INTRODUCTION

TO
GLOBALIZATION
CHAPTER I
 At the end of this chapter, the students
will be able to:

OBJECTIVES  Differentiate the competing conceptions of

globalization

Identify the underlying philosophies of the

varying definitions of globalization

Agree on a working definition of

globalization
 Lesson 1- Defining Globalization

CHAPTER Lesson 2- Metaphors of Globalization

OUTLINE Lesson 3- Globalization Theories

Lesson 4- The Origins and History of

Globalization

Lesson 5- Dynamics of Local and

Global Culture
 Much has changed since time immemorial. Human beings have encountered
many changes over the last century especially in their social relationships and
social relationships and social structures. Of these changes, one can say that
globalization is a very important change, if not, the “most important”
(Bauman, 2003). The reality and omnipresence of globalization makes us see
ourselves as part of what we refer to as the “global age” (Albrow, 1996). The
Internet, for example, allows a person from the Philippines to know what is
happening to the rest of the world simply by browsing Google. The mass
media also allows for connections among people, communities, and countries
all over the globe.
 So what is globalization? This questions is probably an easy one to answer.
However, many scholars gave and tried to formulate its definitions. This resulted
in different , sometimes contradicting views about the concept. It cannot be
contained within a specific time frame, all people, and all situations (Al-Rhodan,
2006). Aside from this, globalization encompasses a multitude of processes that
involves the economy, political systems, and culture. Social structures, therefore,
are directly affected by globalization.
 Over the years, globalization has gained many connotations pertaining to
progress, development, and integration. On the one hand, some view globalization
as a positive phenomenon. For instance, Swedish journalist Thomas Larsson
(2001) saw globalization as “the process of world shrinkage, if distances getting
shorter, things moving closer. It pertains to the increasing ease with which
somebody on one side of the world can interact, to mutual benefit with somebody
on the other side of the world” (p.9). On the other hand, some see it as occurring
through and with regression, colonialism, and destabilization. In the mid-1990’s,
Martin Khor, the former president of Third World Network (TWN) in Malaysia,
once regarded globalization as colonization.
 In this chapter, different definitions of globalization will be discussed. The
task of conceptualizing it reveals a variety of perspectives. To understand further
the concept, different metaphors will be used. These metaphors will also allow an
appreciation of earlier epochs before globalization and the present globalized
world. The final lesson of this chapter will be devoted to a general discussion of
globalization theories. The following section will highlight the different views
scholars have toward globalization.
 DEFINING
GLOBALIZATIO
N
LESSON 1
 Since its first appearance in the
Webster’s Dictionary in 1961, many
opinions about globalization have
flourished. The literature on the definitions
of globalization revealed that definitions
could be classified as either (1) broad and
inclusive or (2) narrow and exclusive. The
one offered by Ohmae in 1992 stated, “…
globalization means the onset of the
borderless world…” (p.14). This is an
example of a broad and inclusive type of
definition. If one uses such, it can include a
variety of issues that deal with overcoming
traditional boundaries. However, it does not
shed light on the implications of
globalization due to its vagueness.
 Narrow and exclusive definitions are
better justified but can be limiting in the
sense that their application adhere to only
particular definitions. Robert Cox’s
definitions suits best in this type: “the
characteristics of the globalization trend
can include the internationalizing of
production, the new international division
of labor, new migratory movements from
South to North, the new competitive
environment that accelerates these
processes, and the new internationalizing
of the state… making states into agencies
of the globalizing world” (as cited in
RAWOO Netherlands Development
Assistance Research Council, 2000, p.14).
 No matter how one classifies a definition of
globalization, the concept is complex and
multifaceted as the definitions deal with either
economic, political, or social dimensions. In
fact, in a comprehensive study if 114
definitions by the Geneva Center for Security
Policy (GCSP) in 2006, 67 of them refer to
economic dimension. These definitions include
political and social dimensions as well. The
sheer number and complexity of definitions do
not mean that there is a remarkable
improvement in every definition given by
scholars. Kumar (2003) took on a different
argument about the issue. To him, the debate
about what can be done about globalization and
what it is are similar. This is in relation to what
some academics have claimed about defining
globalization- it is a useless task.
 A more recent definition was given by
Ritzer (2015), “globalization is a
transplanetary process or a set of processes
involving increasing liquidity and the
growing multidirectional flows of people,
objects, places, and information as well as
the structures they encounter and create that
are barriers to, or expedite, those flows…”
(p.2). Generally, this definition assumes that
globalization could bring either or both
integration and /or fragmentation. Although
things flow easily in global world,
hindrances or structural blocks are also
present. These blocks could slow down
one’s activity in another country or could
have even limit the places a person can
visit.
 Why are we going to spend time studying this
concept?

How can we appreciate these definitions?

How can these help us understand globalization?

 First, the perspective of the person who defines
globalization shapes its definition. The overview of
definitions implies that globalization is many things to
many different people. In 1996, Arjun Appadural said,
“globalization is a ‘world of things’ that have ‘different
speeds, axes, points of origin and termination, and
varied relationships to institutional structures in
different regions, nations, or societies’” (as cited in
Chowdhury, 2006, p. 137). In a more recent study, Al-
Rhodan (2006) wrote that definitions suggest the
perspective of the author on the origins and the
geopolitical implications of globalization. It is a starting
point that will guide the rest of any discussions. In
effect, one’s definition and perspective could determine
concrete steps in addressing the issues of globalization.
For example, if one sees globalization as positive, the
person can say that it is a unifying force. On the other
hand, if it is deemed as creating greater inequalities
among nations, globalization is negatively treated.
 Second, to paraphrase the sociologist
Cesare Poppi: Globalization is the debate
and the debate is globalization. One became
part and parcel of the other. As Poppi (1997)
wrote: “The literature stemming from the
debate of globalization has grown in the last
decade beyond any individual’s capability
of extracting a workable definition of the
concept. In a sense, the meaning of the
concept is self-evident, in another, it is
vague and obscure as its reaches are wide
and constantly shifting. Perhaps, more than
any other concept, globalization is the
debate about it” (as cited in kumar, 2003, p.
95)
 Overall, globalization is a concept that is not easy to
define because in reality, globalization has a shifting
nature. It is complex , multifaceted, and can be influenced
by the people who define it. Moreover, the issues and
concerns involving globalization have a wide range- from
the individual to society, from small communities to
nations and states, and from the benefits we can gain from
it to the costs it could carry. In his article, “The
Globalization of Nothing,” Ritzer (2003) said, “attitudes
toward globalization depend, among other things, on
whether one gains or loses from it” (p. 190). Nevertheless,
the task of defining globalization should stimulate more
discussions about it. More importantly, the fact that we
experience globalization should give one the interest of
engaging in the study of it.
METAPHORS OF
GLOBALIZATIO
N
LESSON 2
METAPHORS OF
GLOBALIZATION
In order for us to better understand
the concept of globalization, we will
utilize metaphors. Metaphors make use
of one term to help us better
understand another term. In our case,
the states of matter- solid and liquid-
will be used. In addition, other related
concepts that are included in the
definition such as structures and flows
will be elaborated.
 SOLID AND LIQUID
The epochs that preceded today’s globalization paved way for people, things,
and places, to harden over time. Consequently, they have limited mobility (Ritzer,
2015). The social relationships and objects remained where they were created.
Solidity also refers to barriers that prevent or make difficult the movement of
things. Furthermore, solids can either be natural or man-made. Examples of
natural solids are landforms are bodies of water. Man-made barriers include the
Great Wall of China and the Berlin Wall. An imaginary line such as the nine-dash
line used by the People’s Republic of China in their claim to the South China Sea
is an example of a modern man-made solid. This creates limited access of Fiipino
fishers to the South China Sea. Obviously, these examples still exist. However,
they have the tendency to melt. This should not be taken literally, like an iceberg
melting, this process involves how we can describe what is happening in today’s
global world. It is becoming increasingly liquid.
 SOLID AND LIQUID
Liquid, as s state of mater, takes the shape of its container. Moreover, liquids
are not fixed. Liquidity, therefore, refer to the increasing ease of movement of
people, things, information, and places in the contemporary world. Zygmunt
Bauman’s ideas were the ones that have much to say about the characteristics of
liquidity. First, today’s liquid phenomena change quickly and their aspects , spatial
and temporal, are in continuous fluctuation. This means that space and time are
crucial elements of globalization. In global finance, for instance, changes in the
stock market are a matter of seconds. Another characteristics of liquid phenomena is
that their movement is difficult to stop. For example, videos uploaded on YouTube
or Facebook are unstoppable once they become viral. The so-called Internet
sensations become famous not only in their homeland but also to the entire world.
Finally, the forces (the liquid ones) made political boundaries more permeable to the
flow of people and things (Cartier, 2001). This brings us to what Ritzer (2015, p.6)
regarded as the most important characteristic of liquid: it “tends to melt whatever
stands in its path (especially solids)” The clearest example is the decline if not death
, of the nation-state.
SOLID AND LIQUID
Liquidity and Solidity are in
constant interaction. However, liquidity
is the one increasing and proliferating
today. Therefore, the metaphor that
could best describe globalization is
liquidity. Liquids do flow and this idea
of flow (Appadural, 1996; Rey and
Ritzer, 2010) will be the focus of the
next discussion. Also, it should be
expected that this concept will appear
in the succeeding lessons. The
literature on globalization makes use of
the concept of flows.
 FLOWS
The previous section described the melting
process of solid phenomena followed by the
increase of liquidity. It is only logical to discuss
the flows of liquid phenomena. Flows are the
movements of people, things, places, and
information brought by the growing “porosity” of
global limitations (Ritzer, 2015). Think of the
different foreign cuisines being patronized and
consumed by the Filipinos. Aside from the local
dishes, many of us are fond of eating sushi,
ramen, hamburger, and French fries- foods
introduced to us by foreign cultures. Clearly
foods are being globalized.
FLOWS
Another example of flows is global financial crises. As
Landler (2008, p. C1) put it: “In global financial system, national
boarders are porous.” This means that a financial crisis in a given
country can bring ramifications to other regions of the world. An
example of which is the spread of the effects of American
financial crisis on Europe in 2008. The following are other kinds
of flows that can be observed today: poor illegal migrants
flooding many parts of the world, the virtual flow of legal and
illegal information such as blogs and pornography, respectively.;
and immigrants recreating ethnic enclaves in host countries. A
concrete example is the Filipino communities abroad and the
Chinese communities in the Philippines.
GLOBALIZATIO
N THEORIES
LESSON 3
 GLOBALIZATION
THEORIES
We have established the many definitions
of and issues in defining globalization and the
metaphors that we can use to understand
easily the concept. We have also looked into
its origins and history. This section will give
you a glimpse of the important theories on
globalization. We will analyze globalization
culturally, economically, and politically as
reflected in the succeeding chapters. In the
meantime, it would be helpful to assert that
the theories see globalization as a process that
increases either homogeneity or
heterogeneity.
 HOMOGENEITY
Homogeneity refers to the increasing
sameness in the world as cultural inputs,
economic factors, and political orientations of
societies expand to create common practices,
same economies, and similar forms of
government. Homogeneity in culture is often
linked to cultural imperialism. This means, a
given culture influences other cultures. For
example, the dominant religion in our country is
Christianity, which was brought by the Spaniards.
Another example is Americanization, which was
defined by Kuisel (1993) as the “the import by
non-Americans of products, images, technologies,
practices, and behavior that are closely associated
with America American” (p. 96). In terms of the
economy, there is recognition of the spread of
neoliberalism, capitalism, and the market
economy, in the world. (Antonio, 2017).
HOMOGENEITY
Global economic crises are also products of homogeneity in
economic globalization. Stiglitz (2002), for instance, blamed the
international Monetary Fund (IMF) for its “one-size-fits-all”
approach which treats every country in the world as the same.
In the end, rich countries become advantageous in the world
economy at the expense of poor countries, which leads to
increased inequality among nations. The political realm also
suffers homogenization if one takes into account the emerging
similar models of governance in the world. Barber (1995) said
that “McWorld” is existing. It means only one political
orientation is growing in today’s societies.
 HOMOGENEITY
The global flow of media is often characterized as media
imperialism. TV, music, books, and movies are perceived as
imposed on developing countries by the West (Cowen, 2002).
Media imperialism undermines the existence of alternative global
media originating from developing countries such as the Al
Jazeera (Bielsa, 2008) and the Bollywood (Larkin, 2003), as well
as the influence of the local and regional media. The Internet can
be seen as an arena for alternative media. Cultural imperialism
denies the agency of viewers, but people around the world often
interpret the same medium (e.g., a movie) in significantly
different ways. Global media are dominated by a small number
of large corporations. As McChesney (1999) put it, this is being
“extended from old media to new media (p. 11), such as
Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter, Google, and Apple’s Itunes.
HOMOGENEITY
As a result, in the long run, the Internet could
end up being less diverse and competitive.
Independent media center, associated with the
alter-globalization movement, helps to counter
this trend. It disseminates information to facilitate
global participation of activists. Hacktivists
extend activism to the Internet by hacking into
computer programs to promote a particular cause
(Juris, 2005)
 HOMOGENEITY
Ritzer (2008) claimed that, in general, the contemporary
world is undergoing the process of McDonaldization. It is the
process by which Western societies are dominated by the
principles of fast food restaurants. McDonaldization involves the
global spread of rational systems, such as efficiency,
calculability, predictability and control. Ritzer (2008) pointed out
that this process is “extended to other businesses, sectors, and
geographic areas” (p. 169). Grobalization, in contrast to
glocalization, is a process wherein nations, corporations, etc.
impose themselves on geographic areas in order to gain profits,
power, and so on (Ryan, 2007). Ritzer (2007) also espoused the
idea that globalization can also be seen as a flow of “nothing” as
opposed to “something”, involving the spread of non-places, non-
things, non-people, and non-services.
HETEROGENEITY
On the other hand, heterogeneity pertains to
the creation of various cultural practices, new
economies, and political groups because of the
interaction of elements from different societies in
the world. Heterogeneity refers to the differences
because of either lasting differences or of the
hybrids or combinations of cultures that can be
produced through the different trans planetary
processes. Contrary to cultural imperialism,
heterogeneity in culture is associated with cultural
hybridization. A more specific concept is
“glocalization” coined by Roland Robertson in
1992. To him, as global forces interact, with local
factors or a specific geographic area, the “glocal”
is being produced.
 HETEROGENEITY
Economic issues are not exempted from
heterogeneity. The commodification of cultures and
“glocal” markets are examples of differentiation
happening in many economies around the world. The
same goes with political institutions. Barber (1995)
also provided the alternate of “McWorld” – the
“Jihad”. As Ritzer (2008) mentioned, it refers to the
political groups that are engaged in an
“intensification” of nationalism and that leads to
greater political heterogeneity throughout the world”
(p. 576).
 Although homogeneity and
heterogeneity give us idea about
the effects of globalization, the
picture is not yet complete. The
theories about globalization will
be clarified as we look closer at
each of them in the succeeding
GLOBALIZATION chapters.
THEORIES
 ORIGINS AND
HISTORY OF
GLOBALIZATIO
N
LESSON 4
 ORIGINS AND
HISTORY OF
GLOBALIZATION
The previous discussions answered the
question “What is Globalization?” The next
question “Where did it start?” is not easy to
answer as well because there are different
views about this. This course generally
adheres to the perspective that the major
points of the beginnings of globalization
started after the Second World War.
Nevertheless, it would mean no harm to
look at the five different perspectives
regarding the origins of globalization.
 According to Nayan Chanda (2007), it
is because of our basic human need to
make our lives better that made
globalization possible. Therefore, one can
trace the beginning of globalization from
our ancestors in Africa who walked out
from the said continent in the late Ice
Age. This long journey finally led them to
all-known continents today, roughly after
HARDWIRED 50, 000 years.
Chanda (2007) mentioned commerce,
religion, politics, and warfare are the
“urges” of people toward a better life.
These are respectively connected to four
aspects of globalization and they can be
traced all throughout history: trade,
missionary work, adventures, and
conquest.
 For some, globalization is a long-
term cyclical process and thus, finding
its origin will be a daunting task. What
is important is the cycles that
globalization has gone through (Scholte,
CYCLE 2005). Subscribing to this view will
suggest adherence to the idea that other
global ages have appeared. There is also
the notion to suspect that this point of
globalization will son disappear and
reappear.
 Ritzer (2015) cited Therborn’s
(2000) six great epochs of
globalization. These are also called
“waves”, and each has its own
EPOCH origin. Today’s globalization is not
unique if this is the case. The
different of this view from the
second view (cycles) is that it does
not treat epochs as returning.
 The following are the sequential occurrence of the epochs:

1. Globalization of religion (fourth to seventh centuries)

2. European colonial conquests (late fifteenth century)

EPOCH 3. Intra-European wars (late eighteenth to early nineteenth

centuries)

4. Heyday of European Imperialism (mid-nineteenth century to

1918)

5. Post-World War II period

6. Post-Cold War period

 Specific events are also considered as
part of the fourth view in explaining the
origin of globalization. If this is the case,
then several points can be treated as the
start of globalization. Gibbon (1998), for
example, argued that Roman conquests
centuries before Christ were its origin. In
an issue of the magazine the Economist

EVENTS (2006, January 12), it considered the

rampage of the armies of Genghis Khan
into Eastern Europe in the thirteenth
century. Rosenthal (2007) gave premium
to voyages of discovery- Christopher
Columbus’s discovery of America in
1942, Vasco de Gama in Cape of Good
Hope in 1948, and Ferdinand Magellan’s
completed circumnavigation of the globe
in 1522.
EVENTS
The recent years could also be regarded as the beginnings of
globalization with reference to specific technological advances in
transportation and communication. Some examples include the first
transatlantic telephone cable(1956), the first transatlantic television
broadcasts (1962), the founding of the modern Internet in 1988, and the
terrorist attacks on the Twin Towers in New York (2001). Certainly, with
this view, more and more and more specific events will characterize not
just the origins of globalization but also more of its history.
 Recent changes comprised the
fifth view. These broad changes
happened in the last half of the
twentieth century. Scholars today
BROADER, point to these three notable changes
as the origin of globalization that we
MORE know today. They are as follows:
1. The emergence of the United
RECENT States as the global power (post-
World War II)
CHANGES 2. The emergence of multinational
corporations (MNCs)
3. The demise of the Soviet Union
and the end of the Cold War.
BROADER, MORE RECENT CHANGES
Through its dominant military and economic power after
WWII, the United States was able to outrun Germany and
Japan in terms of Industry. Both Axis powers and Allies fall
behind economically as compared to the new global power.
Because of this, the United States soon began to progress in
different aspects like in diplomacy, media, film (as in the
Hollywood), and many more.
BROADER, MORE RECENT
CHANGES
Before MNCs came into being, their roots were
from their countries or origin during the eighteenth to
early nineteenth centuries. The United States,
Germany, and Great Britain had in their homeland
great corporations which the world knows today.
However, they did not remain there as far as their
production and market are concerned. For example,
Ford and General Motors originated in the United
States but in the twentieth century, they exported
more automobiles and opened factories to other
countries.
BROADER, More recent that the first two would
MORE RECENT be the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991.
this event led to the opening of the major

CHANGES parts of the world for the first time since

the early twentieth century. Many global
processes- immigration, tourism, media,
diplomacy, and MNCs- spread throughout
the planet. This paved way for the so-
called “free” world. China, even though
the government remains communist, is on
its way to becoming a major force in
global capitalism (Fishman, 2006).
Moreover, China is also globalizing in
terms of other aspects such as their
hosting of the Olympics in 2008.
DYNAMICS OF
LOCAL AND
GLOBAL
CULTURE
LESSON 5
 DYNAMICS OF
LOCAL AND
GLOBAL CULTURE
Global flows of culture tend to
move more easily around the globe
than ever before, especially
through non-material digital forms.
There are three perspectives on
global cultural flows. These are
differentialism, hybridization, and
convergence
 Cultural Differentialism
emphasizes the fact that cultures are
essentially different and are only
superficially affected by global
flows. The interaction of cultures is
deemed to contain the potential for
Cultural “catastrophic collision”. Samuel
Huntington’s theory on the clash of
Differentialism the civilization s proposed in 1996
best exemplifies this approach.
According to Huntington, after the
Cold War, political –economic
differences were overshadowed by
new fault lines , which were
primarily cultural in nature.
Cultural Differentialism
Increasing interaction among different “civilizations” (such as the
Sinic, Islamic, Orthodox, and Western) would lead to intense clashes,
especially the economic conflict between the Western and Sinic
civilizations and bloody political conflict between the Western and
Islamic civilizations (Huntington, 2004). This theory has been critiqued
for a number of reasons, especially on its portrayal of Muslims as being
“prone to violence” (Huntington, 1996).
 The Cultural Hybridization approach
emphasizes the integration of local and
global cultures (Cvetkovich and Kellner,
1997). Globalization is considered to be a
creative process which gives rise to hybrid
entities that are not reducible to either the
Cultural global or the local. A key concept is
“glocalization” or the interpenetration of
Hybridization the global and local resulting in unique
outcomes in different geographic areas
(Giulianotti and Robertson, 2007, p. 133).
Another key concept is Arjun finance,
political images, and media and the
disjunctures between them, which lead to
the creation of cultural hybrids.
 The cultural convergence approach
stresses homogeneity introduced by
globalization. Cultures are deemed to be
radically altered by strong flows, while
cultural imperialism happens when one
Cultural culture imposes itself on and tends to
destroy at least parts of another culture. On
Convergence important critique of cultural imperialism is
John Tomlinson’s idea of
“deterritoialization” of culture.
Deterritorialization means that it is much
more difficult to tie culture to a specific
geographic point of origin.
GLOBALIZATION
AND
REGIONALIZATIO
N
LESSON 6
 GLOBALIZATION
AND
REGIONALIZATION

The process of globalization and

regionalization reemerged during the
1980s and heightened after the end of
the Cold War in the 1990s. At first, it
seems that theses two processes are
contradicting- the very nature of
globalization is, by definition, global
while regionalization is naturally
regional.
 GLOBALIZATION
AND
REGIONALIZATIO
N

The regionalization of the world

system and economic activity undermines
the potential benefits coming out from a
liberalized global economy. This is because
regional organizations prefer regional
partners over the rest. Regional
organizations respond to the states’ attempt
to reduce the perceived negative effects of
globalization. Therefore, regionalism is a
sort of counter-globalization.
GLOBALIZATION AND
REGIONALIZATION
In a 2007 survey, the Financial Times revealed that
majority of Europeans consider that globalization brings
negative effects to their societies (as cited in Jcoby and
Meunier, 2010). Many policy makers and scholars think
that globalization must be regulated and managed. The
threaths of an “ungoverned globalization” can be
encountered what Jacoby and Meunier called managed
globalization; it refers to “all attemots to make
globalization more palatable citizens” (p.1)
 GLOBALIZATION
AND
REGIONALIZATIO
N

It is important, however, to consider

the gradual development of inter-regional
relations such as the Association of South
East Asian Nations (ASEAN), the
European Union (EU), or the South
American trade bloc, Mercosur. In fact, a
sort of “contagion effect” (Held, et.al.,
2005, p. 77) has spread during the past
years.
GLOBALIZATION AND
REGIONALIZATION
Regionalization in one part of the world encourages
regionalization elsewhere- whether by imitation, like the
success of the Eropean Single Market, or by “defensive”
reaction, such as Mercosur’s establishment as response to
the creation of NAFTA. According to this, regionalization
and the development of interregionalism would indeed be
global in nature. As Held et.al (2005) claimed, “the new
regionalism is not a barrier to political globalization but,
on the contrary, entirely compatible with it- if not an
indirect encouragement” (p.77)
 GLOBALIZATION
AND
REGIONALIZATIO
N
Hurrell (2007) captured this debate in
his “one (global) world/ many (regional)
worlds relationship” (p.1). Regional
developments in one part of the world have
affected and fueled regionalization
everywhere else in a sort of contagion or
domino effect. This fact, along with
increasing developments in interregional
cooperation, shows that the regionalization
process is global in nature. Therefore,
regionalization is intimately linked to
globalization since it is part of it, and it
builds on it.
GLOBALIZATION AND
REGIONALIZATION
The argument concerning the relationship between regionalization and globalization is perfectly
summarized in this claim.

The age of economic globalization has also been the age of regionalization a much of the analysis of
the new regionalism has been devoted o the links between the two tendencies. Thus, regionalism is seen as
critical part of the political economy of globalization and the strategies that states (and other actors) have
adopted in the face of globalization… The emergence of regionalism needs to be understood within the
global restructuring of power and production. The many worlds are very closely intertwined with the
character and fat of the one. The core driving force is global even if the manifestation is regional.
GLOBALIZATION AND
REGIONALIZATION
Globalization “goes back to when humans first put a boat into
the sea” (Sweeney, 2005, p. 203). We can understand
globalization as “the increased flows of goods, services, capita,
people, and information across borders” Jacoby and Meunier,
2010, p.1). But as we have learned from the previous discussions,
there are many controversies about and varying definitions of the
term. Defining region and regionalization is complicated.
Nevertheless, region, according to Mansfield and Milner (1999) is
“a group of countries in the same geographically specified area”
(p.2). Hurrell (2007) defined regionalization as the “societal
integration and the often-undirected process of social and
economic interaction” (p.4). In addition, regionalization is
different from regionalism, which is “the formal process of
intergovernmental collaboration between two or more states”
(Ravenhill, 2008, p. 174)
 GLOBALIZATION
AND
REGIONALIZATIO
N
The motivations for the recent
regionalization in Asia, as well as other
regions in the world, cannot be isolated
from one another. It is a complex mixture
of factors. One of the reasons behind
regionalism is the concern for security,
which is to ensure peace and stability.
Confidence building can be enhanced
through economic cooperation within a
region. The ASEAN and the Shanghai
Cooperation Organization (SCO) are
regional organizations that seek strong
security in Asia through cooperation.
GLOBALIZATION AND
REGIONALIZATION
Huntington (1996), on the contrary, believed that culture
and identity guide regionalization. As he put it, “In the post-
Cold War world, states increasingly define their interests in
civilizational terms” (p. 30). For him, culture and identity are
civilizations. He identified nine major civilizations: Western,
Latin American, African, Islamic, Sinic, Hindu, Orthodox,
Buddhist, and Japanese. He agued that international
organizations like the EU or Mercorsur share a common culture
and identity are far more successful than NAFTA, whose
member states belong to different civilizations. If we follow
Huntington’s idea of the “clash of civilizations”, one could
argue that the potential for such clash can be strong in Asia
because many of those civilizations are, at the least, can be
found in the region.
 GLOBALIZATION
AND
REGIONALIZATIO
N
Nevertheless, economic motivations are arguably
the main motivation behind contemporary
regionalization. By entering in the regional
organizations, Asian states may regain some control
over flows of capital and enhance their bargaining
power against transnational economic actors such as
investment groups or transnational corporation (TNCs)
(De Martino and Grabel, 2003). Aside from this,
domestic companies may benefit from belonging to a
regional market big enough to allow them scale
economies while still being protected from global
competition.. In other words, regional organizations
allow national companies the opportunity to succeed in
a protected but big enough market in a way that they
would otherwise fail if exposed t global competition.
GLOBALIZATION AND
REGIONALIZATION
Finally, non-state actors, such as the TNCs, act as
a driving force toward regionalism. These TNCs,
whose host countries are not part of a given regional
trage agreement, find themselves in a disadvantaged
commercial situation with respect to companies
belonging to the regional organization in question.
Given this situation, Ravenhill (2008) said that
disadvantaged TNCs will lobby their national
governments to sign similar trade agreements in
order to end their disadvantaged commercial
situation.
REFERENCE

 Aldama, P.K. (2018). The Contemporary

World. Rex Book Store.
 END OF
CHAPTER 1