Is Globalization Civilizing, Destructive or Feeble? A Critique of Five Key Debates in the Social Science Literature Author(s): Mauro F.

Guillen Reviewed work(s): Source: Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 27 (2001), pp. 235-260 Published by: Annual Reviews Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2678621 . Accessed: 22/02/2012 05:25
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Annual Reviews is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Annual Review of Sociology.

http://www.jstor.org

Annu. Rev.Sociol.2001. 27:235-60 ? All reserved Copyright 2001 byAnnual Reviews. rights

Is GLOBALIZATIONCIVILIZING,DESTRUCTIVE
OR FEEBLE?A CRITIQUE OF FIVE KEY DEBATES IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCE LITERATURE
TheWharton of University Pennsylvania, of SchoolandDepartment Sociology, 19104; e-mail:guillen@wharton.upenn.edu Philadelphia, Pennsylvania nation-state, modernity, global culture Key Words convergence, * Abstract The sociological,economic,political,and anthropological literatures This chapter are devoting attention globalization. to discussesthevarious increasing connotations theterm of and putsit in historical theoretical and perspective. Existing is research globalization organizedaroundfivekeyissues or questions: on empirical the Is itreallyhappening? Does itproduceconvergence? Does itundermine authority different modernity? a global culture themakIs in of nation-states? globality Is from thatis sensitive to sociologyof globalization ing? A plea is made fora comparative local variations to how agency, and interest, resistance mediatein therelationship and betweenglobalization causes and outcomes. The bulk of theearthmustnot only be spherical,butnot large in comparison withthe size of otherstars. -Aristotle (384-322 BC), as quotedby Dreyer(1953, p. l 18)

MauroF.Guillen

INTRODUCTION
Globalization is one of themostcontestedtopics in the social sciences. Observers and theoristsof globalization have variously argued that the rapid increase in cross-border economic, social, technological,and culturalexchange is civilizing, or destructive, feeble,to borrowAlbertHirschman's(1982) celebratedmetaphors. Harold Levitt's"Globalization of Markets"(1983) or Kenichi Ohmae's Borderless and World(1990) promiseboundlessprosperity consumer as a resultof globaljoy to Paul ization,i.e. theglobal as civilizing.In sharpcontrast thisview,thehistorian Century (1993) againstour lack Kennedywarnsin PreparingfortheTwenty-First to of structures deal witha global world,while political economist Dani Rodrik ringsa similarbell ofalarminHas Globalization Gone Too Far? (1997) concerning freeinternational economic and financialflows(see also Gilpin the increasingly interpretation 2000, Mittelman2000). As in the civilizing view, the destructive
0360-0572/01/081 1-0235$14.00 235

236

GUILLEN rather albeit predicting harmful as to regards globalization leading convergence, or to the Unliketheadherents either civilizing the than beneficial consequences. other namely, Hirst Grahame Paul and destructive ofglobalization, scholars, views in Wadein "Globalizain (1996), andRobert Thompson Globalization Question a feeble that notyetchallenged has process (1996), see it as tionandItsLimits" of world. fundamental features themodem thenation-state other and I first and its timing. the In thischapter define Then,I review globalization on with to of socialsciences research globalization, main contributionsthevarious and the perspectives.organize discussion critique I an emphasis sociological on Does it really happening? Is around keydebatesor questions: globalization five of Is globality Does the produce convergence? itundermine authoritynation-states? Is in different modernity? a globalculture themaking? from

WHATIS GLOBALIZATION?
is crossby, in, fueled andresulting increasing Intuitively, globalization a process and (Heldetal of information, culture services, money, people, border flows goods, to Giddens Anthony (1990,p. 64, 1991,p. 21) proposes 1999,p. 16). Sociologist or between space andtime, as regard globalization a decoupling "distanciation" Mittelman scientist James David Harvey (1989) and political whilegeographer a of globalization entailsa "compression" space and time, (1996) observe that the of ManuelCastells(1996,p. 92) emphasizes Sociologist shrinking theworld. whenhe defines as "an economy it of informational aspects theglobaleconomy to scale."In a simiwith capacity workas a unitin realtimeon a planetary the chains," Gereffi about global"commodity Gary (1994) writes larvein, sociologist on scholar is Stephen whereby productioncoordinated a globalscale.Management as not trade Kobrin globalization driven byforeign (1997,pp. 147-148)describes flows. but scale technological andinformation Politandinvestment byincreasing as globalization the"increasing ical scientist Robert Gilpin (1987,p. 389) defines ofnational in and polfinance, macroeconomic economies trade, interdependence "refers that globalization RolandRobertson (1992,p. 8) argues icy."Sociologist of and ofconsciousness the to of world theintensification both thecompression the Albrow as Martin global(1997,p. 88) defines world a whole."Also sociologist that as of valuesandtechnology havean influence ization the"diffusion practices, of to the onpeople'slivesworldwide."propose combine perspectives Robertson I to as interdepenandAlbrow, so define and leading greater globalization a process and awareness denceand mutual amongeconomic, political, social (reflexivity) in in (Guillen2001, Held et al 1999, units theworld, amongactors general and 1995,p. 63). 1996,pp. 63-66,Waters pp. 429-31,Petrella and is withmultiple meanings linhowever, also an ideology Globalization, it with sometimes appears looselyassociated eages.As Cox (1996) has observed, to and and solutions economic neoliberalism withtechnocratic development realso appearslinkedto form (Evans 1997,McMichael1996,p. 177). The term the networks organizations and human rights, cross-border defending advocacy

GLOBALIZATION

237

or environment, women's rights, world peace (Guidry al 1999,Keck& Sikkink et 1998).Theenvironmental movement, particular, raised banner globin has the of alismin its struggle a cleanplanet, in its"Think for as Global,Act Local" slogan (Held et al 1999,pp. 376-413). Thus,globalization often is constructed as an impersonal inevitable and force order justify in to certain policiesor behaviors,however praiseworthy ofthem some might In a broader be. historical sense, Mazlish(1993,pp. 6-7) andRobertson (1992,pp. 68-71) cogently that argue not only capitalism advocacy or movements also Christianity, andMarxism but Islam, havemadeglobalclaimsandharbored globalpretensions. Hirsch Fiss (2000) & document use oftheterm that "globalization" thepressappears in associated with of multiple ideological frames reference, "financial including market," "economic and efficiency," "negative effect," "culture." The start globalization also a contested of is issue(Heldetal 1999).One could that the The argue globalization with dawnofhistory. literature, begins however, has tended datethestart globalization to of in more recently theexperience the of West. oneendofthespectrum, At historians noted importance thefirst have the of ofthe in theocircumnavigation Earth 1519-1521(Mazlish1993).World-system rists maintain theexpansion European that of in capitalism thesixteenth century marks start globalization the of (Wallerstein 1974;see also Waters 1995,pp.2-4). Someeconomic historians to of as point theturn thetwentieth century theheyday ofinternational andinvestment trade before convulsions World I andthe the of War Great threw world spiraling the into Depression protectionism (Williamson 1996). Robertson that (1992,p. 179) argues globalization "tookoff"between 1875 and 1925with "time-zoning theworld theestablishmenttheinternational the of and of the of calendar and theadjustable dateline; near-global adoption theGregorian of seven-day week;andtheestablishment international and telegraphic signaling codes."Murphy of (1994) recounts history international the to organizations foster and since of for transportation communication 1850.Students socialmovements theabolition slavery, of of woman or circumcision suffrage, theprohibition female the of transnational networks can arguethat emergence contemporary advocacy be traced backtothesecond half thenineteenth of century (Keck& Sikkink 1998, pp. 41-72). A third of of starts analysis globalization theendofWorld the at group scholars of WarII, withthecomingof thenuclearage, theemancipation colonies,the renewed of and investment, theeconomic and riseof Northeast expansion trade Asia (Gilpin1987,pp. 341-44, 2000, Guillen2001, Kennedy 1993,pp. 47, 50, McMichael1996).Thereis also justification telling story globalization for the of with of the beginning theunraveling pax americana intheearly1970sorwith rise ofneoliberal in ideology thelate 1970sandearly1980s.In a moreconceptually and informed Kobrin between trade the way, (1997, pp. 147-148) distinguishes of investment internationalization thenetwork and linkages nineteenth-century andinformation of latetwentieth-century ties globalization also Baldwin& (see is it Martin as 1999,Held et al 1999). Thus,there no agreement to whether was with and James Watt Captain and Magellan Mercator, Cook,NixonandKissinger,

238

GUILLEN orThatcher Reaganthat and globalization started to be more or, precise, the that of to it be that English narrative globalization ought begin. Lastly, should noted the was used 1960initsworld-wide senseas opposed term "globalization" first around toitsmuch older meanings theglobalas something of spherical, total, universal or (Waters 1995,p. 2). Definitions timing and aside,oneofthepersistent problems afflicting study the ofglobalization that is far is it from uniform, a irreversible, inexorable and trend. is and Rather, globalization a fragmented, incomplete, discontinuous, contingent, in many wayscontradictory puzzling and process(Giddens2000, Gilpin2000, et p. 294,Guidry al 1999,Heldetal 1999, p.43 1).Table1presents economic, finanand indicators globalization. measures of The cial,social, political, bibliographical in arepresented the1980-1998period becauseglobalization for not started 1980 butrather becauseofdatalimitations. direct investForeign (excluding portfolio) as of than ment a percentage GDP is 2.5 times greater today twenty years ago-and in Tradehas also grown, four times world. nearly greater thedeveloping although notas fast foreign as investment. Financial has fastest: globalization grown Foreign turnover increased between to exchange tenfold 1979and1997relative world GDP, and than twofold as andboth cross-border credit assetshaveincreased bank more a percentage world of GDP. of are Some key indicators social exchangeacrossborders also increasing rapidly, including tourism international and telephone calls(see Table1). Internationalmigration, on levelsrelative to though therise,has notreached important is of world Also bucking globalization the trend thegrowing number population. nation-states-from United Nations members 1980 to 184 by 1998.And in 157 than everseemtobe reasserting identities yearning their and moreethnic groups
TABLE 1 Indicators Globalization, of 1980-1998 Indicators 1980 1985 6.5 4.9 8.2 5.2 31.9 68.1 72.1 54.6 1990 8.0 6.6 8.5 6.4 27.5 76.0 81.8 55.0 1995 10.1 9.1 15.4 6.3 32.3 87.5 90.1 77.3 1998
11.7h
10.5h

A. Economic Inward direct investment foreign stock, 4.6 % world GDP 3.8 % Developedcountries, GDP % 4.3 Developing countries, GDP Grossvalueaddedofforeign affiliates, % world GDP of Exports foreign affiliates, % total world exports of Exports imports goods, + % world non-service GDP Developedcountries, % non-service GDP Developing countries, % non-service GDP 72.7 76.6 60.9

16.6h 7.8h

35.6 92.1h
95.1h

83.2h

GLOBALIZATION TABLE 1 (Continued) Indicators Exports imports goods& services, + of % world GDP Developedcountries, GDP % Developing countries, GDP % B. Financial Daily currency exchange turnover, % world GDP' Cross-border credit bank stock, % world GDPb Cross-border banking % assets, world
GDpb

239

1980 40.0 40.2 39.1 0.7 13.9 13.7

1985 38.8 39.4 36.6 1.3 19.9 19.9

1990 38.9 38.3 41.0 3.8 34.3 28.1

1995 42.9 41.2 49.5 5.6 33.1 28.5

1998
45.2h

43.8"' 50.6"' 6.8

C. Social & Political International tourist arrivals, world % population Stockofinternational % migrants, world International minutes million calls, per $ world GDPd Internet number hosts, (thousands)e Nation-states membership the with in United Nations International number organizations,
populationc

3.5 1.5
-

6.7 1.8 1354 5 157 24180

8.6 2.0 1600 617 159 26656

9.9 2.2 2174 12881 184 41722 19459h 184 48350

157
14273g

D. Bibliographical Literature globalizatioh, on annual entriesf: Abstracts 89 Sociological Econlit 19 64 & PAIS (Politics International Relations) 69 Historical Abstracts 6 Literature Anthropological Books inPrint 48
aDataarefor1979,1984,1989,1995,and 1998. bDataarefor1981,1986,1991and 1995.
CEstimates.

142 269 101 81 2 92

301 608 309 103 6 328

1068 1044 366 166 1 689

1009 924 698 157 34 589

dExcludes international using calls cellular or networks. phones private eDataarefor1986,1991,1996,and 1997. fArticles bookswith words or the in or "global"or"globalization" thetitle, subject heading abstract.
91981. h1997.

Sources: World Investment Trade Statistics Baldwin and Report;International Yearbook;UN Statistical Yearbook; Martin of Univer(1999:12); Tschoegl(1998); Vernon Princeton (1998:198); MiguelCenteno, Department Sociology, PennLibrary Yearbook International Databases. sity; of Organizations;

240

GUILLEN to create their own state-Palestinians Kurds, and Basques and Catalans, Scots andWelsh, and Corsicans and Quebecois(Friedman Tibetans Kashmiris, 1994, Geertz1998,Robertson 1992,p. 98-108; forthedissenting view,see Rapoport 1996).Meanwhile, number international the of organizations morethan has trebled.Among international advocacy groups, thoseconcerned human with rights, theenvironment, Esperanto, women's rights, world and peace havegrown fastest (Keck & Sikkink 1998,p. 11; see also Meyeret al 1997,Murphy 1994). And theinternet accelerated has cross-border exchange during 1990s,although the less than orthree two of population accesstoitinmost percent the has countries except richones(Guillen Suarez2001). thevery & It is perhaps ironic observe to that fastest the increase amongtheindicators included Table 1 does notrefer globalization in to but itself, to theliterature on globalization. shown Figure1, there beenan explosion thenumber As in has in ofarticles globalization on in and published theeconomic, sociological, political literatures. number bookson globalization also increased The of has steeply. The historical anthropological and have literatures, contrast, lagged by behind. Among to thesocialsciences, sociology thefirst payattention globalization. was to Socistarted carry to numbers articles globalization of on the ology journals large during induced world-system earlyandmid1970s,primarily by theorizing (Wallerstein to haveattempted summarize literature Held et al the 1974). Some authors (e.g. edited volumes havebeencompiled 1999,Sklair1991,Waters 1995),andseveral & (Dunning 1997,Featherstone 1990,Hargittai Centeno 2001,Mittelman 1996, Sakamoto1994,Mander Goldsmith & the fea1996).Perhaps mostbewildering of ture theliterature notits sheersize buttheremarkable is of diversity authors that havecontributedit,ranging to from scholars socialtheorists or postmodernist whorarely, ever, if in research number-crunching to engage empirical empiricists, and consultants. politicians, management

FIVE KEY DEBATES

in The fivekeydebatesthat identify thischapter notan exhaustive of I are list a issuesin thevastand richliterature globalization. on Theycapture, however, broadspectrum social,political, cultural of and themes interest sociologists of to andother socialscientists. howdifferent Table2 shows authors themselves position inthefive debates. One should assume not those thesamesideofthefence on key a each other other on issuesor regarding particular question actually agreewith that they approach issuefrom the the exactly sameperspective.

Is It Really Happening?
Mostof thebooksand articles in discussed thischapter assumethat the simply world becoming is moreglobal,that moreinterrelated. is, Myriad policymakers, and take that is publicists, academics itas axiomatic globalization infact happening without their data(e.g. Ohmae1990,Naisbitt Aburdene & supporting claimwith

GLOBALIZATION
1400

241

1200-

*
1000,

Sociological
Abstracts

Econlit

800

PAIS
600I

Books Print in

400

200

Historical Abstracts

0 1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

of Figure 1 The literature globalization.

242

GUJILLEN

TABLE 2 Fivekeydebates aboutglobalization Answers theLiterature in Debate 1. Is It Really Happening? Yes and Naisbitt Aburdene 1990 Ohmae1990 Castells1996:66-147 Rodrik 1997:9 Held et al 1999 2000 Gilpin No 256-267 Krugman 1994:146-148, Berger 1996:7-8,11, 19-21 Hirst Thompson and 1996:1-3,18-98 Wade 1996:66-84 et Doremus al 1998 2001 Fligstein Giddens 1990:63-64,1991:21-22 and 1991:1-2 Stopford Strange Robertson 1992:27,145 Friedman 1994:210-211 Berger 1996:2-7,19-21 Boyer1996:33,58 Cox 1996:28,30 n. 1 Albrow 1997:86,144,149, 189 Garrett 1998:1-11,34-37,51, 74, Held et al 1999:431, 441 Guillen 2001 3. Does It Vernon 1971:249-258,1998: Undermine the 172-175 of Authority Kennedy 1993:53-64, Nation-States? 122-134,330 Mazlish1994:4 Sakamoto 1994:19,36 Waters 1995:96-123 Cox 1996:26-27 McMichael1996:197-207 Mander Goldsmith & eds. 1996 Strange 1996:4-6,189, 196-198 Evans 1997:82-87 Kobrin 1997:155-163 Rodrik 1997: 1-6,46-67, 85 Stryker 1998:7-8,14-15, 17, 32-33 Vernon 1998:172-175 Mosher1999:25,35 Vernon 1971:265-270 Cox 1987:254-259,1992:30-31 2000:315-319 Gilpin1987:389-406, Stopford Strange and 1991:1-2, 97-136 Hirst Thompson and 1996:143-194 Panitch 1996:84-86 Pierson 1994:1-9 Sassen 1996:25-30 Wade 1996 Albrow1997:164,168 Meyer al 1997:153,157 et Garrett 1998:1-2,11, 107, 157-158, 1999 HuberandStephens 1999 Held et al 1999:440 0 Riain2000 2001 Fligstein
1999

2. Does It Bell [1973] Produce and Meyer Hannan1979: Convergence? 13-15 Levitt 1983 Williamson 1996 Meyer al 1997:145,148, et 152-154,161

GLOBALIZATION TABLE 2 (Continued) Answers theLiterature: in Debate: Yes No Giddens1990:63-64,1991:21-22 Mittelman 1996 Meyeretal 1997:150,164

243

Sklair1991:75-81 4. Is Globality 1992:27,138Different from Robertson 145, 1995 Modernity? Waters 1995 Castells1996 Albrow1997:4,33, 95-101, 144 Kobrin 1997:147-154 Held et al 1999:429-431 5. Is a Global in Culture the Making? McLuhan1964 McLuhanandFiore1967 Levitt 1983 Sklair1991:75-81 Waters 1995:124-157 et Meyer al 1997:162

Smith 1990 Mazlish1993:14,16 Friedman 1994 1996:4,12,32-43 Appadurai Cox 1996:27 Portes1997 Geertz1998:107-1 10 KeckandSikkink 210-211 1998:32-34, Held et al 1999:374 Zelizer1999 and Inglehart Baker2000

Robert economist policymaker and Reich (1991), forexample, 1990). Political and no are that economies" disappearing companies longer proclaims "national havea nationality; peopledo. Thereare,however, many skeptics. only case the against globalization argument the Perhaps best-documented for feeble scientist tiestotheLabour with has beenmadebyPaul Hirst, Oxford an political the In that & (1996,pp. 1-3, 18-98) argue book,Hirst Thompson Party. a recent It as trend thelasttwenty of has years beenoverstated a process: is globalization and are in investment trade notunprecedentedworld they and history, say, foreign and in triad-Western North concentrated theso-called America, Japan. Europe, but that is more international notmore In sum, argue theeconomy becoming they Wade(1996,pp. 66-84) echoesthese criticisms: scientist Robert global.Political to The volumeof tradeis smallrelative thesize of mosteconomies(see also than investmentgreater foreign is 1994,pp. 146-48,256-67); domestic Krugman and multinationals locatemostoftheir owners, managers, top assets, investment; et in homecountries also Doremus al 1998); and vast R&D activities their (see Southand areas of theworldhave notbeen affected globalization, namely, by Central Asia,andthebulkofAfrica. The argument the feebleness globalization usefulin thatit profor of is its to of videsan important corrective visionsandmyths globalization assuming

244

GUILLEN and There two inevitability irreversibility. are,however, keycounterarguments. Regarding issueoftheheterogeneous the spread globalization of acrosstheworld, Castells observes theglobaleconomy notmeant that is to (1996,p. 102) correctly it the Earth. of encompass entire Rather, comprises certain only segments activity in bothdeveloped developing and countries also Kobrin1997). The second (see is that of counterargument proponents thefeeblethesis focusalmost exclusively onthe economic financial and of to of aspects globalization thedetrimentpolitical, social,andcultural ones.Theliterature offers discusses and evidence support in of and that political cultural globalization is,on thewhole, quite persuasive (Castells 1996,pp.66-147,Meyer Hannan & 1979,Louchetal 1998,Petrella 1996,pp.63the and of 66). In addition, globalwarming, AIDS pandemic, theglobalization the in mediahaveheightened awareness living an increasingly our of interconnected world (Held et al 1999).In sum,scholars the of arguing feebleness globalization in have madea contribution debunking certain and abouta myths assumptions process has all toooften that beenuncritically reified. However, areperhaps they toowedded a "monolithic" to of and to concept globalization oblivious thenotion is that of that mutual globality a network relationships creates awareness.

Does It Produce Convergence?

A second contested issueintheliterature globalization todo with conseon its has of a toward uniform of quencesas totheconvergence societies pattern economic, and Most in political, evencultural organization. famously expressed modernizationtheory, spread markets technology predicted cause societies the of and is to to converge from their preindustrial although past, totalhomogeneity deemed is This was unlikely. lineofthinking advanced the during 1950sand 1960sbyboth and economists sociologists (Guillen 2001,Waters 1995,pp. 13-15,Albrow 1997, historians as Jeffrey such Williamson p. 49). Economic (1996) havedocumented in and the and convergence income labormarkets during nineteenth century first decadesofthetwentieth. DanielBell (1973) argued a technologifor Sociologist of societies. callydriven convergence postindustrial Further for thesis comesfrom world-society the support theconvergence apin In summaries anextensive of research proach sociology. their empirical program on theworldwide of and forms state of spread educational systems other activity, John and of and that expansion rationalthe Meyer his associates students argue ized stateactivities acquired momentum itsown,largely has a of unaffected by in cross-national differences political structure economic or rates. growth Rather, thediffusion rationalized of follows "exigencies globalsocialorthe of systems whoselogicandpurposes built are intoalmost states." result all is The ganization that as "theworld a wholeshowsincreasing structural similarities ofform among societies without, however, soshowing increasing equalities outcomes of among cieties" & are (Meyer Hannan 1979, 3, 13-15).Nation-states seenas exhibiting pp. structural there a "decoupling is between convergent similarity, although purposes and structure, intentions results." and researchers conWorld-society arguethat comesbothfrom world-culture rationalized the of and formity modernity from domestic that the overthe groups makeclaimson thestate following "consensus"

GLOBALIZATION

245

formal acceptance "matters as citizen human of such and rights, natural the world anditsscientific investigation, socioeconomic development, education." and They evenpresent to evidence theeffect nationalism religious that and fundamentalism "intensify isomorphism than more it" they resist (Meyer al 1997,pp. 145,148, et 152-154,161). Social andpolitical as theorists wellas historians elaborated comprehenhave a sivecritique thepresumed of convergent consequences globalization. of Political historian Robert Cox (1996,p. 28, 30 n. 1) writes "thesocialandethical that content theeconomy" of maybe organized differently in various parts theworld." of Historian BruceMazlish(1993,p. 4) argues "no that singleglobalhistory anis ticipated." Sociologist Anthony Giddens (1990,pp. 64, 175) adds an interesting twist whenasserting globalization a processofuneven that "is development that fragments itcoordinates. .] The outcome notnecessarily, evenusually, as is [.. or a generalized of changes set in but in acting a uniform direction, consists mutuIn allyopposed tendencies." another book(1991,pp. 21-22), Giddens elaborates: has as in "Globalization tobe understood a dialectical events phenomenon, which atonepole ofa distanciated relation often or produce divergent evencontrary occurrences another" also Giddens at (see 2000,pp.30-31,Heldetal 1999,pp.431, 441). In a similar Jonathan Friedman vein,anthropologist (1994,pp. 210-11) asthat serts globalization theproduct cultural is of fragmentation as much itis the as of result modernist and homogeneity, that "whatappearsas disorganization and often disorder notanytheless systemic systematic." real is and These social andpolitical haveneither theorists, however, engagedin empirical testing their of nor propositions bothered look forsupport theexistto in Thereis, though, considerable a ingliterature. research backbodyofempirical that or ingtheantithesis globalization and produces divergence diversity at least does notundermine national scholar policiesandinstitutions. John Management and economist SusanStrange that Stopford political (1991,pp. 1-2) document the interaction between multinationals states produced and has increasingly complex in a divergence outcomes, whileDoremuset al (1998) showthatdifferentiated of national and remain in systems innovation, trade, investment firmly place. Political scientist Garrett Geoffrey (1998,pp. 1-4, 10-11,34-37, 51, 74) has contributed mostextensive solid body of empirical the and perhaps evidence, it to of industrial democracies. though refers mostly theexperience theadvanced He argues demonstrates and that of empirically in thecontext a globaleconomy at least twopathsare possiblefornational and social policymakers: economic adherence either neoclassical to or economics to social democratic corporatism. Garrett's refutes viewsaboutconvergence, instead analysis simplistic proposing to viewthebalanceof left-right institutions as political powerand labormarket thetwokeyvariables a contingent in of The analysis economic performance. best macroeconomic is whenthetwovariables aligned are with performanceobtained each other. example, For redistributive interventionist and with policiescombine labormarket institutions produce to macroeconomic encompassing performance interms growth unemployment matches evensurpasses achieveof and that or the of ments laissez-faire with weaklabormarket institutions. He policiescombined

246

GUiLLEN that are in concludes there "enduring cross-national differences"economic policyand of In making engagement theglobaleconomy. a broader study encompassing countries overonehundred during 1985-1995period, the Garrett (1999) finds no in convergence government expenditure patterns a result globalization. as of What hashappened thelastdecadeis that over many governments pursued have policies that buffer citizens their from vagaries globalmarkets in thepresence the of and, offree and capital mobility, interest to willingly knowingly accepted higher rates keepcapital home. at of of Students thevarieties capitalism, have mostly political scientists, longarfirms countries and guedthat pursue different ofincorporation the into global paths economy. Thus, German, and firms competitive are in French, Japanese, American in theglobaleconomy, rarely thesameindustry market but and segment. German excelathigh-quality, firms industries as advanced such maengineering-intensive chinetools,luxury and chemicals automobiles, specialty (Soskice 1998,Streeck 1991);French firms large-scale at technical undertakings as high-speed such trains, or satellite-launching rockets, nuclear & power (Storper Salais 1997,pp. 131-48); Japanese firms mostcategories assembled at of household goods,namely, apconsumer and pliances, electronics, automobiles (Gerlach1992); andAmerican at or firms software, financial & services, biotechnology (Storper Salais 1997, pp. 174-88). have also presented Comparative organizational and sociologists qualitative to evidence theeffect firms that different modesofeconomic quantitative pursue action adopt and different forms organizational depending theinstitutional on and socialstructurestheir of home countries as globalization even increases. Moreover, havecollected dataon newly industrialized countries addition themost in to they a advanced ones.Orru al (1997) draw number systematic et of comparisons among East Asian andWestern European that countries, demonstrating uniquenational of not overtime also contribute theinterto patterns organization onlypersist but national of competitiveness firms. Guillen (2001) presents systematic case-study andquantitative evidence that and in demonstrating firms laborunions Argentina, in South of Korea,andSpaindiverged their patterns behavior, organizational form, andgrowth evenas their becamemoreintegrated theglobal with homecountries the War economy during post-World II period. Takentogether, empirical the evidence and provided sociologists political by in scientists well case for or supports the diversity,atleast resilience, cross-national in of It be that patterns themidst globalization. must admitted, however, worldalso and is researchers havea point, one that well supported empirical society by evidence. reason The behind these irreconcilable results seemingly empirical might be that research mademeasurements levelsof analysis has at and world-society abstraction than higher thefiner-grained of and analysis comparative sociologists scientists. political It should notedthat be somesociologists the terms theconverof reject very that without the gencedebateby arguing globalization homogenizes destroying local andtheparticularistic. example, For Viviana Zelizer(1999) argues "the that in and the ... economy differentiates proliferates culturally much samewayas other

GLOBALIZATION

247

of spheres sociallifedo,without losing national eveninternational and connectedness."Thus, globalization notseenas precluding contradicting is or diversity. Like Zelizer, Robertson (1995,pp. 34-35) seestheglobalas the"linking localities." of the controversial Perhaps most aspect theconvergence of debate todo with has the of impact globalization inequality on across within and countries. evidence The indicates there today that unambiguously is more acrosscountries inequality than ten, twenty, orevenonehundred fifty years ago. Stunningly, gapinpercapita the income between anddeveloping rich countries grown has five-fold between 1870 and 1990 (Pritchett 1997,Temple1999).Thereare,however, several noteworthy developing countries havemanaged closehalf more thegapsince1960, that to or of e.g. SouthKorea,Taiwan,and Ireland. Veryfewdeveloping countries, though, have consistently grown faster thanthemostadvancedones since 1980. Thus, development levelsacrosscountries appearnotto be converging a result as of globalization. to it increased Bycontrast cross-national inequality,is notclearwhether foreign in trade and investment the during lasttwenty yearshaveresulted substantially or within countries. has higher wage inequality unemployment Wage inequality in risen mostadvanced countries during lastthree the decades.In a review essay, several tothe Kapstein (2000) presents counterarguments claimthat globalization hasbeenthe causeofincreased is that major wagepolarization, including trade too smalla percentage GDP tohavea large of and impact, that is technological change theultimate cause ofwagepolarization. agreement Kapstein's In with of reading theevidence, Baldwin& Martin the (1999,p. 21) summarize empirical literature as follows: all find of on in "Virtually studies someimpact trade thelabormarket both United the States Europe. and of is Therange findings, however, wide.Some find trade that accounted virtually ofthewagegap,whileothers for none assigned 100 percent thegap to trade. of The consensus is 10-20 percent." range perhaps As opposedto wage disparities, overallindicators incomeinequality of within countries have notincreased thelast thirty and there evidence is during years, and into that indicating whencountries groweconomically becomeincorporated theglobaleconomy fall(Deininger Squire1996).Discussions and rates & poverty calculations theimpact globalization wageandincome of of on within inequality tradeand investment countries shouldtakeintoaccountthatwhileforeign are domestic and still powerful forces, politics processes matter. and In sum,globalization does notseemto compelgovernments, firms, indias vidualsto converge their in ofbehavior. Whilethismaybe regarded patterns a welcomeaspect,it is important bearin mindthatincreasing to globalization has coincided time in with exacerbation income an of acrosscountries, disparities andthat leastpart thegreater at of of within degree incomeandwage inequality is due toincreased countries trade investment. and foreign

the of Does It Undermine Authority Nation-States?

A third issue surrounding topicof globalization whether process is this the key has outgrown governance the structures theinternational of of and system states

248

GUILLEN undermined authority thenation-state. example, the of For economist Raymond that spread multinational of Vernon (1971,pp.249,265-70,284)haslongargued the creates "destructive and there a "needto corporations political tensions," that is reestablish balance"between political economic and institutions. Historian Paul that are Kennedy (1993,pp. 53-64, 122-34) asserts governments losingcontrol, andthat erodestheposition laboranddeveloping of globalization countries, and degrades environment. the "Today'sglobalsociety," writes, he "confronts task the ofreconciling and with technological change economic integration traditional political structures, national consciousness, socialneeds, institutional arrangements, and habitual waysof doingthings" (Kennedy 1993,p. 330). In a similar vein, that both the Kobrin (1997,pp. 157, 159) argues globalization challenges autonand aboutthe omyorindependent decision-making thestate "raisesquestions of in of in senseof a system of meaning sovereignty itsexternal ordered terms muthat exclusive And tually territoriality." Mazlish(1993,p. 4) argues globalhistory is an attempt "transcend nation-state thefocusofhistory." to the as International relation's scholar Yoshikazu Sakamoto (1994,p. 19, 36) andpoin that liticalscientist Robert Cox (1996,p. 26-27) concur arguing globalization the of and generates problems international governance reduce regulatory power ofstates. Rodrik creates tenFor (1997,p. 1-6), globalization socialandpolitical And sionswithin across and nation-states. political theorist Michael Mosher (1999, a the p. 35) asks,"is there successful ofreconciling boundary way transgressing the character markets of with boundary activities nation-states?" of maintaining He further notesthatglobalization placed two liberalpractices-theliberhas alismofthemarket theliberalism democratic and of a citizenship-on collision the of "moral concerns atthe national border" course, raising dilemma whether stop (Mosher1999,p. 25). havealsojoinedthe of For chorus state Sociologists doomsayers. Waters (1995, is of a pp. 96-123),there an "attenuation thestate," riseofinternational organizaand toward more"fluid" international relations. McMichael(1996, tions, a trend pp. 197-207) also sees a declineof thestate.For Albrow(1997, p. 164), "the nation-state failedto confine has within boundaries, its bothterritorial sociality and categorical. sheerincrease cross-national thediversification The in of ties, of modesofpersonal and of relationships themultiplication forms socialorganinature thesocialandreveal nation-state the as zation demonstrate autogenic the of timebound form." a more In justanother empirically grounded Evans(1997, way, out the undermines state becauseitsassociated pp.82-87) points that globalization neoliberal is the and is ideology against state notbecauseglobalization inextricaif the He that a blyagainst state. further argues thestate maystage comeback there is a "return theideological of or of the pendulum," a transformation stateand a of of development newelements state-society synergy. The analysis British economist SusanStrange perhaps most is the by political articulation theposition theinternational of that of sophisticated system nationand nation-state arecoming states the itself under ina globalworld. writes fire She aboutthe"declining of and several criticisms. authority states" preempts possible she is on in First, notesthatstateinterventionism therise,although relatively

GLOBALIZATION

249

matters. marginal Second,she arguesthatthereare morestatesin theworld, after especially 1989,butthat mostof thenewones are weak and lack control. Third, points that effectivenesstheEastAsianstate orchestrating she out the of in II order which economic was growth onlypossiblein a post-World War in protectionism thedomestic of market acceptable mature was and technologies were available(Strange 1996,pp. 4-6). She further observes three powershifts the in globalworld, namely, from weaktostrong states, from states markets, from to and labormarkets financial to withsomepowerevaporating dispersing markets, or (Strange 1996,p. 189). Not surprisingly, who arguethat those globalization a feebleprocessalso is maintain it can be easilyhandledby nation-states. example, that For Hirst& andWade(1996) assert states cope that can (1996,pp. 143-49,170-94) Thompson withglobalization, have lost some freedom action, although they of especially financial flows. Feebleproponents, are concerning however, notalonechallenging thenotion globalization that the undermines nation-state. has longmaintained theglobalarenais a "playground" that Macrosociology for where for and and states, they compete economic, military, political supremacy survival. or far Thus,theworld-system theinternational arena, from threatening fosters them international states, actually (Wallerstein 1974, Tilly1992).Neorealist relations scholar Robert Gilpin (1987,pp. 389-406,2000,pp. 51, 319-23) points outthat reinforces importance domestic the of as globalization policies, countries in sectoral and in engage regionalization, protectionism, mercantilistic competition to in of location economic response changes theinternational activities, resulting in a "mixedsystem," increasingly globalizedand at thesame timefragmented the (see also Berger 1996,pp. 7-2 1). A related, though distinct, argument against loss comesfrom presumed of state powerin thewakeof globalization political scientist Panitch Leo that (1996,p. 84-86).He rightly argues "today's globalization is authored states and is primarily aboutreorganizing rather thanbypassing by them" as (see also 0 Riain2000,Poulantzas 1974,p. 73). Moreover, Cox (1992, not the the pp. 30-31) observes, "powerhas shifted awayfrom statebutwithin i.e. or ministries towards ministries central and state, from industry labor economy not banks."And sociologist Sean 0 Riain (2000, p. 205) sees states as passive whether ofnecessity desire." out or as pawnsbutrather "adapting, Another influential socialscientist, SaskiaSassen(1996,pp.25-30),maintains that state the doesnotlosesignificance. there a redefinitionthemodern is of Rather, of and a "denationalizing national of features sovereignty territoriality, territory." Cox (1987,pp. 254-59) argues globalization that a ofthe induces transformation not & state, its diminution. Stopford Strange (1991, pp. 1-2, 97-136) examine thenewpossibilities state for action theglobaleconomy conclude in and that its rolehas actually becomemagnified morecomplex and (see also Held et al 1999, to the is pp. 436-44). According mostpolitical scientists, therefore, nation-state aliveandwell, the and Westphalian is unlikely bereplaced a fragmented, order to by of medieval one.A keyeffect globalization, has however, beentheriseofglobal cities-New York, roleandstature transcend London, Miami, Singapore-whose the in nation-statewhich to they happen be located (Choietal 1996,Sassen1991).

250

GUWLLEN Finally, world-society also rejects claimthat the view the globalization underthe mines nation-states. Noting expansion state of bureaucracies sinceWorld War et II, Meyer al (1997,p. 157) write "globalization that certainly poses newproblems states, italso strengthens world-cultural for but the principle nation-states that aretheprimary with actors charged and those identifying managing problems on of behalf their societies." This argument strikingly is similar theone offered to byPanitch (1996,pp. 84-86) andPoulantzas (1974, p. 73). The modemnationstate, world-society scholars conclude, "mayhaveless autonomy earlier than but itclearly more do" (Meyer al 1997,p. 157). has to et The question whether of globalization undermines authority thenationthe of statecomesbestto lifewhenexamining impact globalization thevithe of on of state.Rodrik ability thewelfare (1997, pp. 49-67) arguesthatglobalization putsdownward on for pressure government spending redistribution welfare, and the andthat interaction trade of riskand openness calls formorewelfare spending,butgovernments trouble have the an that finding money, argument Vernon (1998,pp. 172-175) finds persuasive. Stryker (1998,pp. 7-8, 14-15, 17,32-33) of in summarizes assessment theevidence that her on globalization placeslimits a lossofpower theworking for expansionary policies, represents class,andcauses welfare state retrenchment. the According thesesocial scientists, challenge to is "to engineer new balancebetween a and society, that market one will continue to unleashthecreative of energies private without the entrepreneurship eroding socialbasisofcooperation" (Rodrik have 1997,p. 85). Thesearguments become conventional wisdom neoliberal and among ofpolicymakers journalists. Gloomy, ten forecasts the of unsubstantiated, about inability European welfare states pay to for generous socialbenefits becomecommonplace have sincetheearly1980s. Other scientists sociologists, and see differpolitical however, things utterly Political scientist Pierson Paul that welfare the ently. state (1994,p. 1-9) argues has declined so muchas a result globalization becauseofsuchindirect not of but actions conservative of as in governmentsreductions therevenue base ofthestate andattacks thestrength interest of Thisis anargument on labor. groups, especially that Fligstein (2001)andGilpin Garrett (2000,pp.312-15)endorse. (1998,pp. 1-2, 11, 107, 132-33,157-58) empirically demonstrates viability socialdemothe of in cratic even to of corporatism with increasing exposure globalization theforms trade it cross-border and capitalmobility. also proves He that is possibleto win with elections redistributive interventionist and and better economic policies, that in of and with performance terms GDP growth unemployment obtains, though than inflation inthelaissez-faire countries Garrett higher (United States, Britain). that is compatible strong with macroeco(1998,p. 157)concludes "biggovernment nomic and do In markets notdominate rebuttal performance" that politics. a direct ofRodrik dataonmore than100countries (1997),Garrett (1999) analyzes during the1985-1995period find increasing to that to does reexposure globalization not ducegovernment Political scientist and Huber sociologist John spending. Evelyne conclusion the that welfare is compatible Stephens state with (1999) echoGarrett's globalcapitalism, that although do admit socialdemocratic they policiesaretoday

GLOBALIZATION

251

moreconstrained in theso-called than "goldenage" ofthe1950sand 1960s(see also Western 1997). ForGarrett, Huber, Stephens for and and Fligstein welfare the state perfectly is viableunder conditions globalization. of Moreover, maybe ablesimultaneously it to deliversocial well-being enhancenational and competitiveness. Thus,they reject tradeoff neoliberals between the that see welfare expenditures economic and under of In competitiveness conditions globalization. spiteoftheexcellent, wellsupported research these by authors, however, debate themediaandamong the in the politicians throughout world remains heavily tilted favor thoseblaming in of thewelfare for and state declining competitiveness various socialills.

Is Globality Different Modernity? from

the difficult has whether Perhaps most debate surrounding globalization todo with itis merely continuation thetrend a of toward or of modernity thebeginning a new era.On onesideofthefence, Giddens that is (1990,pp.63,64) argues "modernity inherently globalizing," that and "globalization [makes] modesofconnection the or between different socialcontexts regions acrosstheearth's becomenetworked surface a whole." as Thisviewfollows from concept "disembedding" of directly the or"thelifting of socialrelations out" from local contexts interaction their of and a restructuring acrosstimeand space,"whichGiddens(1990, p. 21) considers prerequisite modernization. for World-society scholarship sideswith takes Giddens on thispoint: in Globalization results a "sharing" modernity of acrosstheworld et (Meyer al 1997,pp. 150,164). side of thefence, Martin Albrow(1997, On theother British social theorist that is not pp. 4, 33, 95-101, 144) argues globalization a "transformation, a culand to than mination," the"transition a newerarather theapogeeoftheold." He a distinction as of ratiobetween proposes stark modernity the imposition practical rest the of and mechanism nality uponthe oftheworld through agency thestate the of ofthemarket, generation universal ideas to encompass diversity the the the of "the of and and as world," globality it restored boundlessness culture promotes rather hothan theendless and of renewability diversificationcultural expression of also or Other socialtheorists globalization mogenization hybridization." noted insofar the support samedistinction (Robertson 1992,pp.27, 138-145),especially for "The politics identity of substitutes as themodern-nation is concerned: state thepolitics nation-building" of (McMichael1996,p. 234). is The debateovertherelationship between and modernity globality a central If one forsociologists. globality merely result an intensificationmodis the of of then in of on ernizing trends, therecent surge thenumber booksandarticles this to There however,keytheoretical a can be subject hardly justified. is, argument be madeinfavor theviewthat is from of globality different modernity. Modernitylikethe Mercator an of Western worldview. distorting projection-is outgrowth the the For reasonsof theoretical one consistency, shouldreserve terms "globalizaand to tion," "global,"and "globality" denote, respectively, processes, qualities,

252

GUWLLEN by paradigm, or conditions arenotsetintomotion dominated anyonemodel, that a In is of sense, globality about multiplicityconceptions, orworldview. itsbroadest the of hegemony; is about proliferationcrossit notabout cultural paradigmatic or social,andcultural nature (Guillen political, national network ofaneconomic, ties in is germane thecase ofauthors 2001,Heldetal 1999).Thiscriticism especially process-neoliberals to and whoconsider globalization be aninevitable sweeping in out. pointed andMarxists particular-as Fligstein (2001) has aptly a between globalKobrin Finally, (1997,pp. 147-48)hasproposed distinction period modem of expansion century theprevious and ization thelatetwentieth in is The of economy of theworldeconomy that usefulempirically. international geographical national century "links discrete, mutually exclusive, thenineteenth the flowsof tradeand investment." contrast, By markets cross-border through of is scale of by century driven theincreasing globaleconomy thelatetwentieth of alongthevalue-added the in collaboration firms technology, surge cross-border flows. of Thus,globalization integration information chain, thecross-border and are "national markets fused because, time this around, has "substantive meaning" rather linked acrossborders" (Kobrin1997,p. 148,see also transnationally than Held etal 1999,pp. 429-31).

in Is a GlobalCulture theMaking?
has the and of aboutglobalization Perhaps most popular controversial thedebates theriseofa globalculture. there onlya fewscholars are who todo with Actually, is The idea goes back to Marshall that maintain a globalculture in themaking. & McLuhan's of concept the"globalvillage"(McLuhan1964,McLuhan slippery marketing researchers (Levitt 1983) up Fiore1967),later picked bysomeinfluential that was populated cosmopolitan by increasingly whoargued theworld becoming thata "cultureconsumers. Leslie Sklair(1991, pp. 75-81) writes Sociologist of images, theaesthetic the and by ideology consumerism"-driven symbols, of the some and and spread throughout world is having lifestyle theself-image-has and the of and momentous including standardization tastes desires, even effects, thefalloftheSovietorder. effects of Other sociologists, however, argue againstthe homogenizing differentiation should thatconsumer mass consumerism. Zelizer(1999) writes in differentiaand with segregation positsthat theUS economy notbe confused can withconnection: same consumer "the product haveat the tionis combined to Zelizerurgessociologists distinsamemoment universal local meaning." and at the of diffusion theexperience the and guishbetween phenomenon worldwide even as globalization morediverse receiving end,whichseemsto be growing intensifies also Held et al 1999,p. 374). Similarly, anthropologist ApArjun (see that "individuals groups and seekto annexthe padurai(1996, pp. 4, 21) argues of their practices themodem," that own of and "consumption themass globalinto mediaworldwide selectivity, ingeneral, and, agency." resistance, irony, provokes & data the cross-national attitudinal over 1981-1998 period, Inglehart Baker Using

GLOBALIZATION

253

in though "pathcultures valueschangeovertime, and (2000) find national that about arguments thanconvergent ways.Even world-society dependent" rather choice and responsibility" (Meyer& of individual the"worldculture educated Howa of a Hannan 1979,p. 3) stopshort announcingglobalculture la McLuhan. together world-culture binding as society individuals and ever, they describe do of egalitarian justiceandparticipatory rep"byrationalized systems (imperfectly) (Meyeret al and polity, culture, social interaction" resentation, theeconomy, in that spreadof themass media the researchers havefound 1997,p. 162). Other (Keck & advocacy groups to for is notenough account theriseof cross-border of aspects "globalgovernance" major Sikkink 1998,pp.32-34,210-11),although has 1994). ofcross-border communication beenon therisesince1850(Murphy and havenotedtheriseof whatmodPoliticaland social theorists historians as the against riseofa global ernists would "particularistic" call identities evidence a afproducing "resurgent culture. Cox (1996, p. 27) writes aboutglobalization a Waters firmation identities," of whereas (1995, pp. 124-57) contrasts cultural of and production consumption muand "religious mosaic"with globalcultural "ethnic feeling is Mazlish(1993, p. 14) notesthat sic,images, and information. can be a powerful asks,"Whatcounterpart there on the bond,"and skeptically "globalculture" scientist DeborahYashar(1999) rejects globallevel?"Political with argument globthat and"globalcitizenship" but fault the concepts also finds of alization induced proliferationethnic has the of movements. hercomparison In in Yashar demonstrates no asthat movements LatinAmerica, clearly indigenous account for social,ornormative-can political, pectofglobalization-economic, the changes theriseofethnic-based activism sincethe1960s.Rather, globalization their claims. making characteristicsthestate of structures activists when that face for the creates unusually laboratory assessing an rich Cross-border migration ofa globalculture. theterm rise Portes (1997,p. 3) proposes Sociologist Alejandro of that communities" refer cross-border to to networks immigrants "transnational in bothplaces simultaneously" also Portes herenorthere' but are "'neither (see exhibit different etal 1999).Different transnational origins, communities, however, a and do and globalclass certainly notform monolithic features, problems, they to Friedman citizens. of cosmopolitan (1994) acceptsthebasic Similarly Portes, and of by Smith, Zelizerbut notion cultural fragmentation proposed Appadurai, of tribal societies cannot correctly be that today'sworldtheexistence in argues In in howthey embedded globalnetworks. his are without understood explaining in a globalcontext. must cultural diversity be seen view, the of Some of themostpersuasive against idea of theemergence arguments He observes the that Clifford Geertz. a globalculture comefrom anthropologist interconmore thoroughly world "growing more is both divided, globalandmore it and at nected moreintricately partitioned thesametime[ ...] Whatever is that theglobalvillageitis notdeepgoing in and defines capitalism identity borderless of recurrence familbut more on matters, something likethe agreements deepgoing the that else iardivisions, standing threats, notion whatever arguments, persisting maintained" theorder difference be somehow of must (Geertz1998, mayhappen,

254

GUILLEN pp. 107-110).Like Geertz, sociologist Anthony Smith skeptical notesan is and interesting "initial problem" with concept "globalculture": the of "Can we speak of 'culture' thesingular? by 'culture' meant collective in If is a modeof life,or a repertoire beliefs, of valuesandsymbols, we can onlyspeakofculstyles, then different tures, never culture; a collective just for modeof life[.. .] presupposes in modesandrepertoires a universe modesandrepertoires. of Hence,theideaofa 'globalculture' a practical is in terms" (Smith impossibility, except interplanetary 1990,p. 171). The ultimate question abouttheallegedriseofa globalculture to do with has is The of not whethergloballanguage emerging. diffusion Esperanto certainly a has delivered earlyexpectations, the"English-as-global-language" and argument on seemsequallyfar-fetched indefensible. Mazlish(1993, p. 16) observes, and As a to "is of franca there serious are limitations English becoming sort lingua [but] of English theuse ofEnglish thedailylanguage a globalculture." as Moreover, in is beingchallenged thedominant as language partsof theUnitedStatesand than percent world users theUnited Kingdom. Even on theInternet, fewer 50 of as and is steadily the knowEnglishas a first language, theproportion dropping It the to the newmedium diffuses throughout world. is also instructive recallthat mostsuccessful worldlanguage ever, Latin,evolvedintoa mosaicof Romance languages after spreading itsvarious in vulgarized forms throughout territory the oftheRomanEmpire. Smith (1990,pp. 185-86) notesthat, rather theemerthan whatwe are heldtogether theEnglishlanguage, genceof a "global"culture by is theemergence "culture atoddsorinconof areas"-not necessarily witnessing Russian, flict with eachother, Huntington as (1996) wouldhaveit.Thus,Spanish, of Arabic, French, Kiswahili, Chinese and havebecometheshared languages certaingroups, or strata acrosscountries locatedin specific communities population of LatinAmerica, CIS, theArabworld, the Subsaharan regions theworld, namely, EastAfrica, South and EastAsia,respectively. Africa,

TOWARD A COMPARATIVE SOCIOLOGY OF GLOBALIZATION

theoretical and The social scienceliterature globalization on contains important answers thefive to haveprovided different Scholars empirical disagreements. very The to discussed this in keydebates chapter. balanceofopinion appears be tilted, Mostresearch either assumes documents globalization indeed or that is however. of and studies-with notable the happening, mostempirical exception theworldin society approach-do notfind convergence political, social,or organizational as of The work date to patterns a result globalization. mostpersuasive empirical that undermines nation-state erodes the nor indicates globalization se neither per that theviability thewelfare of state.Some empirical evidence also documents it as is from globality different modernity. Finally, seemsthatno suchthing a is globalculture emerging.

GLOBALIZATION

255

to has sociology contributed thedebate social sciences, Relative theother to have in socialtheorists developed ways.First, overglobalization three important of Although and implications globalization. anunderstanding nature epochal ofthe or is of is as globalization a continuation modernity there no agreement towhether thethere anincipient is that in what themain are bodyofwork outlines detail not, to sociologists calledattention have Moreover, oretical and perspectives problems. in to and aspects globalization addition itsecoof reflexive, aesthetic thecultural, 1990,1991, (Albrow 1997,Castells1996,Giddens dimensions nomic political and 1995).Second,world-society Guillen 1992,Sklair1991,Waters 2001,Robertson and a approach globalization to scholars havedeveloped macrophenomenological and have institutional theoretical foundation, they the nation-state ona sound based the their evidence encompassing entire empirical systematic supported viewwith sociologists comparative et & world (Meyer Hannan1979,Meyer al 1997).Third, and on difference simeffects cross-national aboutglobalization's havetheorized evidence theforms bothrichcase in of empirical ilarity. Theyhavealso offered and quantitative studies analyses(Guillen2001, Orruet al 1997). Sociologists, that histhe contributions economic needtocontinue reading important however, and are scientists, anthropologists making management scholars, political torians, pheand study sucha complexand multifaceted of to thetheoretical empirical as nomenon globalization. indicate globalization, that in and presented thischapter The analysis critique the However, of far from a is phenomenon,changing nature theworld. being feeble further one. itis neither invariably an civilizing force a destructive Although nor evidence available to enough is there investigationwarranted, is already empirical a nor is either extreme (Held et al 1999). Globalization neither monolithic reject societal Its acrosscountries, sectors, and an inevitable varies phenomenon. impact one It even Therefore, needstobe time. is contradictory, discontinuous, haphazard. and One about unexpected unintended its consequences. also needs open-minded it. and takeinto account rolethat the play agency, interest, resistance in shaping to Pieterse haspointed globalization notnecessarily does pose As out, (1996,p. 556) it and a choicebetween condemnation celebration. Rather, begs to be engaged, form (Geertz1998). comprised, given research. arein We invites additional certainly Thecomplexity globalization of and the needoffurther theoretical toclarify economic, work cultural, political, great with We interact each other. of and aesthetic dimensions globalization howthey move that themicro-macro i.e. that lacktheoretical gap, also perspectives bridge the from world-system thenation-state, industry, to the acrosslevelsof analysis oftheempirical andgroup. disagreements Many community, organization, sector, at due levelsofanalysis which different intheliterature primarily tothe various are willrequire to gather us more researchers Understanding globalization operate. know andeffects. still We better about myriad data its and causes, manifestations, on causes it and whatare its consequences such aboutwhatexactly verylittle social as variables organizational structures, authority patterns, keysociological need to and to inequality, social movements, namebuta few.And sociologists

256

GUWLLEN so organizations that work hard government on agencies other and data-gathering at they moreattention their pay in surveys censusesto relationships various and levelsofaggregation. and Given infancy ourefforts understand the of to globalization thecomplexity to of ofthephenomenon,seemssensible asknotonlyforan intensificationour it a approach thesociology to of interdisciplinary awareness alsofor comparative but enterprise (Smelser globalization. Comparing at theheart thesociological lies of workin thedual sense 1976,Tilly 1984). We need to engagein comparative of usingmultiple methods datacollection analysis, of applying of and and our at and toolsto a variety research of settings defined various theoretical empirical and acrosssuchsettings ought to levelsof analysis. The differences similarities to of give us a handleon thepatterns according whichthecauses and effects to Withoutcomparative a approach, globalization change from setting another. one as and as theliterature globalization on promises remain puzzling contradictory to thephenomenon itself.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Center theWharton was from Jones the at School Thisresearch funded a grant by I and a fellowship from JohnSimon Guggenheim the MemorialFoundation. RandallCollins, Paul DiMaggio, thank Howard Aldrich, MiguelAngelCenteno, Clifford Eszter Vit Albert Hirschman, Geoffrey Garrett, Geertz, Hargittai, Henisz, John Steve BruceKogut, John Marshall Meyer, Evelyne Huber, Kimberly, Kobrin, SandraSuarez,Gabriel Meyer, James Mittelman, Walter Powell,John Stephens, for Adrian and Zelizerfor comments helpful and/or Szulanski, Tschoegl, Viviana I providing with me various references, information, sources. amalso grateful and Yi and tomywork-study research assistants AnneChun, Jun, GinaMok. the Reviews homepageat www.AnnualReviews.org Visit Annual LITERATURE CITED
ed. and AlbrowM. 1997. The Global Age. Stanford, versily GlobalCapitalism, S Berger, Univ. NY: Cornell R Dore,pp. 1-25. Ithaca, CA: Stanford Univ.Press Press at Appadurai 1996.Modernity Large: CulA. hypothesis reR. tural Dimensionsof Globalization.Min- Boyer 1996.Theconvergence but of neapolis: Univ. Minn.Press visited: globalization stillthecentury In and Baldwin RE, Martin 1999.TwowavesofgloP. nations? NationalDiversity Global fundaed. and balization:superficial similarities, Capitalism, S Berger R Dore,pp.29Pap. Ser. NY: Cornell Univ.Press mental differences. NBER Work. 59. Ithaca, 6904. Cambridge, Natl.BurEcon.Res. CastellsM. 1996.TheRise oftheNetwork MA: SoBell D. [1973] 1976. The Comingof PostCambridge, MA: Blackwell ciety. Choi SR, Park D, Tschoegl AE. 1996. Industrial Society. NewYork:Basic Books In Banks and the world's major banking Berger 1996. Introduction. NationalDiS.

GLOBALIZATION centers,1990. Weltwirtsch. Arch. 132(4): 774-93 Cox RW. 1987.Production, Powerand World Order:Social Forcesin theMakingofHistory. New York:Columbia Univ.Press In Cox RW. 1992. Global Perestroika. New World Order?The SocialistRegister 1992, ed. R Miliband, Panitch, 26-43. LonL pp. don:Merlin Cox RW.1996.A perspective globalization. on In Globalization: Critical Reflections, JH ed. CO: Lynne Mittelman, 21-30. Boulder, pp. Rienner Publ. Deininger SquireL. 1996.A newdataset K, incomeinequality. World Bank measuring Econ.Rev.10:565-91 Doremus PN, Keller WW, PaulyLW, Reich S. 1998.TheMyth the of GlobalCorporation. Princeton, Princeton NJ: Univ.Press Dreyer of from JLE.1953.A History Astronomy Dover ThalestoKepler. NewYork: DunningJH, ed. 1997. Governments, Globand International Business.New alization, York:Oxford Univ.Press EvansP. 1997.The eclipseofthestate? World Polit.50:62-87 Featherstone ed. 1990.GlobalCulture. LonM, don:Sage the Fligstein 2001. Is globalization cause of N. the crisesof welfare In states? The Architecture Markets. NJ: of Princeton, Princeton Univ.Press and Friedman 1994.Cultural J. Identity Global Process.London:Sage in Garrett 1998.Partisan G. Politics theGlobal Economy. New York: CambridgeUniv. Press and Garrett 1999. Trade,capitalmobility G. government spendingaround the world. Work. Pap.,Dep. Polit.Sci., Yale Univ. Geertz 1973.TheInterpretationCultures: C. of Selected Essays.New York:Basic GeertzC. 1998. The worldin pieces: culture andpolitics theendofthecentury. at Focaal. 32:91-117 Tijdschr. Antropol. of Gereffi 1994. The organization buyerG. chains.In Comdriven global commodity Chainsand GlobalCapitalism, G ed. modity

257

Gereffi, Korzeniewicz, 95-122. WestM pp. port, Greenwood CT: The GerlachML. 1992. AllianceCapitalism: Social Organization JapaneseBusiness. of Berkeley, Univ.Calif.Press CA: Giddens 1990.TheConsequences ModerA. of nity. Stanford, Stanford CA: Univ.Press Giddens 1991.Modernity Self-Identity. A. and Cambridge, Polity MA: A. Giddens 2000.Runaway World: How Globalization Reshaping Lives.New York: is our Routledge R. Gilpin 1987.ThePolitical Economy Interof national Relations. Princeton, Princeton NJ: Univ.Press R. Gilpin 2000. TheChallenge GlobalCapof italism. Princeton, Princeton NJ: Univ. Press GuidryJA, Kennedy MD, ZaldMN. 1999.Globalizations social movements. Globand In alizations and Social Movements:Culture, Power,and theTransnational Public MD Kennedy, ed. MN Sphere, JAGuidry, Zald, pp. 1-32. Ann Arbor:Univ. Mich. Press MF. 2001. TheLimits Convergence: Guillen of Globalization Organizational and Changein Argentina, South Korea,and Spain.Princeton, Princeton NJ: Univ.Press the Guillen SuarezS. 2001.Developing InM, ternet: entrepreneurship public policy and in Ireland, and Singapore, Argentina, Spain. Telecommun. Policy Forthcoming 25. Hargittai Centeno E, MA, eds.2001.Mapping Am. globalization. Behav.Sci. In press D. Harvey 1989.TheCondition Postmoderof Blackwell Oxford: nity. J. HeldD, McGrew Goldblatt Perraton A, D, 1999. Global Transformations. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ.Press Hirsch PM, FissPC. 2000.Framing globalization:thebattle definitions a contested for of issue.Work. Pap. KelloggSch.,NorthwesternUniv. of Hirschman AO. 1982. Rival interpretations market or society: civilizing, destructive,feeble?J.Econ.Lit.20:1463-84 in Hirst Thompson 1996. Globalization G. P, London:Polity Question.

258

GUILLEN

Am. and nation-state. 1997.World society the state and JD. Huber Stephens 1999.Welfare E, regimes the era of retrench- J.Sociol. 103(1):144-81 in production MT. 1979.National deveJW,Hannan ment. Occas. Pap. No. 1, Sch.Soc. Sci.,Inst. Meyer world system:an lopmentin a changing NJ Adv.Stud., Princeton, and Huntington 1996.TheClashofCivilizations overview.In National Development SP. Educational, Economic, theWorld System: NewYork: andtheRemakingWorld of Order. and PoliticalChange,1950-1970,ed. JW Simon& Schuster Meyer,MT Hannan,pp. 3-16. Chicago: Inglehart Baker WE. 2000. ModernizaR, of change, thepersistence and tion, cultural Univ.ChicagoPress JH. of traditional values.Am. Sociol. Rev. 65:19- Mittelman 1996. The dynamics globCriticalReflecalization. Globalization: In 51 pp. tions, JHMittelman, 1-19. Boulder, ed. and Kapstein EB. 2000. Winners losersin the globaleconomy. Organ.54:359-84 Int. Rienner CO: Lynne Be- Mittelman ed. 1996.Globalization: Keck ME, SikkinkK. 1998. Activists Critical JH, CO: Lynne Rienner Reflections. Boulder, in Networks InterAdvocacy yondBorders: Univ. Mittelman 2000. The Globalization Ithaca,NY: Cornell JH. Synnational Politics. and Resistance. drome: Transformation Press Univ.Press for NJ: P. Kennedy 1993. Preparing theTwenty- Princeton, Princeton MosherM. 1999. BorderPatrolsand Border House First New Century. York:Random of KobrinSJ. 1997. The architecture globThe of Crossings: Seductions Globalization. in alization:statesovereignty a networked Manuscript Globaliza- Murphy 1994.International In CN. globaleconomy. Governments, Organization ed. Business, JHDunand Industrial tion, International and Change:Global Governance Univ.Press Univ. since1850. New York:Oxford ning, 146-71. New York:Oxford pp. 2000. Press Aburdene 1990.Megatrends P. NaisbittJ, New New York: Morrow P. Prosperity. Krugman 1994. Peddling World. New York: Norton OhmaeK. 1990. The Borderless of Business Levitt 1983. The globalization markets. York:Harper T. O RiainS. 2000.States markets aneraof and in Harvard Bus. Rev.61(3):92-102 Annu. Sociol.26:187-213 Rev. globalization. LouchH, Hargittai Centeno MA. 1998.Who E, GG. calls whom?Networks and globalization. Orrui Biggart NW,Hamilton 1997.The M, of Economic Organization East AsianCapiPap. pres.Annu.Meet.Am. Sociol. Assoc., Thousand San Francisco talism. Oaks,CA: Sage L. the state. Mander Goldsmith eds. 1996. The Case Panitch 1996.Rethinking roleofthe E, J, In Globalization: Critical ed. the San Reflections, JH Against GlobalEconomy. Francisco: CO: Club Sierra Mittelman, 83-113.Boulder, Lynne pp. MazlishB. 1993.An introductionglobalhisto Rienner and internaIn ed. PetrellaR. 1996. Globalization GlobalHistory, tory. Conceptualizing The B Mazlish,R Buultjens, 1-24. Boulder, tionalization. States In against Markets: pp. ed. Limitsof Globalization, R Boyer,D CO: Westview Media. Drache, 62-83. London:Routledge pp. McLuhan M. 1964. Understanding Pierson 1994.Dismantling Welfare the P. State? London:Routledge is and thePoliticsof ReMcLuhan FioreQ. 1967.TheMedium the Reagan, Thatcher, M, trenchment. Univ. New York: Cambridge Message.London:AllenLane and Press McMichaelP. 1996.Development Social of Thousand Pieterse 1996.Thedevelopment developJN. Change: A Global Perspective. ment towards critical Rev. globalism. theory: Oaks,CA: PineForge FO. Int.Polit.Econ. 3(4):541-64 GM, Ramirez Meyer JW,Boli J,Thomas

GLOBALIZATION

259

PortesA. 1997. Globalization frombelow: Stopford Strange 1991.RivalStates, JM, S. Ritheriseoftransnational communities. Work. valFirms. NewYork: Cambridge Univ. Press Pap. 98-08.Princeton, Cent.Migr. NJ: Dev. Storper M, Salais R. 1997. Worlds Proof Portes Guarnizo A, LE, Landolt 1999.The P. duction:The Action Frameworks the of study transnationalism: of pitfalls proand Economy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. mise of an emergent research field.Ethn. Press Racial Stud.22(2):217-37 Strange 1996.TheRetreat theState:The S. of of Economy. Poulantzas 1974.Classes in Contemporary Diffusion Powerin theWorld N. London:NewLeftBooks New York:Cambridge Univ.Press Capitalism. Pritchett 1997. Divergence, time. J. Streeck 1991.Onthe L. big W. institutional conditions of diversified quality production. Beyond In Econ.Perspect. 11(3):3-17 DC. 1996.The importance space of The Rapoport Keynesianism: Socio-Economics Proof inviolent strife. duction FullEmployment, E Matzner, and ethno-religious Nationalism ed. W Streeck, 12-61. Hants,UK: Edward Ethn. Polit.2(2):258-85 pp. Reich RB. 1991. The Work Nations.New of Elgar York:Knopf R. and Stryker 1998.Globalization thewelfare Robertson 1992.Globalization: state. J.Sociol.Soc. Policy18(2-4):1-49 R. Social TheInt. TempleJ. 1999.The new growth evidence. J. London:Sage oryand GlobalCulture. Robertson 1995. Globalization: R. time-space Econ.Lit.37:112-56 and homogeneity-heterogeneity. In Global TillyC. 1984.Big Structures, LargeProcesses, ed. S HugeComparisons. York: New RussellSage Modernities, M Featherstone,Lash,R Found. Robertson, 25-44. London:Sage pp. Rodrik 1997.Has Globalization D. Gone Too Tilly C. 1992. Coercion,Capital, and EuFar? Washington, Inst. Econ. A.D. 990-1992.Cambridge: DC: Int. ropeanStates, on Sakamoto 1994.A perspective thechangY Basil Blackwell ing worldorder:a conceptual prelude.In Tschoegl AE. 1998.Country banksources and ed. the ofinternational competitiveness: case of GlobalTransformation,Y Sakamoto, pp. the foreign 15-54. New York: Univ.Press UN exchangemarket. Work.Pap, Sakamoto ed. 1994.GlobalTransformation. Wharton Y, School,Univ.Penn. Vernon 1971.Sovereignty R. New York:UN Univ.Press atBay. TheMultinationalSpread of U.S. Enterprises. SassenS. 1991.TheGlobalCity. NJ: New Princeton, Princeton York:Basic Books Univ.Press R. Sassen S. 1996. LosingControl? Sovereignty Vernon 1998.In theHurricane's Eye: The Enterin an Age of Globalization.New York: Troubled Prospects Multinational of Press MA: Univ. Columbia Univ.Press prises.Cambridge, Harvard reand Sklair 1991.Sociology theGlobalSystem. WadeR. 1996.Globalization itslimits: L. of of New York:Harvester ports thedeathof thenational economy Wheatsheaf aregreatly In SmelserNJ. 1976. Comparative Methodsin exagerated. National Diversity R andGlobalCapitalism, S Berger, Dore, ed. theSocial Sciences.Englewood NJ: Cliffs, Prentice-Hall NY: Cornell Univ.Press pp. 60-88. Ithaca, SmithAD. 1990. Towardsa global culture? Wallerstein1974.TheModern I. World-System. Press New York:Academic Theory, Cult.Soc. 7:171-91 Soskice D. 1998. Divergent New York: production regi- WatersM. 1995. Globalization. mes: coordinated uncoordinated market and Routledge economies the1980sand 1990s.In Conti- Western 1997. BetweenClass and Marin B. in and ket:PostwarUnionization theCapitalist nuity ChangeinContemporary Capitaled. Democracies. NJ: Univ. Princeton, Princeton ism, H Kitschelt, 101-34. NewYork: pp. Press Univ.Press Cambridge

260

GUIILLEN

conver- Zelizer VA. 1999. Multiplemarkets: multiJG. Williamson 1996. Globalization, ple cultures. Diversity In and Its DisconJ. gence, history. Econ.Hist.56(2):277-306 and tents: Cultural and Ground claims indigeYashar 1999.Citizenship DJ. Conflict Common in Contemporary American Society, NJ ed. contentious politicsin an nousmovements: Work. Pap. Dep. Polit., J age ofglobalization. Smelser, Alexander, 193-212.Princepp. ton, Princeton NJ: Univ.Press Princeton Univ.