Exploring Globalization Debate in Sociology

is responsible for this interconnectivity according to Gilpin. This stability has also facilitated the intensification of global processes in the realm of globalization as noted by Hall (1991, p. 72).

According to the paradigm of complex multi-causal logic, globalisation is a social phenomenon that has numerous factors. There are two key proponents of this theory - Robertson and Giddens. Giddens argues that there are four significant elements to consider when examining globalisation: capitalism, industrialism, the inter-state system, and militarism. However, he sees these elements as an interconnected whole that mutually affect one another. In his words, "Globalisation...".

According to Giddens (1990, p. 175), there are multiple interconnected forces driving globalization. Robertson shares this view, but differs in his approach to analyzing these forces. He suggests that each factor should be individually identified and studied in order to develop a comprehensive understanding of the structuring of the world order. Therefore, Robertson emphasizes the importance of systematically treating each factor separately.

According to Robertson (1996, p55), the shift towards a single global community demands analytical separation of the factors responsible. One common factor in almost all major theories on globalisation is the assumption that the world has a global economy, which is taken for granted. The notion of a global economy poses a challenge for sociologists because it lacks a precise definition. However, evidence shows that capital and labour are increasingly operative globally, foreign direct investment has surged since the 1970s, and there is intense international competition for some professionals. For instance, Britain is losing in the global fight for nursing staff. Learn more about 'satellite nations' by reading our Q&A.

According to an article in The Guardian on 05/01/04, the

number of people leaving for work in the United States has increased more than four times over the course of two years. However, when compared to overall wealth, the amount developed countries have invested in foreign areas is relatively small. As noted by Hirst in 1996 (p. 32), the net outflow of investment from 1990 to 1994 resulted in only a 0.5% reduction of the advanced world's total capital stock. Additionally, certain countries only seek specific types of labor and often fear and discriminate against immigrants. Hirst argues that this constitutes an "international market" rather than a truly global economy.

0) The lack of standardization between states in terms of their national monetary markets is another criticism of the 'conceptual' global market. Presently, the British government takes 36% of the gross domestic product while Denmark takes 50%. Interest rates and mortgage terms vary from state to state even between Britain and France. However, proponents of globalization argue that these differences will gradually diminish over time. This argument may be correct as efforts are being made towards standardization. For example, a 25-year fixed term mortgage that already exists in many parts of Europe is being discussed. Additionally, if Britain joins Europe, there is the potential for a common interest rate. Such developments strengthen the case for a developing global economy.

Hirst contends that Europe, Japan, and America, the three wealthiest regions globally, will maintain their dominance in output, investment, and trade and will possess the ability to regulate the world economy (Hirst 1996, p. 2). Sociologists predict that this emerging global economy will have significant impacts on government leaders. On one end of the spectrum, some radical republicans

argue that it will result in a return to Darwinism where only the fittest survive, and this will lead to devastating consequences for governments: "Local loyalties make more sense to the successful than a continued commitment to communities based on a powerless national state" (Hirst 1996 pg). The government is viewed as an outdated and limiting institution that must conform to this new competitive free market economy.

The increase in trans-national companies, which has gone from 176 in 1905 to 4615 in 1984 according to Billing (1995 p. 131), along with the development of a mobile capital market and the shift towards a global economy have been identified as the three main reasons for this trend. In the past, industry and capital were nationally based, and as a result, governments had direct control over economic life within their borders. However, it could be argued that implementing a taxation system focused on multinational companies' trading volume of one trillion dollars per day could lead to government control. Additionally, government power is slowly being regained thanks to the emergence of "supra-national" organizations like Europe and the UN, albeit in a united manner (Billing 1995 p. 130).

During his Mais lecture in 1995, Tony Blair acknowledged that the current global market limited taxation policies. Despite globalization, nationalism remains prevalent in contemporary society as evidenced by daily instances of in-group homogeneity that are not necessarily linked to far-right extremist beliefs. British newspapers regularly highlight national issues and American school children sing their national anthem each morning, thereby constantly reinforcing citizens' sense of national identity in a world with multiple nations (Billing 1995 p.).

The concept of nationalism does not bring global unity

rather it creates fractions and divides among nations, this is evident not just within the public but also within the political structure of governments. As a prime example, currently, the American government is outsourcing 3.3 million service jobs to less developed nations which has resulted in a strong public backlash. Dun Curley, the Republican administrator, expressed concerns over outsourcing by stating "when jobs move overseas it is bad for both the economy and the American people" (CNN). This form of nationalism, or public outrage, was also evident in Britain when 3000 telephone jobs were outsourced to India.

It is argued that nationalism is not declining as rapidly as some globalisers believe, due to the existence of national militaries. According to Billing (1995), nations continue to possess extensive armaments, which remain under their ownership.

Globalisers argue that the UN's peacekeeping force, which operates without a single commander overseeing its activities despite fighting together under the same banner, represents a global army reflecting a globalized world. Additionally, satellite technology has facilitated further developments in this area since the turn of the twenty-first century.

According to Hall (1991 p. 62), globalization has resulted in a new world order due to increased economic, financial, and technological interdependence. However, Hirst (1996 p. 31) argues that advocates of globalization have forgotten history when comparing the international market of today with that of the late 19th century. He states that foreign direct investment is only half of what it was in 1913 despite capital mobility being high before World War I.

It appears improbable that the modern notion of globalization, being a novel occurrence, is entirely accurate given that submarine cables have facilitated

the transfer of funds for more than a century. While the contemporary world is unifying in several respects, nationalistic and inequitable disparities between nations remain prevalent and are not expected to disappear anytime soon. Nevertheless, two undeniable realities are that the east is emerging as a dominant economic power and in current economic conditions, governments must adapt and transform to sustain their authoritative control over their citizens.