hyperglobalist thesis

♠ Posted by Emmanuel in IPE 101 at 07:12:00 PM In a review of recent books by Rajan Menon and Daniel Drezner, the Economist seems to find novelty in the idea that globalization is not all it's cracked up to be. Menon champions a strong American unilateral policy in the belief that international organizations are pretty much useless in this day and age--just as the neoconservatives do (or is that did?) On the other hand, Drezner advocates that states use their powers to shape international organizations to better cope with problems with increasingly transnational dimensions like pollution and food safety. In this context, Drezner highlights the point that states--especially powerful ones--still make the rules. While I subscribe to this viewpoint, I must point out that there is a well-developed, chiefly English literature stream on globalization that has covered this ground much earlier. In it there are three waves of globalization:The hyperglobalist view holds that we live during the End of History (Francis Fukuyama), where the World is Flat (Thomas Friedman), and the End of the Nation-State (Kenichi Ohmae) is at hand. Supposedly, it is now global finance and corporate capital--not states--that exercise decisive influence over the organization, location, and distribution of economic power and wealth.The skeptical view cautions against making such sweeping claims about the totalizing nature of globalization. Most notable among those holding this view are Paul Hirst and Grahame Thompson who put Globalization in Question. They point out that, actually, the volume of trade as a percentage of national income was higher in most European countries during the pre-WWI era than it is now. They further add that trade and FDI activity has largely been concentrated in North America, Europe, and East Asia--hence, what is called globalization is in reality just.
INTERCOM 10 GLOBALISATION AND INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION - a personal view by Jim Cambridge What is the relationship between international education and the processes of globalisation? This question became very topical recently with the publication of interviews in The Times newspaper with Professor George Walker, Director General of the International Baccalaureate Organisation and Visiting Professor at the University of Bath, and Dr Nick Tate, of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. Dr Tate expressed scepticism at the prospect of the IB becoming widespread in the context of maintained schools in England and Wales. He considered that it would be pushing globalisation one big step further forward if a lot of people were taking what is essentially an international qualification not devised with [British] society and culture in mind.       One of the things that distinguishes the nation state is the character of its education system. It would be pushing globalisation one big step further forward if a lot of people were taking what is essentially an international qualification not devised with this society and culture in mind. There is no [IB] course in British history, for example, and English is very much about world literature. Dr. Nick Tate The Times 5 January 2000   He pointed out that there is no IB course in British history and that English is very much about world literature. On the other hand, Professor Walker said that the IB used to be seen as a continental import, something peculiar to international schools and expatriates. But this is no longer the case. Schools of all kinds increasingly operate in an international environment, and as frontiers break down the IB seems less alien and more like a sensible option. Globalisation has been described as the widening, deepening and speeding up of world-wide interconnectedness in all aspects of contemporary.
In this keynote address, Carlos Alberto Torres discusses competing approaches to understanding globalization and global citizenship education.
Three Perspectives on Globalization In their book, Global Transformations, authors David Held, Anthony McGrew, David Goldblatt and Jonathan Perraton describe three perspectives on globalization. Scholars David Held, Anthony McGrew, David Goldblatt and Jonathan Perraton provide an overview of different perspectives on globalization dominant in the 1990s. They describe the general conceptual contours of each perspective and note the limitations of each. The authors identify identify the perspective as: The Hyperglobalist perspective, The Skeptical perspective, The Transformationalist perspective. Hyperglobalist Perspective The authors describe the hyperglobalist perspective as an approach which sees globalization as a new epoch in human history. This new epoch is characterized by the declining relevance and authority of nation-states, brought about largely through the economic logic of a global market. Economies are becoming “denationalized.” Held and his colleagues point out, however, that even within this perspective, different authors assess the value of these changes in very different ways. While hyperglobalist scholars may agree on the general factors behind globalization and the likely outcome of this process, they disagree sharply over whether these forces are good or bad. The authors distinguish between neo-liberal versus neo-Marxist orientations, and describe their different assessments of the outcomes of globalization. In terms of the “winners” and “losers” of the new global order, both orientations agree that the lines and cleavages of economic benefit are changing. One the one hand, neo-liberals view this as largely a good thing. They say that nearly all countries have a comparative advantage in one way or another within the global economy. There will be groups who will be worse off, but on the whole, the benefits are greater than in the past. On the other.