Globalization: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions) [Englisch] [Taschenbuch]

This truly is a dazzling brief introduction to a subject that could not be covered even by a very long book. As Steger points out, the fact of globalization is the predominant issue of our time. Far too man, as he points out, tend to treat the subject in monolithic or simplistic fashion, focusing on merely one aspect of globalization, and assuming that that aspect defines all of globalization. Anyone familiar with Thomas Friedman's THE LEXUS AND THE OLIVE TREE (who is frequently described as a "hyper globalizer") will recognize one such very narrow approach. Despite his brief space, Steger wants to do justice to the complexity of the subject. For the past decade, most writers on globalization have focused on economic globalization, but Steger emphasizes that the process has political, economic, religious, cultural, environmental, and ideological conditions.

Many people who tackle the question of globalization seem to want to know, "Is this a good or bad thing?" Steger is anxious to emphasize that this does not admit of an easy answer. Clearly, the massive increase of economic inequality--which occurs both on international and national levels, e.g., wealth has more and more been concentrated in the industrial countries of the northern hemisphere, and within those countries, more and more in the hands of a small economic corporate and investing elite--is not a good thing, but that is not the only aspect of globalization. Steger seems to suggest that there are both significant advantages and some lamentable dangers in globalization.

The one aspect of globalization concerning which Steger is clearly and rightfully concerned is the promotion of globalization in the ideological terms of the Neoliberal project of promoting free markets over all other concerns. The term "Neoliberal" might throw some people, since the leading Neoliberal of recent decades would include Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, and most members of the George W. Bush administration (though also many in the Clinton administration, including Clinton himself). Too many are unaware that Reagan and Bush are not conservatives by traditional understandings of the label: they both pushed for massive governmental intrusion into the markets, in taking an active role in eliminating regulation, and actively employing the government to control the economy, none of which are conservative projects. One reason that the Progressive movement gained so much steam during the McKinley, Roosevelt, and Wilson years was observing the extraordinary corruption and narrow concentration of wealth (and subsequent economic inequality) that resulted from an unregulated market economy. Steger, along with a host of others, points out that with the unfettered promotion of free market capitalism with little or no governmental regulatory control (Neoliberalism's big project) is once again resulting in extreme economic inequality. Numerous studies, to some of which he refers, have undermined one of the central claims of the Neoliberal project: that expanding world markets spreads wealth throughout the world; in fact, it actually shifts wealth into the hands of a very few, a trend that has been taking place not only on a global scale, but on the national level as well (e.g., according to Federal Reserve statistics, in 1979 1% of the population possessed 20% of the wealth in the U.S., while in 1997 the top 1% held 37%, a percentage that has surely exploded following the two massive Bush tax cuts). What I believe Steger could have emphasized even more is that economic inequality is likely going to be THE world issue in the decades to come, as it is likely to become the major issue in American politics as well (given a thirty year history of a massive shift of wealth from the middle class to a very small number of citizens).

My one complaint with the book is that many of the figures and graphs were close to unintelligible. Also, given the small format, sometimes the text and text boxes were laid out rather awkwardly. I found the annotated bibliography to be of great help in mapping out future reading (I sometimes wish that publishers would require all authors of academic books to provide either an annotated bibliography or a bibliographic essay; over the years I've probably learned of more good books to read in this fashion than in any other).

I have read several of the volumes in the Oxford University Press Very Short Introductions series, and this easily ranks as one of my favorites. I highly recommend it to anyone wanting to gain a handle on one of the crucial issues of our time.

Steger begins by defining the term "globalization": A "set of processes" (not a "condition") towards greater interdependence and integration among the various cultures of the world. He makes a point to emphasize that economics is only ONE aspect of globalization: there are also political, cultural and ideological aspects. Moreover, he dedicates one chapter to showing that globalization is by no means a NEW phenomenon: cultural exchanges can be traced back to the prehistoric period.

I found the chapter on the economic aspects of globalization (chapter 3) very useful. It explains the history and role of the IMF, WTO and the World Bank in the global economy. It also discusses the West's transition from "controlled economies" to "free market capitalism." Arguing that globalization is an uneven process, the author shows how it is having very different effects on the various regions of the world. This gives us a clear vision of some of the negative impacts of the new world economy, such as a larger gap between rich and poor nations. His realistic view of globalization is a nice antidote to the cheerleading of hyperglobalizers like Thomas Friedman.

The chapter on opposition to globalization (chapter 7) does an excellent job of explaining challenges that are coming from both the right and the left. The particularist protectionists (on the right) feel threatened by multiculturalism because they want to maintain a sort of cultural purity. This often leads to their rallying against immigration and appealing to nationalism. However, like the left, they also criticize the power of the corporate elite and the negative effects globalization is having on the average domestic worker (i.e., jobs going overseas, lower wages). In the US, Pat Buchanan is a good example of this view. The universalist protectionists (on the left) tend to criticize the poor working conditions of both domestic and foreign workers. In general, universalist protectionists "are concerned with protection of the environment, fair trade and international labor issues, human rights, and women's issues." Ralph Nader is an example of a universalist protectionst.

Overall, an excellent introduction to the various facets of one of the most important issues of our time.

This book explains globalization, surveys some of what has been written, then holds it under logical scrutiny. It also describes how contempory events relate to globalization.

This book was written in 2003 when the Al Qaeda attacks were still foremost on our consciousness. The author opens by deconstructing the video bin Laden released in October of 2001. For all of his bluster about imperialistic globalization, it is clear through not only his accessories (nice Timex) but also the mode his message was delivered through that he and his organization have been direct beneficiaries of the globalization he claims to despise. The author's point isn't so much bin Laden but that very few of us can escape the emerging "globality" that the processes of globalization have led us to.

In the introductory chapter, the author explains the difference between the condition of globality and the processes of globalization. He notes that much of the contemporary writings on the subject have focused on one process to the exclusion of the others, but that they are all part of a whole (the analogy of the blind scholars examining the elephant comes up). This was the hardest chapter to get through out of the whole book. In addition to parsing through existing concepts, he also used some really obtuse language. "Extensity" is a word, but maybe something like "pervasive" would have worked better? And "areas of contestation" wins this month's prize for the most awkward phrasing I have seen in a book. "Contested areas" wouldn't have been appropriate why?

That's the worst thing I can say about the book. He gives an excellent breadown of the history of trade, modernity and emerging globalization. (If you've read "Guns, Germs and Steel", you can just skim this part.) The next chapters break down the economic, political, cultural and ideological dimensions of globalization processes. This was not a straight survey: he asserts and then provides evidence for his contention that the arguments about the benevelonce and inevitability of globalization and its links to free trade, laissez-fair economic policy and democracy are circular at best.

I cringed when I read quotes from New York Times darlings Krugman and Friedman, both of whom assert the inevitability of globalization as some kind of corollary to the Invisible Hand (maybe it's the Invisible Wrist?). Friedman goes on to assert that globalization will, somehow, demand democracy as it works to strengthen economies. Sadly, the Chicago Tribune cites a report by the New Economic Information Service that begs to differ: between 1989 and 1999, the percentage of imports the US purchased from Global South democracies decreased even as the number of such democracies increased. Why? Because dictatorships tend to be less labour- and environment-friendly, thus lowering the costs of production.

The author goes on to discuss the foes of globalization. While they may both equally irritate large transnational corporations, Pat Buchanan is a particularist protectionist and Ralph Nader is a universalist protectionist (or he was before his most recent book). Both are American examples, but there are multiple varieties of each in every country.

The author notes at the outset that he is critical of the path globalization has followed over the last four decades, but not critical of globalization or globality itself. He ends the book with the hope that some of the benefits of globalization can be enjoyed by the Global South. Unfortunately, this was written before the Iraq War; global equity has been the least of the Global North's concerns.

Although written in 2003, this book does not suffer from being dated. On the contrary, he makes many prescient observations, not the least of which that much of the wealth generated was based not only on money but on money not yet created (hedge funds and futures). I wonder what he had to say about the 2008 financial crash.

Excellent primer on globalization.