- 1 Restored references, but deleted information
- 2 Formatting issues
- 3 Defining globalization
- 4 History of Globalization
- 5 Cultural diversity
- 6 Thomas Friedman?
- 7 Unclear definition
- 8 Postmodernism series
- 9 aggregation of globalization and anti-globalization
- 10 What is globalism?
- 11 Improvement Drive
- 12 the "meanings" sidebar
- 13 the neutrality issue
- 14 Where Have The External Links Gone?
- 15 Essay on Globalization
- 16 messed up table
- 17 history of globalization
- 18 Problems with the Anti-Globalization Section
- 19 Illogical or self-contradictory timeline in introductory section
- 20 Too many words too little figures
- 21 This is nonsense and should be taken out.
- 22 Meaning & Debate
- 23 Removed glocalization and put in Other Uses
- 24 Walmarting
- 25 New paragraphs moved to anti globalization section.
- 26 Capital links to political capital rather than economic
- 27 Decrease in inequality.
- 28 Request for cleanup
- 29 Paragraph Removal
- 30 Peer review request
- 31 Hybridization
- 32 Proposed merge
- 33 Typographical trash
- 34 Cleanup
- 35 Bias?
- 36 Vandalism
- 37 Intro
- 38 Teenagers and the future
- 39 Vandalism
- 40 Picture
- 41 Clean-up
- 42 History Section: Unsubstantiated Claims
- 43 stupid pointless annoying (spam) sentence
- 44 who coined the term?
- 45 who coined the term?
- 46 globalism and globalisation are different
- 47 Show your Math ultramarine
Restored references, but deleted information
22.214.171.124 recently restored the "end matter" of the article (references, see also, etc.), but in so doing reverted a number of quite substantive changes: for example, the addition of references to Chomsky, Hardt and Negri, and Harvey that I added a few days ago in response to a tag requesting citation. The new version also reverted other changes that, at least by my lights, improved the article. Can we keep the end matter from disappearing without removing all of this other stuff? Job L 18:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I just attempted to add some references in the anti-globalization section, but now all of the references have disappeared—the tags themselves are there, but the article doesn't actually list the references at the end any more. I've tried to fix this, but I can't quite figure out how. Can somebody please help? Job L 17:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Why the nowiki stuff around this ISBN? Chadloder 04:06 Apr 26, 2003 (UTC)
"Globalization is a way to be global, worldwide, international, intercontinental." Sorry, I don't quite understand what this means. It seems important to have a clear definition (or summary of other peoples' definitions) here; on the other hand I don't feel remotely qualified to write one. --Shaydon 18:01 31 May 2003 (UTC)
- Since nobody seems to be taking care of this complaint, I tried. Hope others will join. I also think that this article would become better if pro- and anti-globalization thoughts are juxtaposed, rather than pushing all anti-globalization stuff into a separate article. Tomos 22:44, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC).
History of Globalization
Please correct the grammar in "Globalization became a business phenomena..." - it should read phenomenon (singular). Bisybackson 16:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm wading in to start a section on the history of globalization. This might be a good place to begin bringing in a variety of viewpoints on the shape of the topic and the various histories of how globalization has occured. I'm not offering my section as a be all and end all, but instead I've taken the time to describe the standard economic theories attatchment to globalization. There is ample room for criticisms, such as "The Race to the Bottom" argument, the "Corporatization" and "Thatcherization" arguments, and the growing arguments of "fundamental scarcity. Disclaimer: I'm known for my work on fundamental scarcity of energy and its relationship to monetary systems, and have advised political campaigns on the trade issue, and am regarded as a "Free Trade advocate" in the model of Stiglitz id est Free trade is a reward, not a cure. I certainly hope individuals knowledgeable in the critiques of Free Trade and in the stronger more pure neo-liberal vein will make contributions as well. Stirling Newberry
- I wrote the section (which is now in a sidebar) on the main page which describes how the word is used in the field of Management. I went to business school about 15 years ago and this is how the word was taught to us then, and the word was not in widespread use outside of that context as far as I ever heard (the anti-WTC protests had not occurred yet). So, while I am not a scholar of the issue, I will go out on a limb and say that this is the origin of the term. "Trade" is something people have engaged in for as long as they have roamed. Prior to (say) the 80s, "international trade" and "international finance" and "multi-national corporations" etc. were the terms used to describe elements of the economy that had emerged after the "mercantile" period. Now the word has been adopted by the generic anticapitalist left.
- I think the article would improve if the above notion were adopted, and if the article included both sides of the issue: as much as some French or Nigerian people oppose McDonald's, other citizens of those places actually want to participate in the same global economy that everybody else is.
The thing is that globalization extends back a lot further than the twentieth century. I think that the history section should be far more extensive and may even warrant a distinct page to itself.But where is globalization heading? The trend is pointing towards the formation of global government in the long run, as envisioned by The Globalist Manifesto.
I`m confused about the impact both globalization or its lack thereof will have on cultural diversity. Both sides (globalization and anti-globalization) seem to be claiming it as an advantage. If the measure of cultural diversity is the number of languages present in a region or the world at one time, isn`t it possible for both to affect it positively? Globalization encourages the sharing of cultures and potential for growth of cultures and their languages. Anti-globalization supports national soveriegnity so as to continue a country`s culture and language(s). Granted, a major argument against globalization is its ability to become imperial and assimilate less powerful nations under one ruling body which eliminates languages etc. However, isolation may cause certain cultures to become extinct as they resist change. Am I making this all to Darwinian? Please let me know what you think.
- Yes. For a small nation, to have access to huge foreign markets can be potentionally good. For example, in Quebec we have an internal market of 7 million people. That is not sufficient to sustain a growing economy in a lot of sectors, such as cultural "industries". Having access to the US market, exporting what we produce is in fact necessary for our survival. We really depend on it. However, Quebec is a post-industrial society with a high level of education and a high standards of living. Such is not the case with the majority of countries on this planet. Mathieugp 12:56, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Many on the anti-globalization camp have redifined themselves as "altermondialists", because they acknowledge that an increase in trade and better communication among the peoples of the earth is in itself a Good Thing. The propaganda now says: "another world is possible", "globalization of solidarity" etc. What is a Bad Thing is the current trend of globalization, the one which is centered strickly on the economic growth of certain rich companies in certain rich countries that need foreign markets to expand and keep their dominant position in the world. What a lot of people, even when marginally informed on the subject, are against is the current development of the world, the globalization of markets led by multinational corporations who answer to themselves alone, and abuse the IMF, the World Bank etc. That thing is pure evil. Even hardcore capitalists see the danger of it, as it grows totally out of control and is outside the influence of the national policies of any country. There is a monster creating huge inequalities right now (as if the wealth of the world wasn't already badly distributed!) Mathieugp 12:56, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I'm trying to translate this article (Globalization) into Japanese wiki. And now I'm a bit confused... On the top of the list of globalising things, it says 'An increase in international trade at a faster rate than the growth in the world economy'. I understand '[a]n increase in international trade', but what does 'the growth in the world economy' mean? Could anyone point out specifically what in world economy is growing? Thanks. Hans castorp81 20:39, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- One thing growing really fast in the new world economy are private international financial transactions. Some people, like those behind ATTAC want to regulate and tax these transactions. Mathieugp 12:56, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks for answering my quesiton, Mathieugp. In the Japanese verison, I've translated only '[a]n increase in international trade' (without the comparison with world economy). The original (i.e. increase in int'l trade faster than world economic growth) may seem understanble in English, but not in Japanese. The answer you've given is helpful, but it isn't directly concerned with the (increase of) international trade. So I'm thinking to integrate your opinion into other items (financial/monetary one). (But maybe I have to translate [ATTAC]] page before that in that case). Anyway, Cheers :) Hans castorp81 00:23, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- "The growth in the world economy" means that the "Gross National Product of the World" is increasing. The unequality Trade > Economy (actually Finance > Trade > Economy) is an important aspect of Globalisation. (Nomeata 04:34, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC))
This may just be my opinion, but how can you have a complete article on globalization without making references to Thomas Friedman and his book The Lexus and the Olive Tree? Many feel that Friedman was one of the defining figures in the pro-globalization movement. Maybe someone just overlooked him... --TheBlindProphet 12:25, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Or, for that matter, The World Is Flat Jgold03 05:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)\
But the fact is that the world is not yet flat. In fact it is precisely because it is not that costs are so much lower in East Asia and that so much trade takes place.May 24,2006
--I agree completely, I was just about to add that book, then decided to check the talk page. That book is a classic when discussing globalization, even more than Stigliz's book which was just a critic of IMF policy.
Does globalization mean the spread of free market economic principles, i.e., the ability of individuals to set the price at which they sell their labor or other goods and the corresponding ability to choose the supplier of goods and services they wish to obtain and to choose what price to offer for these?
If so, I'm not sure why the anti-globalizationists would oppose these abilities, unless they have some philosophical, political or other motive for inhibiting free market economics. (I've heard that anti-globalization is just the latest guise of Communism and/or the movement to spread socialism.)
And is it only the excesses and unfair practices that the anti-globalists oppose? That is, are they trying to reform the free market so that it stays free is adjusted to prevent exploitation?
Or do they seek to destroy the free market, replacing it with some variation on socialism? That is, are they protesting the excesses and unfair practices as step one in a multi-step process?
The reason I ask for this distinction is that is looks like a slippery slope, like the animal rights activists I met in Central Park who were circulating a petition about the treatment of horse-drawn cabs. The guy I talked to freely admitted that improved conditions for the horses was not his ultimate goal. He wanted to ban the use of horses altogether. (Another example is people who want to regulate the ivory trade -- not to keep poachers from making elephants extinct per se -- but as the first step in banning ALL killing of elephants for their tusks.) ----Uncle Ed (Rod Poe) 17:44, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
paula, oh paula mir fangma jedn tag vo vorn a und des oanzige wos zaid af dera waid is a gaid... tridadidamm di...
I've created a template feel free to add other important examples of postmodernism - broadly defined - in this template so that readers can gain a better understanding of the terms involved by comparing and contrasting their use over several articles. Stirling Newberry 17:28, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
aggregation of globalization and anti-globalization
I'm against aggregation of globalization and anti-globalization.
My feeling is that the anti-this-or-that people are aiming at a politically expedient label instead of their intended targets. Wikipedia need not provide a tool for people with a political agenda. Does Wikipedia include Anti-Democracy in the democracy page? How about equal time for the guys who think that the Holocaust is part of the “Great Jewish Conspiracy?”
If you don't like the IMF, that's cool. Don't like offshoring? Fine. Globalization is huge and not liking something shouldn't constitute dislike of things like open borders or the Internet or a hunderd of the other things that make up what we think of as globalization.
I must mention that I strongly endorse the addition of a section on Friedman. His "From Beirut to Jerusalem" is a not so gentle introduction to the territory surrounding globalization and "The Lexus and the Olive Tree" presents a decently balanced view. If you read just the Lexus without Beirut, you may think that he is without sufficient compassion. One may disagree with the man, but he is most assuredly not without compassion.
I can't help mention that the inclusion of Friedman would represent the best of Wikipedia in terms of using resources that are accurate, but not academic.
Bob C Boynton Beach, FL 3-19-05
- Who said the two articles Globalization and Anti-globalization should be aggregated? They are sufficiently different to be in different articles (the difference being in the fact that "anti-globalization" is a misnomer). If they were more similar, then we might decide to follow the general Wikipedia policy of keeping criticism of X in the article about X, which is, as far as I can tell, what nobody is proposing. You are wrong about the Democracy article; there is indeed a "pros and cons" section.
If you want material on Friedman, then write it. Chamaeleon 21:41, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Please, some shudra in Mumbai could write it for a fraction of the cost. You should rather consider merging this into Anti-globalization, which is better written at the moment. Something of a gloabalization proponent, --B. Phillips 13:36, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
What is globalism?
The term 'globalism' is used a few times (and it redirects here), but it is not made clear what that word means. First, it is suggested that the word refers to the economic aspects of it (I think that is meant as a definition, but then it could do with some rewriting)), but then it is added to the 'pro-section'. Which suggests that the protagonists of globalisation are mostly found among those who focus on economic factors, but that can't be right. DirkvdM 19:27, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
---Hello I have added a defenition I came up with in 2003 regarding globalism, and what a globalist is. Hope this helps, and people can edit the defenetion to improve and make it better. Thank you, Y. Gutsalo. ---
The related articles Cultural appropriation and American empire are currently nominated on Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive. Support these articles with your vote there or comment on the nomination. --Fenice 09:26, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
I've just come across this page for the first time (after doing some cleanup at Anti-globalization) and I must say that the "meanings" sidebar does not display well on my screen. Also, it isn't included in the table of contents, so I can't link to it at the point in the first paragraph which says "see below" (even though it seems the logical reference of that sentence fragment). Is there any objection if I move it to an actual section in the article? Mamawrites 12:10, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
- Having heard no objections, I have made the move.Mamawrites 18:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
the neutrality issue
I have to say, the section where neutrality is at issue should be removed. It has not logical connection with the other sections, and is redudant in explaining comparative advantage. Vsb
Where Have The External Links Gone?
I remember a time when this article had a long list of external links. Where have they gone? 126.96.36.199 14:12, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Essay on Globalization
Hi iam doing essay on Globalization, can any one with some time on there hands and knowlage of the subject please email me on email@example.com i would like to show you what i have done so far and get comments and feedback. Thanks
Hi iam doing theme focus activity on Good & Bad Aspects of Globalization in economics changes caused by the recent progress of globalization with free cross-borders movement of people, goods & capital. Do please send me email of any suggestion on my theme focus firstname.lastname@example.org
messed up table
the trade series table is all messed up and in the middle of the page, could someone fix it i dunno how
- Indeed. In my view it even overlaps the Meanings header.
history of globalization
I am thinking of creating an addition to this page and topic on the User:Jonesa3/History of Globalization. Comments? Would this be appropriate or appreciated? I think that globalization is a pertinent topic today, but also needs to be considered in light of historical antecedents dating back hundreds of years. ~jonesa3
I agree completely, you can't simply sum this subject up into the last hundred years. In fact, it in my opinion has probably been going on for quite some time, however it may be difficult to factor in all of the endless contributors and catylysts of a topic this particularly broad. I myself am simply agreeing, not offering to write such an obviously long and detailed essay, but all luck to the person willing.
Problems with the Anti-Globalization Section
I have spent the last few minutes editing the anti-globalization section, mainly editing writing problems. There is still a lot of work to do. I am changing "Most are reformist (arguing for a more humane form of capitalism) and a strong minority is revolutionary (arguing for a more humane system than capitalism)" to "Most are reformist, (arguing for a more humane form of capitalism) while others are more revolutionary (arguing for a more humane system than capitalism). Although most anti/alter-globalizationists probably are reformist, I think it is hard to say that only a small minority are revolutionary, judging by my own annecdotal experience (which is obviously not a good source). This could be my own bias as a revolutionary, so if someone can find a good source to show that only a small minority are revolutionary, put it back in. Also, there are a lot of people involved who are anti-capitalist and reformist (democratic socialists for example), so even the paranthetical comments could be revised. The Ungovernable Force 08:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Illogical or self-contradictory timeline in introductory section
It says that until 1950 international trade was reduced. It then says that starting in 1914 (WWI) this trend was reversed. Can the writer of these sentences correct themselves, please! Caravaca 17:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Too many words too little figures
I find that this article has too much rhetoric and too little figures. There are plenty of facts and studies on both sides of the issue that go unmentioned in the article.
This is nonsense and should be taken out.
However, the world increasingly shares problems and challenges that do not obey nation-state borders, most notably pollution of the natural environment, and the movement previously known as anti-globalization has transformed into a movement of movements for globalization from below, seeking, through experimentation, forms of social organisation that transcend the nation-state and representative democracy. Whereas the original arguments that globalization is taking place can be refuted with stories of internationalisation, as above, the emergence of a global movement is indisputable and therefore we can speak of a real process towards a global human society of societies. Other authors have argued that we are in transition to a planetary phase of civilization; the exact form and character of the global society is contested and will be determined by the choices we make in the critical decades ahead. For example, the Global Scenario Group has outlined alternative visions of the global future, with "market forces" or economic globalization being just one option, contrasted with "policy reform," "fortress world," "breakdown," "eco-communalism" and a "new sustainability paradigm."
First of all globalization does not entail the destruction of the nation state. And on the contrary issues such as global warming and pollution have given rise to the internationalization of environmental laws: the kyoto treaty being one of them. Globalization from below, what does this mean?
"Other authors..." this is unattributed nonsense. It is a carte blanche to state anything.Firmitas 00:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Meaning & Debate
I made a new heading meaning and debate. I provided cogent defitions for globalization, broke it down to its three main aspects economic, political, and cultural. I also ushered in the debate on wether this is good or bad by mentioning the role of the state, corporations, and individuals in maximizing social welfare. I believe an equal amount of space for both sides. I feel that I did not endorse neither argument but made them concise.
Those definitions are pallid rather than cogent. They provide no historical parameters and suggest nothing in particular about the actual policies and processes, especially those for which those institutions are responsible. Rather than eliminating bias you have allowed the two most powerful elite-controlled institutions to set the authoritative frame of reference for the so-called "meaning and debate." Without going into the details of IMF and World Bank policies I would say that generally the "meaning and debate" section assumes there are no mediating agents (ie: class actors such as we see in the mutually constitutive dependency between finance, multinational corporations, and political elites) that design globalizing institutions, erect policy and implement according to the prioritization of class interests. Of course the World Bank would love to have us believe that globalization is merely a process whereby "free" people "initiate voluntary economic transactions with residents of other countries" rather than admitting that it prioritizes specific transactions for a specific social stratum while indirectly and directly inhibiting the development of others, both within and between nations. Perhaps worse of all is the inclusion of the sentence, "In terms of migration white and blue collar workers may go from one country to another to provide their services" as if this was a cheery and uncontroversial fact merely "facilitated" by globalization. In a great number of documented cases this "migration" has been a result of involuntary displacement. BernardL 19:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Although some of your concern have been addressed in the ensuing discussion, for the record these definitions were already in the article. I only inserted both to highlight difference in interpretations. However, a more effective highlight would be a definition steming from the anti globalization debate.
As for your the ensuing critque: I placed one sentence describing migration and one sentence describing the deleterious effects pointed out by critics. Again, this section should be a summation of issues, hence the 1 to 1 ratio. However, I do believe that the passages initially insterted to this section should lead off the anti-globalization section.
Removed glocalization and put in Other Uses
I removed ==Glocalization== from its own heading
This has no bearing on the Globalization article.
A term coined by Roland Robertson, glocalization describes a process whereby the "local" is integrated into the "global". This results in a heterogenization of cultures, as local quiditties of particular areas become disseminated around the world, and cultures clash with newly introduced cultural concepts, ideologies, practices, and so on. One keen example of glocalization is that of museums. Museums take local culture and history and prepare them for mass consumption, especially among tourists. Such manufacturing of local culture for mass consumption results in heterogenization, rather than homogenization, because it introduces, rather than supplants, the local culture.
Glocalization is an opposing theory to that of "grobalization", a term coined by George Ritzer to identify globalization with cultural homogenization. Here, the manufacturing of cultural artifacts is taken to involve the homogenization of such artifacts, so as to be apt to be consumed by many consumers around the world.
Within the contemporary debate about globalization, the debate regarding glocalization-versus-grobalization is widespread. There have been major proponents of both, and each theory carries with it its own set of differing interpretations. For example, Appadurai is a proponent of a theory of hybridization, which may be associated with glocalization, whereby there is occurring an overall heterogenization of cultures, and a creation of new cultures resulting from clashes among various -scapes.
While the dispute has yet to be fully reconciled, each theory carries with it its own pros and cons. Furthermore, it is certain that globalization cannot be viewed as a unidimensional phenomenon. Indeed, the study of globalization carries multiple theories, especially with respect to the cultural dimensions of globalization, regarding the characteristics, and entailed processes, contained within the contemporary process of globalization.
- The issues as to whether globalization entails a homogenization or heterogenization of cultures is very important... not necessarily to me personally, but academically. It is a crucial question regarding the nature and consequences of globalization. By explicitly mentioning this issue, the notions underlying various anti- and pro-globalization movements are more directly perceivable. This allows people to question, or notice, otherwise latent presuppositions. Studies of globalization often focus on the cultural and social impacts of globalization, especially with respect to homogenization or heterogenization. Perhaps this should be made more explicit in the section above quoted, but it is ridiculous to assert that the issue of cultural homogeneity so central to studies of globalization has no bearing in a globalization article. I will await further comment regarding this, and modify the section, before adding it back into the article. Regards, Drifter 02:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
This article on a related term is nominated as AfD. I've taken a first stab at rewriting, and have voted to keep, but improve. If anyone here is interested in voting and in improving the article, help would be appreciated. Thanks.--Beth Wellington 19:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
New paragraphs moved to anti globalization section.
The reason I moved the new quotes from the Meaning & Debate to the anti-globalization section is that the Meaning & Debate section serves as only a brief sumation of the issues. When I wrote this summation I made sure that for every 1 sentence explicating globalization there would 1 sentence explaining its critique. In this manner we would get balance in presenting both sides of the argument presented together as the globalization question to the reader.
However, the person who inserted this paragraphs were huge and were simply dedicated to presenting an argument against globalization. Frankly I had already written about the issues he augmented. By adding these paragraphs which are half the size of original Meaning & Debate section clearly presents an unbalanced point of view.
This is not pride of authorship, or an agenda driven edit. I found the graphs well written, sourced and informative. However, since they dwelve deeper into the issue they should be moved to Anti-Globalization Debate. I found it so good that I put them first on the section. Firmitas 01:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. But in terms of the balance of the section my main quibble is that of the two definitions provided, both originate from elite institutions that are among the most controversial protagonists- so I think that compromises balance somewhat. They also do not strike me as terribly illuminative definitions. Why should the International Monetary Fund and World Bank set the terms, and frame of reference, of the "meaning and debate"? BernardL 02:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Good point. I chose those quotations, which were already in the article when I began to edit, to illuminate that even these two institutions which deal with globalization stressed different agents in their definitions. Hence, I made my ensuing remark about the role of governments, private sector, and the individual. To me this is the central debate of the globalization debate: what is the proper role of these three agents in maximizing social welfare. Those on one side of the political spectrum believe in low government, high private the other side of the political spectrum high government, low private. Arguably each side has different perspectives on what constitutes freedom for the individual. However, if you like to add a definition from an anti globalization source, it seems only fair and reasonable. I would only ask that it be the same length as the first definition outlined and that it would hopefully illustrate how differing definitions address the role of the public and private sector as well as the individual.
I thought about deleting the paragraph outright, but I feel that it is a good introductory paragraph--save for your observation of course.
I also plan to augment the History of Globalization section. I would appreciate if you could provide key events in the Anti-globalization movement such founding of organizations, mayor works written, protests, leaders and what ever you deem appropiate to incorporate them into something of a time line. Thank you for your comments. Firmitas 04:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh. what does AFD mean? Firmitas 04:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
AFD? Are you referring to "articles for deletion?"...I'll get back to you regarding an alternate definition. cheers- BernardL 04:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Cool beans 188.8.131.52 16:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't know how to change the capital link in the first para that refers to the four flows of capital to link to the wiki for economic capital rather than the wiki for a political capital as it currently does.
Decrease in inequality.
There's a cited source listed in the pro-globalization thread that states that inequality between countries has decreased, but according to the IMF it has increased. Globalization: Threat or Opportunity? Wasn't sure what to do about that.
- Note that in too is my answer. --Robdurbar 07:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Request for cleanup
I attempted a bit of a clear up. The introduction was a recent change by User:Ultramarine, who had noted (quite correctly) that the previous intro was basically original research. His replacement, though comprehensive, was very bulky. I have attempted to write a two paragraph intro, and put some of Ultramarine's intro as 'definition' at the start. I deleted about two or three paragraphs of stuff that U had written; I think much of this might fit nicely into the 'charcteristics' section, however. --Robdurbar 11:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I have an issue with the Definition section at the top of the page near the introduction. It states "Definitions of globalization are almost all highly subjective, depending on the positionality and experiences of the definer." I am uncertain as to the validity of this statement, however putting that aside, why do we then give a definition from the International Monetary Fund which breaks Globalization down to purely economic aspects? And then we follow by saying "All definitions appear to agree that globalization has economic, political, cultural, and technological aspects that may be closely intertwined." My suggestion is that we replace the IMF definition with this definition from Benedikt Kiesenhofer: "The concept of globalisation refers both to the compression of the world and the intensification of consciousness of the world as a whole". Not only is it short and elegant, but it is also accurate but still ambiguous enough to cover the economic and non-economic aspects of globalization. - Sebastian B.
I agree with the part about "the compression of the world" but would question whether it has led to an "intensification of consciousness." Consciousness is undefined. Consciousness of what? Whose consciousness is being raised? and what is the content of that consciousness? From my vantage point, since there have been many critical downswings in consciousness I think it would be impossible to arrive at any such conclusion. One can hypothesize that the world is now more "compressed" based on observation but hypothesizing an intensification of consciousness based on mere observation seems far more difficult.BernardL 13:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
The intensification of consciousness refers to an inevitable byproduct of the compression of the world. We are forced to become more aware of our cultural differences because of the increasing cultural merge. This is the what the phrase "intensification of consciousness" refers to, and it is vital to any comprehensive definition. Consciousness does not have to be specifically defined because it is made clear through the context and any definition would just add unnecessary bulk. It is this intrusive characteristic that separates globalization from other processes such as internationalization that have been occurring for several hundred years. - Sebastian B.
- I don't agree that a definition of "intensification of consciousness" is unnecessary. I agree with Bernard that the term is far from straightforward. If we mean increasing awareness of other cultures (which you appear to refer to, Sebastian), then this should be explained and referenced. It's also far from accepted that it is this component of 'globalisation' that distinguishes it from 'internationalisation', although that is an interesting view that should also be elucidated and referenced. These are precisely the sort of issues that need to be clean-up to make a good article.--Nmcmurdo 22:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'd also like to probe a little behind the confident assertion that Roland Robertson "first defined" globalisation in 1992. How widely accepted is this view? --Nmcmurdo 19:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
The main reason this is a very poor, messy article is that there is insufficient distinction between definitions and descriptions of globalization (which should I think be as encompassing as possible) and presentations of the various economic, ethical and political viewpoints on the issue of what effects globalization has had, and how it should develop.
Can we agree to marshall our efforts first on improving the definitions and descriptions (facts & figures on the degree of internationalization of various aspects of economy and wider society etc.)? After that, I would propose that the various political and ethical 'schools of thought' (anti-globalism / global neoliberalism etc.) stand in separate articles, although there may be a place here for short summaries and links. --Nmcmurdo 00:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
It's improved a lot now. Well done. --Nmcmurdo 19:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Because of what I believe are numerous critical deficiencies I have removed the paragraph that was recently added to the front of this article.
"== General characteristics of globalization == Economic globalization, (i.e. the aggregate change we observe in our factories, storefronts, indeed generally across our economies and lifestyles) is caused by four fundamental transactions in the global economy. These transactions can be described as flows to and from different places.
The movement of people around the globe, while also spreading disparate cultures and religions, is an essential part of the global economy. Immigration into industrailized countries will be essential in replacing the large number of workers expected to retire in the next few decades while also increasing the standards of living for many of those workers."
Rationale for deletion:
1. The paragraph makes several authoritative declarations, for example enumerating what are the "four fundamental" characteristics but provides no references, it therefore constitutes original research.
2. The paragraph about the movement of people around the globe has a serious 'North/"first world"' bias. The implicit assumption is that globalization is a benign force directing the rest of the world to solve problems of "first world" generational attrition. The assertion that it must "also (increase) the standards of living for many of those workers" is POV, I wouldn't be surprised if it is copied from an IMF propaganda leaflet or a similar source of uncritical propaganda (the World Bank at its worst, Tom Friedman, rightwing think tanks, etc.) A lead-in describing "general characteristics" if necessary at all, should give the reader some bearings on the subject without the foisting of POV preconceptions and unquestioned assumptions upon them. BernardL 13:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Peer review request
The link 'hybridization' referred to the 'hybridisation' disambiguation page. Since the term is really Cultural Hybridisation, I changed the link to that. I believe that the term is too specific for the disambiguation page, plus the red link could lead someone to write an article about it.
- I think you are right. I would say in other words that globalization is a wider concept than economic globalization, a restrictive one. An article on economic globalization,, global economy, or whatever is needed, and some texts from the generic article "globalization" should be transfered to it, instead of merging everything which creates confusions. The most caricatural one is using the very narrow and bureaucratic IMF definition. --Pgreenfinch 08:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- I propose a move of The Global Economy to Economic aspects of globalizationJQ 07:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Globalization is as much an economic philosophy/ideology as an economic practice! I'd keep this article as an exploration of the ideas/beliefs behind globalization - with relevant real world examples, and keep The Global Economy for a discussion of the world's economy beyond the restraints of economic ideologies!
(In a nut-shell: the two articles approach the topic from different angles. One is from an economic philosophy put into practice, the other discussing (hopefully) the true state of affairs.) Mfgreen 01:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Globalization, cultural assimilation, cultural imperialism? I'm the only one not knowing what this stuff means, I suppose they should make this more clear about what there talking about.
The last paragraph under the anti-globalization movement subheading is littered with extra characters and misplaced words. Please clean up to keep originally intended message.
-- The typos and grammar are so bad, I can't even tell what the original message WAS. It might as well just be deleted and started over from scratch. Senatorpjt 21:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
First of all, the area before the TOC should be a summary. It is much too big. Some of it should be moved to the rest of the article.
Also, there is a lot of broken links and wiki syntax, which may be the result of vandalism, I haven't looked at the article's history. --Ortzinator 19:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Can we agree to marshall our efforts first on improving the definitions and descriptions (facts & figures on the degree of internationalization of various aspects of economy and wider society etc.)? After that, I would propose that the various political and ethical 'schools of thought' (anti-globalism / global neoliberalism etc.) stand in separate articles, although there may be a place here for short summaries and links. --Nmcmurdo 23:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
The last paragraph in historical precedents seems to be original research. Also, why don't we move the two bullet points at the begining to their respective parts in the article (first point under pro-globalization, second under anti). In the anti-globalization section, it makes mention of mysterious "critics" (i.e. weasel words). PLus, we need citations throughout the entire article. Thanks. Justinmeister 00:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Upon reaching this page, the first thing I see is a KFC in Kuwait. Is it not biased to place the thought into people's brains that commercialism and franchising, is the proper way to globalization?
--OneRyt 11:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Multinational corporations are an important and highly notable component of globalization, and the KFC in Kuwait is a very illustrative example. I think it's entirely appropriate as an illustration of the subject. Seraphimblade 11:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- I agree that the balance of the article is biased toward a discussion of Economic Globalization -- focusing on trade, corporations, etc. The article would benefit from an improved introduction, situating Globalization as a centuries long process that has accelerated dramatically in the past 50years, discussing the origins of the term. Perhaps Economic Globalization is a sub-section. The discussion of the "anti-globalization" is also too narrow and show the bias toward understanding globalization mostly in market terms. OrionK 18:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Globalization, as understood by most people (that I have ever heard of), is usually in reference to Economic Globalization. I have rarely, if ever, heard it used in a way that excludes such. In fact, until I saw these comments, I didn't even think that it could have meaning while excluding the economic from its definition. I agree with Seraphimblade. GaelicWizard 05:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Exclude? We are talking about balance, not exclusion -- no need to polarize the issues. Economic Globalization is one important aspect of the the term Globalization. If you spend most of your time in business circles or among Economists you might assume they are synonymous terms. But if you spend time with sociologists, historians, global justice activists, etc. you'll learn that the term refers to a complex of phenomena with economic, cultural, political expressions. As an encyclopedic article, I still think we need to have balance, introduce the term at its most general level and then explain its various elements. OrionK 15:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Exactly, globalization at it's core doesn't centralize around capitalism and corporations necessarily. (which is what this article is saying) It revolves around the entire earth working together economically... And in my personal opinion, which could very well match others, capitalism is actually a hinderance on globalization. It focuses too much on power, and exploiting people. How can anything that depends on exploitation expect to be a driving force behind one of the most uniting concepts?
- You're inserting personal bias and your own subjective interpretation into the discussion. In fact, globalization as it is understood as a real and measurable effect throughout the international community is seen in economic terms and corporations are a known vehicle of economic globalization; this is how the concept of globalization is largely defined during international summits, and by those who protest against "globalization". A KFC in Kuwait is indeed an appropriate and illustrative example of the modern concept of globalization. Blacksun1942 01:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Blacksun, you are showing the limited circles you travel in. Globalization is not a purely economic phenomenon, nor is it defined in these terms alone. The cultural transformations, blending and mixing of ideas, the advent of communications technology, the cross-boundary air and water pollution, the mounting climate crisis, are all features of our globalizing world. The upsurge of global civil society activity is often pointed to as part of globalization. The many global conference convened by the UN on human rights, environmental, migration, and other issues extend well beyond economics. To the extent that this article focuses on economics as synonymous with globalization it is myopic and un-encyclopedic. Clearly economics is a major ASPECT of globalization -- increased trade and new global trade regimes, removing barriers to capital flows (but keeping strong barriers to labor flows), etc. tell me my friend, you know what you could be, why do you worry all the time what you should be 15:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Uh, when I go to this page I see a big picture of male genitalia and can't revert it. All earlier edits seem to show it. Looks like some weird virus. Anyone else get this.know whow to undo it? FAST! Avraham 09:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- gone now. Thanks whoever did it! Avraham 09:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
An anon removed all of the intro and the templates here. Since there were a significant amount of edits since then, maybe someone could fit it back in somehow. --Ortzinator 04:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Meh, I did it. --Ortzinator 17:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Teenagers and the future
How is everyone, if you are interested in adding information and globalization and a study done on teenagers, I believe one of the first studies ever to exam teenagers in Lebanon, Azerbaijan, New York City, and the Philippines please reference this link. I would do it myself but it seems any time I add ANYTHING to wikipedia it gets deleted no matter how relevant it is... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 03:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC).
I have added this, thank you.
When I go to this page there are vandals written on the first part of the topic. I tried to edit it but to no avail. But the vandals disappear when I log in. The vandals does not look good on a topic that is quite important so can anyone remove it? Thanks in advance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 06:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC).
I think that the KFC picture is the totally wrong image of the idea of globalization. It would be better to have not a picture at all than this one view of globalization. A picture of the world would be atleast something if there is a need for a picture. 18.104.22.168 18:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
--I Agree. I think an appropriate picture would probably be a group of villagers all working around a computer, or a fisherman using a cellphone to get market prices of fish so he knows where he should dock to get the best price.
I have edited the beginning of the article as the introduction was rather long-winded and needed splitting into separate sections to make navigation, and reading of the site much easier. Bencgibbins 12:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
History Section: Unsubstantiated Claims
I find the this paragraph hard to decode. The last two claims are without references, and I suggest they be removed unless references are provided. What is the evidence for these claims?
The "First Era of Globalization" began to break down at the beginning with the first World War, and later collapsed during the gold standard crisis in the late 1920s and early 1930s. Countries that engaged in that era of globalization, including the European core, some of the European periphery and various European American and Oceanic offshoots, prospered. Inequality between those states fell, as goods, capital and labour flowed freely between nations.
Specifically, what does it mean "countries that engaged in that era of globalization"? What is a "European American and Oceanic offshoot"?? What is meant by "prospered"? It is doubtful that "goods, capital, and LABOR" flowed freely -- they hardly do so now after decades of trade talks. Also, inequality between European nations and their colonies hardly fell -- what is this last sentence referring to?
I will remove it unless those who object provide references and clarify the intended points. tell me my friend, you know what you could be, why do you worry all the time what you should be 15:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
stupid pointless annoying (spam) sentence
Globalization in short is how our world is becoming more and more like one country each and every day
who coined the term?
though it is mentioned in the article that the term was coined in the latter half of the 20th century, the name of the person who who coined it is not mentioned. some people attribute it to Edward Said, is it correct?
who coined the term?
although it is mentioned in the article that the term ws coined in the latter half of 20th century, the name of the person who coined the term has not been given. some people attribute it to Edward Said, is it correct?--22.214.171.124 05:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)gilanim
globalism and globalisation are different
They are not the same, but one is redirected to the latter if one searches the former. It should be changed or noted. http://www.theglobalist.com/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=2392
- Duly noted, whoever you are. This is an important distinction that the article should clarify: namely, that "globalism" refers to an ideology while "globalization" refers to a state of affairs, a set of processes, etc. Job L 17:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Show your Math ultramarine
Ultramarine agrees that those living on less than a dollar a day dropped from 1.5 billion to 1.1 billion, but persists in saying that the number dropped by half in percentage terms. But 0.4 billion (the drop) is about 26% of 1.5 billion. So please provide the calculation...