Driving Factors of Globalization:

Globalization is the result of a complex interplay of many different variables. The following
is a list of some of these elements, along with an explanation of their significance and
relevance:
According to the findings of a number of researchers, such as Bang and Markeset (2011),
Obadan (2008), and Garrett (2000), the progression of technology and the accumulation of
technical expertise is commonly regarded as one of the most important aspects that contribute
to globalisation (Naz and Ahmad, 2018). In recent years, a significant amount of progress has
been made in globalisation as a direct result of technological advancements, particularly in
the fields of communication and transportation. Beginning with shipping, which didn't really
get off the ground until 1956 when the first container ship was built. Because it is now
simpler and less expensive to transport vast quantities of products and services across
international waterways as a result of this innovation, the globe has therefore become more
globalised as a result of this invention. In addition, the advent of commercial jets in the 1970s
accelerated the process of globalisation by making international travel a great deal simpler.
This led to an increase in the rate of globalization's progression (Ritzer, 2011). On the other
hand, the widespread availability of microprocessors and other technologies that enhanced
communication in the 1970s contributed to the success of globalisation. In addition to this,
the expansion of the internet is perhaps the most successful technical development that has
sped up globalisation (Ritzer, 2011).
In addition, the policies of various governments are also contributing elements in the process
of globalisation. As a result, deregulatory policies and internationally oriented trade policy
changes implemented by governments may be significant contributors to the process of
globalisation (Naz and Ahmad, 2018). In addition, developments in the financial sector, such
as liberalisation and deregulatory policies, as well as new financial products, all contribute to
a rise in the movement of capital between countries, making globalisation yet another
important aspect. This, in turn, contributes to the formation of a relationship of mutual
borrowing between states (Naz and Ahmad, 2018).
In addition, industrialisation in the world's least developed countries (LDCs) is an essential
contributor to globalisation in its own right. This is the case due to the fact that it raises both
the production capacity of the nation and the production capacity of the world as a whole.
This expansion is what is seen to be a driving component in the process of globalisation. For
instance, the process of industrialization that took place in several Asian nations between the
years 1965 and 1988 not only contributed to a rise in the total GDP of the area but also
contributed to an increase in the entire world capacity of production (Harris, 1993).
TYPES OF GLOBALIZATION
Globalization may be broken down into four distinct categories.
Economic globalisation
Political globalisation
Cultural globalisation
Financial globalisation

Economic Globalization
The term "economic globalisation" refers to the manner in which modern firms conduct their
operations as international enterprises. Without a question, this is the pinnacle of all forms of
globalisation.
The term "economic globalisation" was coined by economist Takis Fotopoulos, who
described it as the opening and deregulation of capital, commodity, and labour markets,
which led to the neoliberal globalisation that exists today (Takis 2001). Globalization of the
economy in recent years has been marked by the preeminent roles played by certain
developed nations, such as the United States of America and Japan, as well as large
transnational corporations, such as Yamaha, Microsoft, McDonald's, etc., and international
organisations, such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.
According to Bottery's argument (2003), globalisation of the economy may be best
understood as the result of the confluence of three distinct causes. The first trait is an increase
in the amount of capital that may be moved across the globe, both into and out of a nation,
via the use of information and technology. The presence of supranational entities like the
WTO, the World Bank, and the IMF is the second trait that distinguishes this kind of
economy. In a scenario with global free markets, the function of these organisations has been
to act as facilitators of the movement of money. They are accompanied with criteria, some of
which might be rather onerous for poor nations to fulfil. The influence of multinational
corporations has also grown, which brings us to the last attribute (TNCs). Take, for instance,
Mitsubishi as our model. As a result of the fact that the value is greater than the gross
national product of Indonesia, Denmark, Saudi Arabia, or Turkey (Bottery 2003), nations and
states are forced to compete against one another in terms of sweeteners, tax-breaks, and
financial inducements in order to convince multinational corporations to locate their factories
on their territory.
However, not all nations stand to profit from increased economic integration as a result of
globalisation. It has already been shown via many reports that globalisation has contributed to
the alleviation of poverty in a significant number of underdeveloped nations (Stern 2001).
Some developing countries are working to protect their economies by weaning themselves off
of interdependence on organisations such as the International Monetary Fund and the World
Bank. Others are engaging in trade with other developing countries in an effort to close the
gap in their economic standing.

Political Globalization
The term "political globalisation" refers to the process of nation-states engaging in diplomatic
engagements with one another. It encompasses the harmonisation of international regulations
pertaining to commerce, crime, and the rule of law.
In order to discuss about this specific kind of globalisation, let's compare the political
situation around the globe in the past with the political situation around the world now. A
number of years ago, before the process of globalisation had been completed, governments
were the primary participants in the international arena. In the end, the use of force—or the
credible threat of its use—is what determines the outcome of international politics, and the
politics of military security take priority over the politics of economic or social concerns.
Now, states are not the only key actors, military issues do not dominate, the conditions under
which force is an effective tool have decreased, and the focus of international politics is on
international organisations such as the IMF, the World Bank, WTO, and NGOs, amongst
others, rather than on interstate relations. Giddens (1999) holds the belief that we have moved
beyond the time of nation states. The traditional style of geopolitics is now obsolete, and
political leaders have less sway over the general populace as a result.
Political globalisation has, in fact, referred, in part, to an increasing trend toward
multilateralism, in which the United Nations plays a key role, national non-governmental
organisations act as watchdogs over governments, and international non-governmental
organisations increase both their activities and their influence. Many academics believe that
this is the beginning stage of the formation of a worldwide civic society. Researchers in the
fields of political science and sociology have pondered the future of the nation-state as well
as the concept of national sovereignty in the context of regionalization and globalisation, in
which international financial institutions have an increasing amount of power over the
economies of national states and the decision-making processes of those states. A number of
political scientists are looking at the tendencies toward democratic consolidation in terms of a
global process of democratisation as part of their research.
The establishment of international rule of law is one of the most significant benefits brought
about by political globalisation. It assists in the prevention of war crimes and monitors
undesirable actors on the world arena. It can also help speed up other forms of globalisation,
such as economic globalisation, because standardised rules around food and trade standards
make it easier for businesses to sell their products overseas. This is one of the ways that
globalisation can help accelerate other forms of globalisation.
One of the arguments that might be made against political globalisation is that it leads to
nations intervening in the affairs of one another. There are a lot of individuals who believe
that other countries' business should not be messed with in any way. Another complaint is
that it contributed to the proliferation of neoliberalism, which is a political philosophy that
widens the divide between the wealthy and the less fortunate (Campbell 2004).

Cultural Globalization
The term "cultural globalisation" refers to the process through which ideas, meanings, and the
amalgamation of different cultures are transmitted or disseminated across the globe.
In a presentation that he gave at Flinders University on globalisation and culture, Wadam
(2006) described cultural globalisation as the means of art, communication, tangible goods,
and items that a community shares in common as culture. It is the process of a society
becoming more civilised via the development of its minds and the acquisition of knowledge.
According to Held et al. (2009), culture may be defined as the social formation of meaning
together with its articulation and reception. At the moment, conversations about cultural
globalisation lead to the standardisation of cultures all over the globe, also known as "Coca
Colonization" and "McDonaldization," as well as cultural plurality and "hybridization." It
makes sense given that the many facets of globalisation have fostered expansion and
connections between many cultures, partially resulting in increased comprehension and
collaboration, and partly leading to the formation of transnational groups and hybrid or
mixture identities.
According to Arjun Appadurai's argument from 1996, the cultural globalisation that is caused
by the forces of media and communications creates intricate relationships as well as
disconnections across various cultures. The potential effect of making things uniform or more
similar of culture, in which dominant nations like the United States spread their cultures
through television and movies, which leads to the dilution and loss of local and indigenous
cultures from other developing nations examples the spread of punk music from the United
Kingdom and the United States around the world, as well as the spread of Disney music and
consumer culture around the world.

Financial Globalization
The capacity to move money easily and quickly throughout the globe is one definition of
what is known as "financial globalisation" (Campbell 2004). It is now much simpler for
individuals to send money to other countries because to developments such as the
globalisation of financial markets and the expansion of stock exchanges like the NYSE and
FTSE.
One of the advantages of this is that it is simple and inexpensive to get capital for brand-new
company endeavours. Instead of depending only on investors from your immediate area, you
might easily locate investors from China, France, or Canada who would be willing to wire
you some money to start your firm.
The perception that foreign corporations purchase an excessive amount of domestic
enterprises, agricultural areas, and real estate has caused a number of businesses to
experience pushback in their operations.
CONCEPTS OF GLOBALIZATION
The term "globalisation" refers not only to changes that can be seen at the level of individual
units, but also to the changes that can be seen at the level of the interactions that take place
between individual units.
Globalization may be broken down into three main concepts: transference, transformation,
and transcendence.

TRANSFERENCE
This is a process in which pre-existing components interact with one another and transmit
information to one another. The term "globalisation" refers to the process by which items are
actively transferred or exchanged across pre-existing units, whether those units be cultural,
political, or economic. Transference indicates trade beyond current unit borders as well as
between systems and units; yet, it still presume that these systems as well as the units would
stay similar with themselves during the process of globalisation.
Comparing this idea of globalisation to its predecessors, such as internationalisation and
interdependence, there is not much of a difference between the three (Scholte 1997).
According to some, the most significant effect of complex interdependence is that it shifts the
rules of inter-state interaction away from traditional concerns with military security. Despite
this, complex interdependence does very little to alter the fundamental stratification into
systems and units (Keohane et al., 1977). It's possible that a world of interdependent states
would be very different from a world of fully independent states, if such a world had ever
existed, but there are still states in this world (Keohane et al., 1998). A further illustration of
this can be found in international political economy as well as the internationalisation of
businesses. This follows the same line of reasoning. Individual businesses have steadily
internationalised their production and sales in response to the increased competition,
becoming more and more disembedded in their own territorial markets as a result. Since the
process of internationalisation refers to the "growth of the flows of trade and factors of
production between countries," there is nothing about the internationalisation of enterprise
that changes the fundamental fact that the firm and the national economy are the primary
components of an internationalised world economy (Palmer et al., 1998).
Following the logic of globalisation as transference, we find that there is a vigorous
contestation of the effects that it will have on the wider system, along with an accompanying
failure to account for the ways in which the components of the system could be altered as a
result of the process. The implications of globalisation on the independence and strength of
the contemporary state are now the subject of one of the most contentious debates in our
modern world. However, due to the strong ontologically individualist commitments that are
the foundation of the concept of globalisation as transference, the modern state is more likely
to appear as a source of continuing globalisation rather than as its primary victim. This is
because the notion of globalisation as transference was developed.
It is possible that globalisation will have an effect on the characteristics of states, but this will
not alter their essential nature or significantly impair their power to take action. It is equally
meaningful to argue in favour of strengthened or reformed state institutions to fend off the
more undesirable effects of globalisation given that units are regarded as prima facie
autonomous and are therefore at least potentially in charge of their own destinies. This is
because globalisation has resulted in an increase in the interconnectedness of economies,
societies, and cultures around the world ( Armstrong 1998).

TRANSFORMATION
Globalization as Transformation is a process that takes place at the level of systems and has
effects on the system in the same way that it has effects on the identities of the individual
units.
The interaction between systemic variables across various dimensions and sectors of that
system is what causes globalisation to take place above the units. This interaction is what
drives globalisation. As a result, globalisation is conceptually understood to be a multi-
faceted process that occurs both on the surface and below it. When this process does involve
the units, it does so by transforming them into reproductive circuits for those systemic
processes and forces that will, in the end, change their identity and, in the end, the
constitutive rules of the system in which they are situated. This happens to the extent that this
process involves the units. It is now much more difficult to make operational sense of the
concept of globalisation in terms other than its more observable consequences at lower levels
of complexity and abstraction than it is at the systems level. The logic at work here is likely
to be vaguely structurationist (Giddens et al., 1994), and it is likely that this logic is what is at
work here. Even though this concept of globalisation is distinct from the first one, there is a
continuity between them in the sense that the second concept theorises exactly what was left
out and rendered enigmatic by the first one, and it therefore renders visible – or helps to
create and sustain – new series of phenomena that clearly were beyond the grasp of the first
concept. Even though this concept of globalisation is distinct from the first one, there is a
continuity between them in the sense that the second concept theorises exactly what Because
it is difficult to make sense of a system without units, but it is perfectly possible to conceive
of a unit without a system, another way of putting it is to say that the second concept
presupposes the articulation of the first one. This is because it is difficult to make sense of a
system without units.
This idea of globalisation maintains the difference between systems and units, but it
relativizes and complicates that distinction by treating the system as if it were a unit and
placing it on the same level of analysis as its component elements. Because "some of the
most significant cultural phenomena of our time have to do with responses to and
interpretations of the global system as a whole," it is this conceptualization that underpins
talk of globalisation as a distinct field of knowledge and "the global" as a distinct object of
investigation. Globalization is now happily removed from the ontological limits defined by
the unit focus of the first concept, so "the global" can be investigated without being
constrained by those ontological boundaries (Robertson 1992).
The traditional concept of sovereignty has been relativized as a result of globalisation, and
the modern welfare state has been replaced with a state that is focused on competition and the
market. This new state will, in the end, "lose its structural primacy and autonomy as a unitary
actor in the international system" (Cerny 1995). The dynamics of globalisation, according to
Bauman (1998: 65), have transformed states into "executors and plenipotentiaries of forces
which they have no hope of controlling politically." However, despite the fact that
sovereignty and territory "remain key features of the international system," these concepts
have "been reconstituted and partly displaced onto other institutional arenas outside the state
and outside the framework of nationalised territory" (Sassen 1996).

TRANSCENDENCE
This is the point at which globalisation begins to bring about changes not only to the identity
of units and systems but also to the conditions of existence of objects of inquiry and the fields
in which they are situated. Because of this, globalisation eliminates and dissociates human
practises as well as the conditions of human knowledge, and then it projects them onto the
global as a condition of its own existence. The progression of globalisation is driven by a
dynamic that exists independently of it and cannot be reduced to single causes operating
within specific domains or dimensions. Globalization is not an inside out nor an outside in
phenomenon; rather, it is a process that blurs the lines between the inside and the outside of a
given society. This idea is even more challenging to comprehend than the previous one was,
specifically due to the fact that its referents are located outside of the typical theoretical
categories.
This idea is even more challenging to comprehend than the previous one was, specifically
due to the fact that its referents are located outside of the typical theoretical categories.
Not only does transcendence as globalisation have an effect on the characteristics of
particular states and on the identity of the state as a political institution, but it also upends the
circumstances under which the state is able to continue to exist. The concept of transcendence
as it relates to globalisation suggests that there is a possibility for the breakdown of sovereign
states along with the associated international systems or societies that function as place-based
forms of political activity. According to Scholte (1996), this results in the deterritorialization
of identities as well as the uncoupling of identity and political authority. As a result of
globalisation, "the social" as an object of government is weakened, and community has taken
its place as the new focus of governmental policies and strategies (Rose 1996).