PARTICIPANTS:

Luke Ashworth David Baker David Collier Eva Etzioni-Halevy Lise Garon

Brian Girvin Arnold J. Heidenheimer Helge Hveen Richard Higgott Matti Malkia

Elaine McCoy Chung-in Moon Ephraim Nimni Elizabeth Prugl Fred Riggs

Andreas Schedler Klaus Segbers Daniel Skidmore-Hess Henry Teune Pierre Vercauteren

Subject: GLOBALIZATION ROUNDTABLE for IPSA: First batch of Texts

Dear Colleagues: As promised, here are the first texts I have received dealing with the meanings of "globalization" -- for those of you in the British tradition, spelling it with an "s" will also be accepted!

1. CSGR. To start, let me repeat the introductory paragraph of Richard Higgott's research agenda at the Centre for the Study of Globalisation and Regionalisation, University of Warwick, UK. It reads:

"(i) There is an enormous interest in the effects of, and implications of globalisation. We recognise that it is a vague, ambiguous and theoretically contested term. The contested nature of the concept and its long-term utility is both a theoretical and practical question. Understanding, defining and explaining globalisation--be it in its economic, political, socio-cultural and historical guises--and where possible, measuring and quantifying it, is thus to be CSGRs central initial intellectual task."

A definitional paragraph follows, which reads:

"Globalisation, notwithstanding its ubiquity, remains an imprecise term. Some authors simply refer to globalisation as increasing shares of trade in GDP; or increased interpenetration of Foreign Direct Investment; others stress the importance of technological change, rapid advances in communications or the evolution of quasi integrated global as opposed to national markets. Conversely others focus on the constraining effects of these variously speed enhanced processes of mobility upon the sovereign capabilities of the modern nation state."

To find the rest of this document, and links to many texts posted by the Centre, please go to: Agenda

A particularly useful document for our purposes is the essay entitled, "Globalisation and Sites of Conflict: Towards Definition and Taxonomy" by Richard Higgott and Simon Reich (CSGR Working Paper No. 01/98, March 1998" Its opening paragraphs read:

"'Globalisation' is rapidly replacing the 'Cold War' as the most overused and under-specified explanation for a variety of events in international relations. For some, it represents a natural, indeed inexorable, progression towards a 'borderless world' signalling the end of the modern international state system as we know it. Analysis is underwritten by faith in, and exhortation to, the future. For others, the concept is over-stated and its benign influences are exaggerated. Indeed, globalisation is dangerous and perhaps even non-existent as a phenomenon.

"Furthermore, its invocation generates fear and resistance. This difference in interpretation has given rise to a dispute between those who see the emergence of a number of salient alternative authority structures, especially in the corporate world, that compete (increasingly successfully) with states in determining the direction of the global political economy (globalisers or globalists) and those who still see the states as the principal actors in global political and economic orders (internationalists) with security issues as still paramount.

"It is more accurate (albeit less parsimonious for theorising) to see state and non-state authority existing in a much more contingent, interactive and dynamic manner. We identify four definitions of globalisation in common use in both the scholarly and the policy community. These are we call (i) globalisation as historical epoch; (ii) globalisation as the confluence of economic phenomena; (iii) globalisation as the triumph or American values; and (iv) globalisation as sociological and technological revolution."

The whole document is worth serious study and you may find it at: CSGR

I am delighted that Richard Higgott is interested in our Roundtable and I invite him and his associates to join freely in our discourse.

2. Ephraim Nimni writes, from Australia: "For me, the catch-all term globalization has both bad and good dimensions. I celebrate the decline of the nation-state, a momentous gain for ethnic and national minorities, but I am very alarmed by the triumph of multinational corporations and of world capitalism in general."

He has also forwarded a copy of the abstract for an IPSA panel that he has planned entitled: "National Autonomy and Multiculturalism in the Era of Global Politics" (Special Session 70 in the IPSA congress program):

"The aim of our session is to examine the impact of the weakening of the nation-state and the evolving process of supra-state and global political organisation, on what is often called "the politics of difference." By "politics of difference," we understand the contemporary resurgence of movements for ethnic and national emancipation, and the more general demand for the political recognition and institutionalisation of cultural difference. The problem is highlighted in the following paradox: While the post cold-war international order underscores the expansion of a market oriented global culture that transcends nation-states' boundaries, the global resurgence of ethnic and nationalist movements pushes in the opposite direction and contradicts this trend. Our session will attempt to analyse this paradox by discussing conceptual and empirical interpretations of the resurgence of ethnicity and nationalism in the contemporary world, and will evaluate the challenge that this resurgence imposes to a world of nation-states.

"We will discuss whether the ideas of nation, state, and ethnicity should remain associated with the territorial state or, whether they should part ways in the new millennium. If nationhood and ethnicity are separated from the territorial state model, what impact could this separation have on liberal-democratic politics? In Western democracies, liberal debates on minority rights and multiculturalism are caught in a dilemma: how should liberalism adapt to national and ethnic minority demands for differential rights while sustaining the principle of equality of rights and obligations for individuals? Here we will examine empirically and conceptually how can community rights coexist with the individual oriented characteristic of liberal democracies. Our aim will be to evaluate whether sovereignty and self determination should continue to be associated with the territorial state, whether it might be possible to foresee models for non-territorial self-determination, and what implications these may have for established notions of sovereignty and political representation."

You can find more information about Ephraim and his work at: Nimni

3. Pierre Vercauteren writes, from Belgium:

"I am working on a basic topic: the universal crisis of the State. As this theme is subject to various approaches and can be investigated on different levels (global, regional, local, the citizen dimension, etc.) I think that the globalisation phenomena is an unavoidable chanel through which the question should be analysed. In this context, the concept of globalization is first seen as a question mark for the State, a pluri sectorial process (economic, environmental, criminality, etc) affecting the three basic functions of the State : economic equilibrium, social cohesion and security. In the material you provided on your INTERNET site I noticed that numerous analyses on the concept of globalization are focused on the relational aspect of the question understood in a systemic perspective. In this view, the role of the actors of this process or the impact of it on the actors is a question often left aside."

For information about Pierre you might take a look at: Vercauteren

4. Luke Ashworth, writing from Ireland, says:

"On the question of the meaning of globalisation... this is a difficult one. I have lectured on the issue in Sweden, Slovakia and Bulgaria (as part of EU faculty exchanges, perhaps an example of a form of globalisation, albeit an olde one?), and I have often found it useful to begin with Ralph Pettman's analysis of the balance of power (another fuzzy concept). Pettman divides uses of the term into description (associated with historians), explanation and prescription. I think this can also be a helpful division in analysing the use of the term globalisation. I have then gone on to argue that the concept of globalisation is a recent manifestation of a central pillar of Enlightenment thinking, although in the 18th Century this was seen in non-economic ways (especially by Adam Smith, interestingly). After this I trace the idea of economic globalisation to nineteenth century liberalism, with many references to Cobden, Hobson and Norman Angell. As part of my 'the 20th century was merely the nineteenth century running down' argument I then argue that current conceptions of globalisation are rooted firmly in late nineteenth century analyses of global politics.

"One further theme I usually introduce is the Platonic division between globalisation as ideal form and g'n as modern shadow. I declare myself (as a vulgar cosmopolitan) a supporter of globalisation as a thing in itself, but not necessarily a supporter of what globalisation has come to mean. Finally, I contrast globalisation with parochialisation, arguing that the world is simultaneously globalising and parochialising."

5. To conclude on a personal note, let me call your attention to the list of Web Sites on "globalization" I have compiled -- I hope you will find them useful. Among them is a sub-section called "SEMANTIC" on which you will find assorted texts dealing with "globalization" from widely different points of view. The URL is: Texts

If you scroll down this site, you will find a link to my own page on concepts of "globalization" based on an earlier project of the International Sociological Association, for which Henry Teune and I planned a similar exercise. One of our aims after the Quebec Congress will be to consolidate data from various sources into a multi-disciplinary glossary of concepts relevant to research on globalization. In this context, we have established a listserv called Globe-L and I'd be glad to add you to this list if you are interested.

Please feel free to offer comments to everyone on the list posted above -- including reactions to any of these small texts and, I hope, a contribution of your own giving us the benefit of your own thinking and experience. I am compiling a set of texts for posting on our Web Site, and will be happy to include your contribution.

With all best wishes, Fred W. Riggs

---

Updated: 1999