‘Whether we call it “globalization” or “inter-nationalization”, very few people, organizations or states stand to benefit.’

In order to approach such a controversial statement, we have to get a better understanding of what globalization means and what it is all about. We try best to understand and interpret globalization along the key concepts of it.
I then will introduce the three main interpretations of globalization, outline their positions and by examining the evidence answer the question.

Four main points can help us understand, what is commonly agreed and understood by globalization:

1. By stretched social relations we summarize the view, that today’s cultural, economic and political processes in society are not bound to state boundaries anymore but form increasingly new areas of influence which interconnect sovereign states. A good example might be climate change, which starts by individual choices and ends up by having a significant impact at a far away place on the globe.
2. By intensification of flows we acknowledge the increasing density of interaction in our daily life but also around the globe, giving a different meaning to physical distance.
3. By moving closer together with e.g. the intensification of flows, increasing interpenetration of societies brings them closer together on cultural and social matters both on a local and global level.
4. The United Nations, the World Bank and the World Trade Organization among others contribute to a global infrastructure with increasing power over sovereign states.

These four main points give us also the possibility, to evaluate for ourselves, to what extent we see globalization happening and changing our lives.

After being clearer about the term ‘globalization’, we further need to shed some light on the three positions, which form the current debate about globalization in order to answer the question.

The globalists view globalization as an unstoppable development, a forming of a new global structure with significant impact on countries, organizations and people to produce a homogeneous global culture and economy.

Positive globalists argue that through the potential of stretched social relations, quality of life will improve and through intensification of flows bring us all closer together as world citizens. Although they recognize negative developments like environmental pollution, they believe, through self restriction and new technologies available, to able, to reduce overall pollution. In short, everybody will be better off in the long run trough the economic growth potential, freedom of choice, reduction of bureaucratic barriers and faster technology transfer. They admit to some exclusions but only because people refuse to participate or of lake of resources.
Obviously positive globalists would not agree to the statement of this assignment.
If we take the recent event of the Danish cartoon pictures of Mohammed, we recognize to a certain amount the working of stretched social and religious relations. It remains uncertain to what extent this event was ‘natural’ or manipulated. It also shows the intensification of flows although this phenomenon already started with the invention of the telegraph. As far as flows of trade and investment goes, now the largest ever proportion of manufactured goods, mining products and agricultural goods of the major industrialized countries is exported (Grieco and Ikenberry, 2002, p.3) but as a WTO statistic shows, by no means does it represent the largest increase ever, which occurred between 1950-73 showing, that the rate of growth is irregular. Many of the globalists evidence show more of a continuation then a significant, new phenomenon at work and are empirically rather weak.
What makes the theory of the globalists somewhat less coherent is the assumption that all the people are consumers and that the era of globalization is one of peace (Friedman, 1999, p.197.). First and foremost we are a long ways from all being able to participate in local or even global markets and its benefits as consumers (more than a billion people living below a dollar a day and have the world living on less than two dollars) and today’s ‘wars’ are simply fought differently e.g. trade wars; some say more civilized but with not less impact on civilization, nations and individuals.
Although the positive globalists, or for that matter, the economic liberals which form for a big part of the globalists, would not agree to the statement ‘Whether we call it “globalization” or “inter-nationalization”, very few people, organizations or states stand to benefit.’, their evidence is not as strong as they want us to believe.

The pessimistic globalists admit to a dominance of major economic and political powers and the uneven impact of globalization as a whole. The environment, democratic accountability and in particular women and unskilled manual workers are seen as the losers.
Supporting the theory is the fact that culture flows are currents of trade and monetary flows, today mainly from North to South giving credibility to the view of diminution of national identities and sovereignty, less diversity and more homogeneous sometimes to the point where it is felt as open imperialism like in France provoking strong reactions against Mac Donald’s or in Bali where extreme measures are being taken in order to preserve the own culture (holiday of Nyepi).
A strong case for the uneven balance and benefits of globalization is also the evidence, that through the deregulation, privatization and open markets, the share of the world’s income going to the poorest 10 per cent of the world’s population fell by over a quarter, whereas the share of the richest 10 per cent rose by 8 per cent (Mander and Barker, 2002, p.2). That means for large groups of women, usually the weakest and less organized in the work force, subordinate roles and lesser power in gender relations reinforces or worsens their existing invisibility and unequal treatment.
The theory of pessimistic globalism certainly agrees to a big extent to the statement in question but they still see it as inevitable, as an inevitable trajectory of development.

The inter-nationalists do not recognize globalization as a distinctive new phase. The flows of culture, trade and money are merely a continuation and progression rather then a systematic shift. The power and influence remains largely with the potent powerful economies. By acting largely in their own interest, promoting free trade, empowering and using organizations like e.g. the World Trade Organization and the World Bank, they try to dominate over other sovereign nations. These powerful economies and large corporations (multinational corporations MNC) are weakening national economies and the social state to leave ordinary people with less basic services and leave many workers, also in developed countries, without a job by moving labour to countries with cheaper production costs. Other losers are whole continents, who simply do not have the right goods to trade, resources or simply the power to push their own interest.
We find some strong empirical evidence for this theory in the example, that when new ways in tackling the inequality of environmental pollution were suggested in Kyoto 1997, free tradable pollution rights according to each country’s share, the biggest advocate of moral, equality and free trade, in this particular example also the biggest polluter of the world, the United States of America, did not sign it, not to this date. We experience more and more US courts judging facts all over the world with significant impact through their political and economical power mostly to benefit own MNC’s or the own local market but the US government strongly opposes the international criminal court. These examples are not much in favour of the globalists theory for the irresistible pressure of a faceless and uncontrolled global economy force. There are many other examples which show that it is mainly the already strong and potent, benefiting from the effects of globalization or inter-nationalization and promoting free trade, less influence of e.g. nation states because they are already in the pool position. On the contraire, the weaker players in the game getting even more weak because their lack of market dynamic products. Evidence for the claim, that the majority of economic and social activity still being essentially regional we find in the WTO tables which show merchandise trade by region still occurring within the region or bloc rather then across them (WTO, 2002 tables II.3, II.4, II.5).
The recognition of the important facts by the inter-nationalists, that economic decisions do not exist outside culture but are always socially embedded, and that migrations are simulated by economic globalization makes the theory more comprehensive because it takes more factors into account then only the logic of flows and principle of markets.
The inter-nationalist view of globalization fully agrees to the statement of the assignment.


The third position, the transformationalists, share the same view like the globalists about the significance and magnitude of the change in progress but still see much room for agency on a national or local level. They view the consequences of globalization as complex and unpredictable and its effect as uneven but globalization itself not as inevitable. They put much emphasise on progressive structures for democratic accountability and a global system of governance. These views place the transformationalists somewhat between the two first positions, between the globalists and the inter-nationalists.
The transformationalists do not agree to the statement to that extent. Although they see the future as unpredictable, complex and diverse and admit that the effects of globalization are uneven, they point to the successful development of regional economic groupings which allows states to benefit from greater economic activity without the full exposure to a global or unlimited market with its pressure.

The conclusion is, with two out of four theories agreeing with the statement and one agreeing to a certain extent, we can say that the benefits and opportunities of globalization are not evenly distributed among all individuals. Rather the opposite seems to be the case, with the median income between the richest and poorest 10 per cent of the countries growing from 77 in 1980, to 122 times greater in 1999 (Weller et al., 2002, p.1). The gap between and within countries is widening!
We will only achieve permanent peace, if we distribute chances, resources, incomes and development possibilities fairly and respect the cultural and religious traditions and lifestyles.
(1667 words)

References
Friedman, T.L. (1999) The Lexus and the Olive Tree, New York, Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Grieco, J.M. and Ikenberry, G.J. (2002) ‘Economic globalization and its discontents’ in State Power and World Markets, New York, Norton, at http://www.duke.edu/-grieco/chapter6.htm.

Mander, J. and Barker, D. (2002) Does Globalization Help the Poor?, at http://www.globalpolicy.org/globaliz/econ/2002/0701.htm

Rademacher, F.J. (2002) ‘Ökosoziale Marktwirtschaft als Schlüssel zu einer weltweiten nachhaltigen Entwicklung’, Balance oder Zerstörung, Ökosoziales Forum, Wien, Austria

Weller, C.E., Scott, R.E. and Hersh, A.S. (2002) The Unremarkable Record of Liberalized Trade, Briefing Paper, October, Washington, DC, Economic Policy Institute.
WTO (2000, 2002) International Trade Statistics, Geneva, World Trade Organization.