Research Paper-:

Topic

Concept Of Globalization

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

Dr. Taru Mishra ANSHUMAN SINGH

LLM (Cr. Law)

Enroll No- A081104523029

Abstract

Dramatic changes occurred in the world precipitated by the end of the prolonged cold war. A
world that was hitherto driven by the division on ideological grounds was to be integrated by
markets and technology, termed globalization. The objective here is to look at the divergent
views of globalization. Also, the paper focuses primarily on the concept of globalization, its
genesis and the reasons for globalization of the world. The paper also examines the impact of
globalization on the world economically. politically socially, culturally and technologically.
Appraisal of the advantages and disadvantages of turning the world into one global village is also
another area of focus of this paper. The paper concludes that to understand the concept of
globalization, people of all nations need to understand how globalization works and the policy
choices facing them and their societies.

The paper initiates from two assumptions: the first one is that globalization is an inevitable
phenomenon, characterizing our development era, a phenomenon that the human society is
forced to understand, because for the first time, it questions the surviving and evolution of the
human society. The second is that globalization, as a socio-historical phenomenon, manifested
itself firstly as a theory, then as a practical necessity, becoming a strategy for the constitution of
a sole market, spread across a huge surface, the engulfs states, regions, continents. This paper
presents the economical, political, cultural, social and risk changes, that influences the rise and
stabilization of the phenomenon of globalization. This complex process is linked to the
economical power of the big, industrialized states, unfortunately, of the great transnational
companies. The process itself brings together countries with different development views, with
different religions and cultures, and, most important, ex colonialist countries and their old
colonies. The conclusion of the paper discusses ways of understanding, controlling and
diminishing of the negative effects and collateral losses manifested since the initialization of the
phenomenon and its settling in a certain region.
Introduction

Globalization. which is a term derived from the word 'global' (from globe) has been interpreted
by many writers and scholars to mean so many things-like an omnibus - that its original meaning
seemed to have been lost, however, the its original meaning seemed to have been lost, however,
the discussion and debate on the phenomenon of globalization has received so much attention
and momentum recently because of advances in technology, modem transportation, access to
infom1ation via satellite communications, the internet and cable networks. Most of the
controversy surrounding globalization stems from its multifaceted nature; it covers everything
from economics, to culture. governance. the environment, international relation. values and
morals, sovereignty, religion and much more. Some people hold the strong view that
globalization is powerful and unstoppable force that is beneficial only to those who work in
consonance with its objectives are prepared to move fervently and fervently and expediently in
its direction but of course brutal and disastrous to those who arc unprepared to engage it or who
try to move against its tides; their fate is deemed inevitable. Growing global interdependence is
regarded by most scholars as probably a permanent trend, but it is controversial. It may be a
small world after all. But is that good or bad? People cannot seem to agree because globalization
creates both possibilities and problems. On the one hand globalization is contemporarily uniting
the world and generating unprecedented new levels of wealth. On the other hand, globalization is
making national boundaries and state governments less important, and by creating some winners
and many losers, it is also producing greater inequalities. Globalization is leading to the
simultaneous integration and disintegration of states, to the growth of some stated power, and to
the erosion of many other states' authority. Few global actors know how to adaptively adjust to
globalization's divergent consequences. There is no one generally acceptable definition of
globalization that has been provided, though the term has been used to cover wide areas across
borders in economic, political, social, cultural, religious, technological, communication,
governance, disease and other spheres. So there is no single formal definition of the concept.
This probably has led writers and scholars to agree that the meaning of the expression
"globalization" has been a subject mat1er of controversy. The fact that there may not be a
universally accepted definition of globali7..ation, notwithstanding, substantial theoretical input
has been made into the meaning and working of the term. These efforts have left a trail of
enormous literature on the subject, so that notwithstanding the absence of a precise or an all time
acceptable definition, the meaning of the concept "globalization" is clear and well understood
now. Jnfact, the variety and multiplicity of definitions, in the main, have provided no significant
and or substantive differences in the nature and content of globalization. They more or less
reflect the different perspectives and or persuasions of their proponents.
Pro and cons analysis of processes
The reactions to the processes that contribute to the globalization processes have seen a wide
variety, with a history as long as it is extraterritorial in terms of contact, interaction and
commerce. The philosophical differences regarding the costs and benefits of such processes have
given rise to ideological and social movements. Proponents of economic growth, expansion and
development in general, see the globalization processes as desirable and necessary for the good
of human society. Critics see one or more processes of globalization as detrimental to social
welfare on a global or local scale.This includes all those who question the social and natural
sustainability on long term, the continuous economic expansion, the social structural inequality
caused by these processes, and the colonial, imperialist or hegemonic ethnocentrism, the cultural
assimilation and the cultural appropriation, emerging, influencing and linking such processes.
Generally globalization has been seen as a big boom for the developing countries, but there are a
few who say that it has been a curse. Though the main focus of this paper is not on the
advantages and disadvantages of globalization. but a few of these issues would suffice here.
Globalization is deeply controversial to some. Proponents of globalization have contended that it
allows poor countries and their citizens to develop economically and raise their standard of
living, while opponents of globalization claim that the creation of an unfettered international free
market has benefited multinational corporations in the western world at the expenses of local
enterprises, local cultures and common people. Resistance to globalization has therefore, taken
shape both at a popular and at a governmental level as people and governments try to manage the
flow of capital, labour, goods and ideas that constitute the current wave of globalization.

Advantages
Increase in Gross Domestic Product (GOP):

It is believed that globalization has Jed to increase in GDP of developing countries twice as
much as before.

Increase in Percapita Income:

The wealth has and a trickJing effect on the poor. The average income has increased to thrice as
much.

Reduction of Unemployment: Proponents of globalization has argued that one of the benefits
of globalization is reduction in the rate of unemployment, that this is particularly quite evident
when you look at countries like India and china.

Education has Increased:

Globalization has been a catalyst to the jobs that require higher skill set. This demand allowed
people to gain higher education. Competition on Even Platform: companies all around the world
are competing on a single global platform. This allows better options to consumers. One of the
greatest benefits of globalization is that it gives some countries a greater range of cheap overseas
goods to buy. The cheapest prices are not a lasting result of globalization though, but rather a
reflection of the non-level playing field that currently exists within the global economy. The
World at One's Fingertips: The revolution in telecommunication has contributed to the "death of
distance",as virtually instantaneous communications arc possible nearly everywhere.

Disadvantages
Wealth is unevenly distributed: Wealth is still concentrated in the hand'\ of a few individuals
and a common man in a developing country is yet to sec any major benefits of globalization.

Income Gap between Developed and Developing Countries: Wealth of developed countries
continues to grow twice as much as the developing world.

Wage Differentiated for Developing Countries: A technology worker may get more value for
his work in a developed country than a worker in a developing country.

Reversal of Globalization: In future, factors such as war may demand the reversal of the
globalization (as evident in inter world war years). Current process of globalization may just be
impossible to reverse. Impact of Globalization has become such a commonly used term in the
21st century. Just as pointed out earlier in this paper, it simply means that the world has become
integrated cconomically, politically, socially and culturally through the advances of technology,
transportation and communication. It is undeniable to say that globalization has resulted in both
positive and negative effects which must be addressed accordingly. However, to begin with,
globalization has impacted and contributed to the world's economics in many beneficial ways.
The advances in science and technology have allowed businesses to easily cross over territorial
boundary lines. Consequently, companies tend to become more productive, competitive thereby
raising quality of goods, services and the world's living standard. Globalization has impacted on
different countries and peoples in an unbalanced manner, (UNDP), marginalizing some and
rewarding some, with unequal distribution of benefits and losses. In this process, developing
countries, particularly African countries, have been marginalized, their options limited by
institutionalized global regime for the allocation of globally available resources.

Key aspects of globalization

Globalization is the favorite trap-concept of journalists and politicians. The term has also
become the key idea for the practice and theory of the business, but also came in academic
debates. Unfortunately, what people want to express or define by globalization is often
confusing. We further examine some key issues of the theory and experience of globalization.
Globalization is usually used as a handy form to describe the spread of communication
production and connection technologies throughout the world. Most often, the term globalization
is used in a confusing manner with respect to the efforts of IMF, World Bank and the institutions
to create a free global market for goods and services. This political project otherwise significant
(and potentially harmful for many poorer nations) is in fact designed to develop and exploit more
complex processes. Globalization in terms of connectivity across the entire world of the
economic and cultural life increased throughout the centuries. Yet many believe that the current
situation is a fundamentally different order from what it was before. Globalization in terms of
connectivity across the entire world of increased economic and cultural life throughout the
centuries. Yet many believe that the current situation is fundamentally different order from what
it was before. The communication and the exchange rate, the complexity and size of the
networks involved, the volume of trade, the interaction and the risk give a strange force to the
label "globalization". With the increase of economic interconnection, the political changes have
deepened - the poorer "peripheral" countries became more dependent of the"central" economies ,
such as U.S., where capital and technical expertise tend to be blocked. There was also a shift of
power, far away from nation states and, as some argue, from multinational corporations. We
have seen the growth and globalization of the "brand" It is not just large corporations operating
in several different countries - they also have developed and brought on the market products that
can be sold packing as well as in Washington. Brands like Coca-Cola, Nike and many others
have become part of the life of a very large number of people. The globalization involves
spreading of ideas, practices and technologies, and it is little more than internationalization and
universalization. It is not simply the modernization or westernization. Certainly it is much more
than market liberalization. The globalization has 5 vectors that act on human society, vectors that
influence the development of human society. The vectors through which globalization interacts
with society, both locally, regionally, and internationally are: the economic vector, the military
vector, the political vector, the religious vector and the cultural vector.14 The discussions and
analysis of globalization have distinct economic, political, cultural and social dimensions. Next,
we turn our attention to a total of 4 themes that regularly appear in the literature: a. relocation
and over-territoriality b. speed and power of technological innovation and the increase of the
respective risks c. growth of multinational corporations d. how the forming movements of global
free markets lead to instability and division. A particular aspect of globalization is that of the
impulse and the power of change involved. Will Hutton and Anthony Giddens say that
globalization is the interaction of extraordinary technological innovation combined with global
influence, which gives today's changing its complexity. For the countries in the vanguard of the
economic world the balance between science / knowledge and resources has changed in such
way that science / knowledge has become perhaps the most important factor determining the
standard of living, much more than land, tools, work. Today the most advanced economies in
terms of technology are really based on science / knowledge. The increase of the so-called
"economic science" meant that economists were challenged to look beyond labor and capital as
key factors of production . Paul Romer and others have said that technology (and the science on
which it is based) must be seen as the third factor in driving the economy. Technology, science
and global finance form together a force leading the economies. As Charles Leadbeater said,
capitalism science consisting in "generating new ideas and then turn them into commercial
products and services that consumers want" is now convincing and powerful. Inevitably, this
leads to questions about the generation and exploitation of knowledge. There is already a
division between rich and poor nations which seems to be accelerated by "the science of
capitalism ". Commentators and analysts like Charles Leadbeater said and argued for the need to
innovate but also to recognize that the successful economic knowledge must be addressed in
democratically in terms of spread "we should create an open society, questioning, challenging
and ambitious." There are powerful forces contrary to this ideal, and I refer in particular to the
significant increase in the demands of the large corporations to be recognized intellectual
property rights on new discoveries, for example regarding genetic research, from which huge
profits will result, by licensing this knowledge to others. There are also serious doubts that
modern economies are also and knowledge-based economy. The risk can be seen as the harmful
possibility coming from technological and economic changes. In other words, the risks also
becomes globalized. The risks of modernization have an inherent tendency to globalize. The
universalization of the dangers accompanying the industrial production occurs regardless of
where the production takes place. Supply chains practically connect everyone on earth with
everyone else. Ulrich Beck said that there is digging under the borders and showed that there is a
boomerang effect of globalization. Risks can trap all those who profit from or produce using
local raw materials for regional markets. The principle and logic of this argument of Ulrich Beck
are quite simple and possible: what endangers life on Earth threatens also the properties and
commercial interests of those living by the goods and products as a result of this life. Thus arises
a systematic and intense contradiction between profit and property interests, that carry forth the
process of industrialization on one hand, and their often threatening consequences, that possibly
endanger and destroy possessions and profits on the other hand, not to mention the possession
and profits of life itself. We arrive thus at one of the central paradoxes that Beck called "the
society risk". As knowledge increased, such increased the risk. Indeed it can be said that the
social relationships, the institutions and the dynamic of generating knowledge emphasized the
risk they envolve. Risk has been globalized.

Decline Of Powers
The decline of the power of national governments Not only individuals and institutions have felt
the impact of delocalization. An important causation of this process has been the declining power
of national governments to direct and influence their economies (especially on macroeconomic
management). The changes in economic activities, for instance in U.S. and Japan, are felt across
the globe. Although the influence of nation states has declined, it has not disappeared altogether.
The pivot institutions remained, especially in terms of creating the necessary conditions of actual
government. Colin Leys points out that the impact of globalization is however a strong argument,
and that it is most felt by the extent to which policies everywhere are now essentially market
driven. It means not only that the governments cannot "manage" national economies, but also
that, in order to survive in their office, they have to increase their ability to drive national
policies in such way as to be adapted to the pressures of transnational market forces. In other
words, the impact of globalization is not as oppressive in the area where policy choices are taken
directly, as it is heavy in the area where social relationships in all countries are shaped and
reshaped. While there is no doubt about the increasing scale and scope of the action of
multinational corporation, their degree of control over the dynamics of globalization remains
however limited. In reality, they are often weak and amorphous organizations, faced with the
loss of authority and the erosion of common values, which actually affects lately all modern
institutions. Anthony Gray has noticed that the global market doesn’t allows corporations to
assume the past functions of the sovereign states. Actually, both the ones and the others become
more and more weakened and overthrown. While multinationals have played a significant role in
the growth of globalization it is important not to exaggerate the degree of control they have on
the dynamics of globalization. Globalization has created immense wealth. Yet countries
unwilling or unequipped to become technologically connected many in Africa today, for
example-face "marginalization", another word for isolation and poverty Another important area
where globalization has impacted on is in global communication. Cellular phones arc becoming
available worldwide enabling many in the world who have never before made a phone call to
communicate instantly with others. Enthusiasm for mobile phones and broad band links
everywhere is bridging the communication divide between the rich and the poor in the world.
What about the Internet and computers. No area of the world and no arena of politics,
economics, society or culture is immune from the pervasive influence of computer technology.
Even victims of ethnic or racial conflict and natural disasters in the most remote comers of the
world arc connected to others by the laptop computers that relief workers from the international
Red Cross and other organizations bring with them. In fact, rapid and unstrained communication
is the hallmark of the "global village'. Another great area of impact of globalization, particularly
on African societies and people is in the areas where the state used to play significant roles in the
life of the people through social welfare policies and programmes. Cancellation of these policies
and withdrawal of such welfare programmes and the uncontrolled adoption and promotion of
market reforms significantly weakens socio-economic equilibrium. The political arm of this
package of refom1s was the adoption of liberal democracy and the democratization of the
political and governance system. Globalization produces contradictory effects on democracy.
These effects arc both negative and positive around which social forces are aligned.

CONSEQUENCES

Globalization certainly permits an increase in the level of global output. Whether as a result of
the old Heckscher-Ohlin theory of the basis of comparative advantage as lying in different factor
abundance in different countries, or as a result of the new trade theories that explain trade by
increasing returns to scale, trade will increase world output. Likewise FDI brings the best
technology, and other forms of intellectual capital, to countries that would otherwise have to
make do without it, or else invest substantial resources in reinventing the wheel for themselves.
It may also bring products that would otherwise be unavailable to the countries where the
investment occurs, which presumably increases the quality, and therefore the value, of world
output. And international capital flows can transfer savings from countries where the marginal
product of capital is low to those where it is high, which again increases world output.
Globalization must be expected to influence the distribution of income as well as its level. So far
as the distribution of income between countries is concerned, standard theory would lead one to
expect that all countries will benefit. Economists have long preached that trade is mutually
beneficial, and most of us believe that the experience of widespread growth alongside rapidly
growing trade in the postwar period serves to substantiate that. Similarly most FDI goes where a
multinational has intellectual capital that can contribute something to the local economy, and is
therefore likely to be mutually beneficial to investor and recipient. And a flow of capital that
finances a real investment is again likely to benefit both parties, since the yield on the investment
is expected to be higher than the rate of interest the borrower has to pay, while that rate of
interest is also likely to be higher than the lender could expect at home since otherwise there
would have been no incentive to send it abroad. Loose talk about free trade making the rich
countries richer and poor countries poorer finds no support in economic analysis. Nor is there
any reason for supposing that the North benefits itself at the expense of the South by imposing
import restrictions like non-tariff barriers or agricultural subsidies: standard theory says that,
while this does indeed impoverish the South, the public in the North also suffers, and it loses
more than the producers gain. This suggests that a promising strategy for eliminating such
barriers is to seek a coalition with Northern consumers, rather than to engage in North-bashing
which will simply alienate potential Northern allies.

The effects on domestic income distribution are less clear. Standard theory says that trade will
tend to hurt unskilled labour in rich countries and to help it in poor ones, since the poor countries
will be able to export-labour-intensive goods like garments to rich countries, thus increasing the
demand for unskilled labour in the poor countries and decreasing it in the rich ones. That is,
within rich countries, there is a good analytical reason for arguing that trade will tend to make
the rich richer and the poor poorer. There has in recent years been a lively debate among
economists in the developed countries as to whether the increase in imports of labour-intensive
goods has been a major factor in causing the fall in the relative (and sometimes absolute) wages
of the unskilled in these countries: the majority of economists seem to have concluded that it is a
contributory factor, but that the major part of the explanation lies instead in the skill-intensive
form of technological progress.

It seems more difficult to doubt that exports of labour-intensive goods have been a factor that has
done something to increase the demand for unskilled labour, and therefore to equalize the
income distribution, in the exporting countries like Sri Lanka. Hence I find it betrays a sad lack
of concern with the prospects of the poor to hear, as I have during this conference, garment
exports being denigrated as likely in some unexplained way to bring negative impacts. On the
other hand, some of the effects of the communications revolution must surely have had a
disequalizing effect on income distribution in these countries: think of the Indian doctors who are
acting as secretaries to American doctors rather than treating Indian patients, thereby earning
more for themselves and also tending to pull up the pay of other doctors in India, who are
relatively affluent by Indian standards. Similarly, differential mobility of skilled versus unskilled
labour tends to pull up the salaries of the skilled in developing countries toward world levels,
thereby leaving less for the immobile poor. The same result will occur if the owners of highly-
mobile capital are able to evade taxes by investing abroad, and also if governments are induced
to avoid imposing high tax rates on internationally mobile capital, or on those who might be
prompted to emigrate, in the hope of keeping these factors at home. Thus the net effect of
globalization on income distribution within developing countries seems to me distinctly
ambiguous.

What impact is globalization likely to have on the long-term possibilities of economic growth in
developing countries? My vision of the growth process is that it takes off when the elite in a
developing country comes to understand the opportunities of applying world-class technologies
within their country, and introduces institutional arrangements that permit individual pursuit of
self-interest to serve, in general, the social good. Once that happens the country is able to grow at
a rapid rate, unless some political accident obstructs the process, until it catches up with best-
practice technology, and therefore attains the living standards of the developed countries.
Globalization is tending to make the technologies and the knowledge for this process to occur
more readily available, and therefore to enable the process to be telescoped in time. (Singapore
may be a small country, but there is no previous case in history of any country that did not enjoy
massive resource discoveries going from stark poverty to affluence in under 30 years.)

But it is surely also true that globalization is bringing new dangers. The virulence of the East
Asian crisis was primarily a result of countries exposing themselves to the full force of the
international capital market before they had built up an unquestioned reputation for being able as
well as willing to service their debts come what may, which meant that when investors became
concerned about their potential vulnerability as a result of the Thai crisis there were no other
investors willing to step in and provide stabilizing speculation even after exchange rates and
interest rates had clearly overshot. Of course, one can argue that this increased vulnerability to
external shocks has to be weighed against a decreased vulnerability to internal shocks: think how
much more Bangladesh would have suffered this year (1998) if the international community had
not provided aid to partially offset the cost of the floods, let alone how much more hunger, or
even starvation, there would have been had Bangladesh been unable to import additional rice.
But this does not justify dismissing the increased dangers from external shocks. Moreover, I
might note that Professor Indraratna offered you a much longer and more imaginative list of
dangers than I have here identified, which looks beyond narrow economic questions and
considers the role of globalization in spreading such unsavoury phenomena as drugs, the sex
trade, crime, and terrorism.

POLICY ISSUES

If I am right in arguing that globalization stems from technological developments rather than
policy choices, trying to reverse it would be rather like playing at King Canute. It would be more
productive to seek to maximize the benefits it offers and minimize the risks it creates. Let me
discuss what I see that involving, while restricting myself to the narrow economic questions.

It will be clear from what was said above that I see little reason to doubt that the citizens of a
developing country can expect to benefit from being open to trade and FDI. This gives them the
advantages of being able to make relatively good use of their abundant unskilled labour and
being able to access world-level technology. However, if they rely simply on exploiting
unskilled labour, they will never be able to advance far beyond the living standards of their
poorest competitors, who will be exporting similar goods. In order to raise living standards
progressively over time, it is at least as important to raise educational standards as it is in a
relatively closed economy. To a first approximation, one may summarize the policy advice of
how to prosper in a global economy as: give one's citizens a relevant set of skills through
education, and then let them get on with the job of producing whatever is useful to the world
economy.

However, a second approximation requires one to recognize also the increased risks of full
exposure to the world economy. Are there ways of reducing those risks? I am convinced that
there is at least one important dimension in which prudence suggests that developing countries
are well-advised to limit their integration in the world economy, and that concerns the
liberalization of short-term capital flows. If one asks what distinguishes those countries that
suffered contagion from the East Asian crisis from those that escaped it, the answer seems to me
very clear: that the victims were those that had built up a substantial stock of short-term dollar-
denominated debt as a result of having established capital account convertibility, while those
who escaped catastrophe were those that had been cautious in liberalizing their capital accounts
at the short end. Since there is no persuasive analytical reason or empirical evidence (Rodrik
1998) for believing that freedom of short-term capital flows is a significant factor in contributing
to economic growth, let alone distributional equity, I conclude that prudence suggests seeking to
postpone rather than accelerate this particular bit of liberalization.

Furthermore, one needs to ask whether there are mechanisms that can protect individuals when
risks to the economy actually materialize. The recent experience in East Asia is again instructive:
the World Bank has put a lot of effort into a crash course in developing social safety nets in the
countries that fell victim to the crisis in the past year. I am sure that many of you will recall that
in the past the Bank has been critical of Sri Lanka for having put too many resources into too
wide a safety net, but I do not see any contradiction: the Bank was concerned that Sri Lanka was
trying to provide a safety net more expensive than the economy could afford, and so
indiscriminate that it eroded incentives. Those considerations need to be taken into account, but
at the same time, as Dani Rodrik's (1997) work has emphasized, an open economy has a
particularly compelling need for an adequate social safety net. I hope that you will find some
reassurance that the Bank is not unmindful of the concerns that motivated your generous welfare
policies by the fact that we have recently been so active in promoting the cause of social safety
nets in East Asia.

Is there any way of ameliorating the potential negative effect on income distribution through
increased possibilities of tax evasion and a consequential incentive to limit taxes on mobile
factors that I discussed above? One can certainly envisage such measures, although they will
require extensive international agreements, in the form of tax-information sharing and potential
withholding of taxes on income earned by foreigners. It is my hope that such issues will become
a part of the future agenda for international negotiation. A globalized world is going to have to
deal with a broader policy agenda than simply liberalization if the outcome is to be reasonably
equitable.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

I have argued that globalization has a technological base and is therefore here to stay. Sensible
policy involves asking how one can get the most out of it while limiting the risks that it brings.
The answers on the economic level, I have suggested, involve educating citizens with relevant
skills and opening up to trade and FDI while maintaining controls on short-term capital flows,
constructing an appropriate social safety net, and seeking international actions to reverse erosion
of the tax base. The paper looked at the concept of globalization and pointed out that it is a
continuous process through which different societies, economics, traditions and culture of the
world societies, integrate with each other on a global scale through the means of communication
and an interchange of ideas. This paper also in passim looked at the genesis or the historical
origin of globalization and discovered that globalization is not new for the fact that for several
years, people of different countries have been buying and selling to each other in lands of great
distances. The advantages and disadvantages of globalization were briefly highlighted in the
paper and the impact of globalization was also examined. The impact of globalization in the
contemporary world were enormous which has both negative and positive effects economically,
politically, socially, and culturally as a result of the integration of countries through the advances
of technology, transportation and communication. Globalization suggests that everyone and
everything is increasingly vulnerable to events everywhere and that states capabilities are on a
weaker and weaker foundation. However, to understand the concept of globalization and find the
right balance between benefits, costs and all the phenomena the constitute globalization, citizens
of all nations need to understand how globalization works and the policy choices facing them
and their societies.

In my opinion Some commentators say that there is no serious problem against globalization but
against a certain type of globalization imposed by the global financial elite. The gap between rich
and poor became considerably. However, to see globalization rather as Western imperialism of
ideas and beliefs (as rhetorically suggested often) would be a serious and costly mistake. Of
course there are issues of globalization, issues that links it to the imperialism (history of
conquest, colonialism and hostile/foreign ruling remain relevant even today, in many ways) and
to the understanding of the postcolonial world. Globalization has its merits. Therefore it would
be a mistake to regard globalization as a kind of imperialism. Globalization is a far larger and
more complex process than that For example, while wealth and power of the multinationals
seems to have increased significantly, neither they nor national governments have so much
control over macro-economic forces as they would like. Environmental and technological risks
have multiplied. Globalization, in the sense of connectivity to the global economic and cultural
life, brings with it a different order than what it was before. As I said at the beginning, the
communication and exchange rate, the complexity and size of the networks involved and the
volume of trade, interaction and risk have made globalization a strange force. All of this raises
many questions for educators, leaders and opinion makers. The emphasis of the expanding
tendencies of the businesses beyond the national borders is one of the main manifestations of the
globalization. Every state wants to achieve improved growth potential, both by developing the
domestic markets and by developing new markets. By increasing the efficiency of use of the
multinational operating system a coherent management of the existing national resources is
reached, but at the same time, we can address directly the management of the existing and
available resources in other geographical areas. Social and economic movements of the early
millennium, brought strongly to the attention of sociologists, politicians, decision-making
groups, the need for new attitudes towards globalization. The phenomenon began to be perceived
in all its complexity, by everyone involved in the political, social and economic-financial
management systems, as an inevitable phenomenon, characteristic of our modern era, and most
importantly, we began to analyze more attentively the function of regulating the development of
modern human society that globalization exerts

REFERENCES

[1]. Beck, U. (1992) Risk Society, London: Sage.

[2]. Castells, M. (2001) 'Information technology and global capitalism' in W. Hutton and A.
Giddens. (eds.) On The Edge. Living with global capitalism, London: Vintage.

[3]. Frank, T. (2002) One Market Under God. Extreme capitalism, market populism, and the end
of economic democracy, London: Vintage.

[4]. Fox, J. (2001) Chomsky and Globalization, London: Icon Books.

[5]. Gray, J. (1999) False Dawn. The delusions of global capitalism, London: Granta.

[6]. Held, D., McGrew, A., Goldblatt, D. and Perraton, J. (1999) Global Transformations -
politics, economics and culture, Cambridge: Polity Press

[7] Aina, T. ( 1996). 'Globalization and Social Po/ic.y in Africa·. CODESRJA Bulletin No. 4.
Ake, C. ( 1995). 'The new world order: The View from Africa: in Hans Henrik Holm and
George, S. (eds) 'whose world order: Uneven Globalization and the End of the 61 d War'. West
view press, London.

[8]Cline, William R. (1997), Trade and Income Distribution (Washington: Institute for
International Economics).

[9]Coats, A.W. (1997), The Post-1945 Internationalization of Economics (Durham, N.C. and
London: Duke University Press).

[10]Rodrik, Dani (1997), Has Globalization Gone Too Far? (Washington: Institute for
International Economics).

(1998), "Who Needs Capital Account Convertibility?", in Essays in International Finance no.
207 (Princeton: International Finance Section).