves
(Kearney, 1995). And, globalization is even seen as a factor in the migration of
athletes (Maguire, 1995). Global social movements, such as protests against
further trade liberalization, are seen by many as a backlash to globalization. Not
surprising, the wide variety of entities globalization is thought to influence has
led to disagreement over how to appraise its impact, the third aspect of its
contestability.
52
01 pages 001-120 19/4/05 12:43 pm Page 53
Protestors see globalization in a very different light than the treasury secretary
of the United States, or the finance and trade ministers of most of the advanced
industrial countries. The differences in views are so great that one wonders,
are the protestors and the policy makers talking about the same phenomenon?
Are they looking at the same data? Are the visions of those in power so
clouded by special and particular interests?
53
01 pages 001-120 19/4/05 12:43 pm Page 54
those who see it as both positive and deepening (e.g., Omhae: 1990; Wriston:
1992). Others interpret globalization as a threat to labour (e.g., Robinson: 1995)
or the state (Strange: 1996). Evans (1997) counters that the state is not on its
last legs, although there is a possibility state capacity will weaken. Hirst and
Thompson (1996) argue that the level of globalization is overstated.10
Globalization is seen simultaneously as harmful, beneficial, meaningless, and
meaningful. No particular interpretation of its implications is authoritative or
hegemonic. Therefore, the appraisal of globalization is contested.
Conclusion
Prior to setting sail, a fundamental skill of the ancient sailor was the naming
of the directional points on a compass in particular order. Without a clear
knowledge of all 32 points and their relationship with one another a sailor was
prone to navigate off course. By analogy we believe many authors have not
boxed the globalization compass. Clearly, scholars are defining, applying, and
appraising the term differently and without reference to how others have
employed it. Globalization is thought to involve a myriad of interrelated econ-
omic, political, social, and cultural elements. How a researcher should measure,
combine, and weight these elements is not clear. It does not appear that observers
will anytime soon come to an agreement on how to index globalization. Not only
is there connotative disagreement over the component factors and how to
measure them, there is also no consensus on timing.
Exactly what real world objects are being globalized, Connolly’s second
element of contestability, is debatable. Consensus may be available on certain
economic aspects of globalization, but these are not easily separated from
political, social, and cultural factors. One must be circumspect of a concept
that can be applied to change in most any real world object. Indeed, Susan
Strange’s (1998) claim that globalization can sometimes be better thought of as
‘globalony’ seems apropos. Veseth’s (1998: 2) characterization of globalization
can also serve as a warning for authors who use the term:
54
01 pages 001-120 19/4/05 12:43 pm Page 55
Labour and the state are seen as only able to react to (economic) globalization,
although the reactions by especially the state are somewhat contradictory
(involving nationalistic, regional, or global orientated policies). In short, the
utility of the concept must be questioned because the concept is part of a larger
political process. Seeing globalization as a contested concept enables us to
reflect on the analytic utility of the term, especially in regards to theoretical and
methodological problems that inhibit straightforward operationalization and
valuation. However, assessing globalization within the framework of essentially
contested concepts does not mean that the definitional, denotative, and
normative controversies surrounding the term are transcended. What it does
reveal is that the measurement of globalization is not a simple matter of
measuring changes in economic indicators. Moreover, the meanings of
essentially contest concepts change over time and evolve into concepts that are
no longer, or at least, less contested. Globalization is a term that is continually
being redefined, reconstructed, and reconstituted. But there is nothing to suggest
its contestability is permanent. Furthermore, globalization may eventually be
shown to be more fad than fact, going the way of other ephemeral concepts.
We have endeavored to show that the term globalization is an essentially
contested concept. Thus far we have not addressed the magnitude of global-
ization’s contestability. In regards to the significance of its contestation we refer
to John Gray’s discussion of three levels of contestability (Gray, 1977: 338). The
first level is weak contestation that is mainly an empirical issue. To Gray, some
concepts are contestable because of scholarly controversy over identification and
measurement. This level of contestability is not a serious threat to a concept’s
use, but should be of concern for those who attempt to operationalize the concept
globalization. The above review of the uses and definitions of globalization in
social science literature demonstrates that the term is at the very least contested
in this sense.
Gray’s second level of contestation refers to situations when application of a
term is contestable, which requires that the ‘inconclusiveness of debates about
the criteria of correct application of the concept’ (Gray, 1977: 338). Given
the myriad of objects globalization is said to impact (e.g., rights of labour, the
welfare state’s ability to tax, etc.) this level of contestation is certainly met.
At Gray’s third, and most serious, level of essentially contested concepts
‘there are always good reasons for disputing the propriety of any of [a term’s]
uses’. Concepts that are seriously contested in this way are ones where no single
perspective has a monopoly on the truth regarding the evaluation of the concept
and ‘hinge upon the validity of metaphysical theses which … are not self-
evidently immune to criticism’ (Gray, 1977: 344-345).
By recognizing the essential contestability of globalization we do not
insinuate the term should be discarded. Just as other contested concepts are (and
should be) employed in social science research, globalization can be utilized.
In fact, recognition of globalization as a contest concept is a way to save
55
01 pages 001-120 19/4/05 12:43 pm Page 56
Acknowledgements
An earlier version of this article was presented at the 2002 meeting of the
International Studies Association-Midwest. We thank Vanya Krieckhaus and two
anonymous referees for useful comments.
Notes
11
Others have, of course, pointed out the problems of defining globalization (e.g., Kitching, 2001
& Hirst and Thompson, 1996).
12
As noted by Conley (2002: note 1), a corollary trend in publishing is the number of ‘end of …’
books published. Conley cites Mount’s (1996: 30) figure of over 150 books with ‘end of …’ in
their title.
13
We do not adopt the more radical, non-positivist metaphysics regarding essentially contested
concepts that suggests social reality does not offer any common ground or truly shared
understandings. Rather, we use the framework in the hybrid of Connolly (1983). For a useful
ontological discussion of essentially contested concepts from a realist point of view see
Grafstein (1986: 11) who argues that ‘to be a realist, one need not be unrealistically sanguine
about resolving scientific and conceptual dispute’.
14
Their results support this hypothesis.
15
Torres (2001: 1) admits that ‘[g]iven the multifaceted nature of the process, identifying a
simple relationship between globalization and social progress is impossible’. He goes on to
offer a lengthy definition of economic globalization, which he claims can be ‘simply defined
as a process of rapid economic integration between countries’ (2001: 8).
16
Friedman (1999) is a notable exception. In his widely read book, he asserts that globalization
as a world system supplanted the Cold War system and thus globalization’s genesis was the fall
of the USSR.
17
See also Helleiner (1995).
18
Swyngedouw (1997) argues that globalization represents the intertwining of local and global
spaces, and therefore local forces in one geographic location are able to impact local (and
global) entities in other spaces. To clarify this relationship he introduces a new term into the
discourse: glocalization. This hybrid word, based on the term ‘glocal’ is meant to get the
discussion beyond a local-global dichotomy and to a conversation about space. On global-
ization and political spaces generally, see the collection of essays in Cox (1997).
19
Emphasis in original.
10
Rodrik (1997) asks the timely question of whether globalization has gone too far.
11
Another critical perspective that is worthy of consideration is the Gramscian approach of
Rupert (2000).
56
01 pages 001-120 19/4/05 12:43 pm Page 57
References
Amin, A. and N. Thrift. 1994. ‘Living in the Global’, in A. Amin and N. Thrift
(eds), Globalisation, Institutions, and Regional Development. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Barber, B. R. 1995. Jihad Versus McWorld: How Globalism and Tribalism are
Reshaping the World. New York: Random House.
Bitzinger, R. A. 1994. ‘The Globalization of the Arms Industry: The Next
Proliferation Challenge’, International Security 19(2): 170-99.
Broad, D. 1995. ‘Globalization Versus Labor’, Monthly Review 47(7): 20-31.
Cerny, P. G. 1995. ‘Globalization and the Changing Logic of Collective Action’,
International Organization 49(4): 595-625.
Conley, T. 2002. ‘The State of Globalisation and the Globalisation of the State’,
Australian Journal of International Affairs, 56(3): 447-72.
Connolly, W. E. 1983. The Terms of Political Discourse. (2nd edn) Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Cox, K. R. 1997. Spaces of Globalization: Reassessing the Power of the Local.
New York and London: Guilford Press.
Cox, R. W. 1994. ‘Global Restructuring: Making Sense of the Changing
International Political Economy’, in R. Stubbs and G. R. D. Underhill (eds),
Political Economy and Change. New York: St Martin’s.
Evans, P. 1997. ‘The Eclipse of the State? Reflections on Stateness in an Era of
Globalization’, World Politics 50(1): 62-87.
Friedman, T. L. 1999. The Lexus and the Olive Tree. New York: Farrar, Straus
and Giroux.
Gallie, W. B. 1955/1956. ‘Essentially Contested Concepts’, Proceedings of the
Aristotelian Society 56: 167-98.
Gibson-Graham, J. K. 1996. The End of Capitalism (As We Knew It): A Feminist
Critique of Political Economy. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Gill, S. 1992. ‘Economic Globalization and the Internationalization of Authority:
Limits and Contradictions’, Geoforum 23(3): 269-83.
Grafstein, R. 1988. ‘A Realist Foundation for Essentially Contested Political
Concepts’, Western Political Quarterly 41: 9-28.
Gray, J. 1977. ‘On the Contestability of Social and Political Concepts’, Political
Theory 5: 331-348.
Helleiner, E. 1995. ‘Great Transformations: A Polanyian Perspective on the
Contemporary Global Financial Order’, Studies in Political Economy 48: 149-
70.
Herod, A. 1997. ‘Labor as an Agent of Globalization and as a Global Agent’, in
K. R. Cox (ed.), Spaces of Globalization: Reasserting the Power of the Local.
New York: The Guilford Press, pp. 167-200.
Hirst, P. and G. Thompson. 1992. ‘The Problem of Globalization: International
Economic Relations, National Economic Management, and the Formation of
57
01 pages 001-120 19/4/05 12:43 pm Page 58
58
01 pages 001-120 19/4/05 12:43 pm Page 59
59