Alternative Perspectives on

UNIT 13 ALTERNATIVE PERSPECTIVES ON Globalisation

GLOBALISATION*

Structure
13.0 Objectives
13.1 Introduction
13.2 Understanding Globalisation
13.2.1 Phases of Globalisation
13.3 Theoretical Explanations of Globalisation
13.3.1 Realist Explanation of Globalisation
13.3.2 Liberal Explanation of Globalisation
13.3.3 Marxist Explanation of Globalisation
13.3.4 Types of Globalists
13.4 Assessment of Globalisation
13.4.1 Adverse Impact of Globalisation
13.4.1.1 Economic Impact
13.4.1.2 Political Impact
13.4.1.3 Social and Cultural Impact
13.4.1.4 Environmental Deterioration
13.5 Alternatives to Globalisation
13.5.1 Theoretical Perspective
13.5.2 Practical Alternatives
13.6 Let Us Sum Up
13.7 Some Useful References
13.8 Answers to Check Your Progress Exercises

13.0 OBJECTIVES
This Unit focuses on globalisation, its negative and positive impacts and also the
alternatives of globalisation. After going through Unit, you should be able to:
Define globalisation;
Discuss different theoretical aspects of globalisation; and
Explain impacts of globalisation and the need for its alternatives

13.1 INTRODUCTION
The concept of globalisation is no new. It has existed for long. However, by the
turn of current millennium it has become more ubiquitous and applied to almost
everything. It gained popularity in the 1990s with the introduction of the term in
the print media. Jan Scholte (2000) finds evidence that it was first employed in
the social sciences during the Second World War, but notes that it was increasingly
used in 1960s and 1970s and became pervasive by the 1990s not only in the
social sciences but in everyday discourse. The concept’s social science formulation
and popularization owes much to the theorists who studied the economic

*Dr. Karuna Hemam Yadav, Research Associate, NCERT, New Delhi 195
Global Shifts: Power and stagnancy and high inflation caused by protectionist (socialist) economies in
Governance
1960s and 70s; and highlighted the importance of globalizing world and
international trade. They are also called Neo-Marxist dependency theorists. Some
classical neo-Marxist dependency theorists important to remember when
discussing dependency theory are Paul A. Baran and Andre Gunder Frank who
examined the way international economic and power relations impeded domestic
development effort. Their focus on global economic exchanges paved the way
for the adoption of a wider perspective which was subsequently augmented by
Immanuel Wallerstein (1980) in his ‘world systems theory’. By conceptualizing
contemporary international economic exchange as the result of a historic process
that began with European mercantile expansion in the 15th century and which
had, by the 20th century produced a unitary, integrated world capitalist system,
Wallerstein paved the way for the adoption of a global perspective in social
science analysis.

Sociologists and scholars in communications and media studies also recognized

that technological innovations have exponentially increased the flow of
information around the world with profound consequences for economic, political
and cultural exchanges. Marshall McLuhan (1962) found innovations in
communications media were creating a “global village.” It was likely that people
living in the global village would eventually share a common, global world-
view that would reshape identities. It was also likely that a new, cosmopolitan,
global citizen, with a global consciousness of the unity of all humankind would
ultimately emerge (Robertson, 1992).

The popularity of the modern concept of globalisation was also primarily due to
the economic and social achievements of developed (capitalist) countries dictating
its terms to the world market. During this increased era of globalisation, the
world in general and Third world in particular, however also witnessed
multidimensional social and environmental hazards, calling forth ‘alternatives
to globalisation’ (Kurian, 2007). Scholars studied the effects of globalisation
whether it’s negative or positive. Many have emphasized the negative effects of
economic globalisation and most agree with (and tend to restate) the argument
that globalisation has had disastrous consequences for human welfare and social
justice. They have highlighted the negative effects of globalisation on employment
and wages in the various countries especially the third world countries, the
heightening of inequalities, increased gender and ethnic oppression and
discrimination against immigrants, retrenchments in social expenditures and
programmes, the enfeebling of governments and their inability to protect the
domestic economy, the spread of managerialism and a new workfare ethic in
social policy that abrogates the universalism of earlier collectivist social welfare
ideals (Midgley, 2007).

13.2 UNDERSTANDING GLOBALISATION

The term globalisation is used in many ways, for example to describe a set of
phenomenon – the transfer of money around the world, the development of
information technology, international production, increased tourism and the
declining of nation-states. It is also used as a discourse in which the acceptance
of globalisation is put forth as being inevitable, irresistible and irreversible. As
196
such globalisation becomes a sort of natural process outside the control of human Alternative Perspectives on
Globalisation
agency. Anthony Giddens (1990) has described globalisation as the
“intensification of worldwide social relations which link distant localities in such
a way that local happenings are shaped by events occurring many miles away
and vice-versa”. According to Jan Aart Scholte (2005), “Globalisation is an
ensemble of developments that makes the world a single place changing the
meaning of importance of distance and national identity in world affairs”. David
Held and Anthony McGrew (2002) have defined globalisation as growing world
interconnectedness, it denotes the expanding scale, growing magnitude, speeding
up and deepening impact of inter-regional flows and patterns of social interaction.
It refers to a shift or transformation in the scale of human social organization that
links distant communities and expands the reach of power relations across the
world’s major regions and continents. Globalisation is also defined as compression
of the world and intensification of consciousness of the world as a whole
(Robertson, 1992).

This small sample of definitions is sufficient to realise that globalisation is a

complex phenomenon with multiple effects that makes it difficult to cover all its
aspects in a single definition. There are, in fact, three possible ways to approach
it. First, it can be defined as intensification of global flows of goods and production
factors, facilitated by modern transportation and communication means.
Globalisation can also be seen as a compression of time and space in a way that
events in one part of the world have instantaneous effects on distant locations.
The third approach is to comprehend globalisation as a historical structure of
material power. Globalisation represents historical transformation in the economy,
politics and culture (Mittelman, 2006). Globalisation, therefore, denotes a
significant shift and must be seen as a multi-dimensional phenomenon, involving
highly intricate interactions between a whole variety of social, political and
economic institutions across a spectrum of geographical scales.

13.3 PHASES OF GLOBALISATION

Thomas Friedman (2005) has characterized three phase of globalisation. The
first phase is from 1492 to 1800, which was the age of mercantlilism and
colonialism. The second phase was from 1800 to the mid-twentieth century till
the end of World War II. This period was dominated by age of Pax-Britannica –
built of a new form of globalisation colonizing across the globe. Finally, during
the second half of the 20th century the world started shrinking from its size to a
tiny and flattering playing field where the United States reinvented and
popularized a new model of globalisation continents (Kumar, Riamei and Gupta,
2017). The establishment of United Nations Organization in 1945 and the
agreement on economic and political fields like the establishment of International
Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
(GATT) and other international organizations have provided the ground for new
age of globalisation. Further, environmental challenges such as climate change,
cross-boundary water issues, air pollution and over exploitation of fishing in the
oceans are linked with globalisation. Globalizing processes affect and are affected
by business and work organization, economics, socio-cultural resources, and the
natural environment.

197
Global Shifts: Power and Check Your Progress Exercise 1
Governance
Note: i) Use the space given below for your answer.
ii) See the end of the unit for tips for your answer.
1) Summarize various meaning and dimensions of globalisation.
.....................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................

13.4 THEORETICAL EXPLANATIONS OF

GLOBALISATION
Three theoretical perspectives on globalisation are debated by scholars under
Realist, Liberal and Marxist views.

13.3.1 Realist Explanation of Globalisation

For the Realists, the main actors on the world stage are sovereign states. Realist
explanations of globalisation emphasise the relative distribution of power. For
Realist, globalisation is a reflection of great powers’ struggle for supremacy. As
a result, globalisation is just another context for struggle for hegemony. Realists
rely on two core beliefs which shape their view on globalisation. First, they
place the state in the centre of international politics. Secondly, they prioritise
‘high politics’ over ‘low politics’ i.e. preponderance of political and military
issues over social and environmental issues in inter-state dialogues. Thus,
globalisation is mainly seen as a process which transforms the context of inter-
state relations. The effects are seen at political level even if the nature of changes
tends to be predominantly economic (Kumar, Riamei and Gupta, 2017). Realist
argue that globalisation is a critical factor because the changing structure of
world production significantly increased the opportunity costs for being isolated
from the world’s political economy.

13.3.2 Liberal Explanation of Globalisation

For liberals, globalisation is seen as the end product of a long running
transformation of world politics. Liberals are particularly interested in the
revolution in technology and communications represented by globalisation. This
increased interconnectedness between economically and technologically moving
societies, results in a very different pattern of world political relations. Liberals
believe that globalisation brings social and political benefits. The free flow of
information and ideas around the world widens opportunities for personal
development and creates more dynamics and vigorous societies. For liberals,
globalisation marks the end of nation states which are the dominant global actors
otherwise. States has no longer sealed units and as a result the world looks more
like a cobweb of relations. Liberals also argue that globalisation will inevitably
lead to the dissemination of global political identity and then creation of a global
198 civil society (Kumar, Riamei and Gupta 2017).
13.3.3 Marxist Explanation of Globalisation Alternative Perspectives on
Globalisation

Marxists portray the essence of globalisation as the establishment of a global

capitalist order. For the Marxist, globalisation is an uneven, hierarchical order
between the rich and the poor, explained by world system theorist like Immanuel
Wallerstein in terms of a structural imbalance between ‘core’, ‘semi peripheral’
and ‘periphery’ areas in the global economy. For them globalisation deepens the
existing world system, weakening of the democratic accountability and popular
responsiveness due to increased activities of corporate power. Neo-Marxists
highlight inequalities in the global capitalist system, through which developed
countries operate or sometimes are operating through Transnational Corporations
(TNCs) or linked to hegemonic powers such as the USA, who dominate and
exploit developing countries (Kumar, Riamei and Gupta 2017). The revolution
in information technology has changed the economic and political meaning of
globalisation. This has brought imbalance between the nation states and within
the nation itself.
Check Your Progress Exercise 2
Note: i) Use the space given below for your answer.
ii) See the end of the unit for tips for your answer.
1) Discuss theoretical explanations of globalisation?
.....................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................

13.3.4 Types of Globalists

There are three types found: the hyperglobalists, the transformationalists and the
skeptics as identified by David Held and Anthony McGraw (2007). The goal of
each of this type is to characterize distinctive features of globalisation from
different points of view.

a) Hyperglobalist
Hyperglobalisers, such as K. Ohmae and R. Reich (Ohmae, 1995) believe
that global economy has an important impact on humanity and politics;
they argue that the market is borderless and economy is single, global and
integrated. There will be no national products or technologies, no
corporations, no national industries. There will no longer be national
economies” (Robert Reich, 1992). Hyperglobalists’ focus on the economic
dimension of globalisation covers both, the neoliberal and Marxist theorists.
Hyperglobalisers argue that economic globalisation is bringing about a de-
nationalisation of economies through the establishment of transnational
networks of production, trade and finance, a borderless economy in which
national governments are relegated to little more than transmission belts for
global capital. Instead of distinctive local cultures and traditional values,
globalisation promotes a globalised wealthy, highly educated and upwardly
199
Global Shifts: Power and mobile sector, which places a premium on possessive individualism,
Governance
consumerism, secularism and neo-liberal capitalism. Hyperglobalist also
contend that growth of a single global market and the declining capacity for
states to determine their economic destiny are among the most important
factors characterizing contemporary globalisation (Kumar, Riamei and Gupta
2017). Hyperglobalists conceive globalisation as a process, which has the
internal logic and predictable outcome, the global society based on a fully
integrated market. In other words, all the variety of heterogeneous cultures
withdraws in front of the unique social pattern, based on markets and
institutions derived from the radically liberal cultural framework. In this
sense, a well-known assumption about the ‘’end of history’’ is generated,
which implies that the modern, global capitalism with liberal democracy as
the political framework, represents the last word of socio-economic evolution
(Stefanovic, 2008). In short, Hyerglobalism comprehends globalisation as a
unique, lawful and progressive process of unification of world economy.

b) Sceptics
The sceptics, such as P, Hirst and G. Thompson suggest that “globalisation
is largely a myth”. They believe that the extent of existing globalisation is
exaggerated and that the increase of global trade has happened only in major
developed economies – in Europe, Asia-Pacific and North America. “The
international economy is one in which processes that are determined at the
level of national economies still dominate and international phenomena are
outcomes that emerge from the distinct and differential performance of the
national economies. “The international economy is an aggregate of nationally
located functions” (Hirst and Thompson, 1999). Sceptics argue that
contemporary globalisation is neither new nor revolutionary. They focus
only on the economic dimension of globalisation, arguing that it features
high levels of interstate trade and the expansion of regional common markets
such as the European Union (EU), and the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA) which reduce global economic integration. In their
view, states retain a dominant role in these activities, including an ability to
regulate and even unravel globalised economic processes. All the
governments will retain the formal authority to regulate the global economy.
Skeptics have expressed doubts, both in terms of impacts of globalisation
and its ubiquity, as well as in terms of sustainability of unification influence
which it produces (Kumar, Riamei and Gupta 2017).

c) Transformationalists
The third group is defined by Held and McGrew as transformationalists,
which includes authors such as Rosenau or Giddens. They assume that
globalisation plays an essential role in fast economic, political and social
changes that are restructuring world order and modern societies nowadays.
“Globalisation denotes the intensification of worldwide social relations and
interactions such that distant events acquire very localised impacts and vice
versa” (Held, McGrew, 2007). “Globalisation concerns the transformation
of local, and even personal, contexts of social experience. Our day-to-day
activities are increasingly influenced by events happening on the other side
of the world. Conversely, local lifestyle habits have become globally
consequential”.

200
Transformationalists (Giddens, Scholte, Castells, Walerstein) are more moderate Alternative Perspectives on
Globalisation
in terms of emphasis of ubiquity and linearity of the globalisation process, as
well as assessing of progressivism of its effects. But they do not accept sceptics’
thesis about globalisation either. For them, the indisputable fundamental changes
in the organization of society that globalisation brings are the growing overall
integration and acceleration of socioeconomic dynamics through “compression”
of space and time. However, their approach is multidimensional, taking into
account mechanisms of globalisation other than economic ones. In this sense, a
sociologist of modernism, Anthony Giddens (1990), considers globalisation as a
phenomenon shaped by forces of “modern” capitalism: politics, military power
and industrialism. These forces are the sources of dimensions of globalisation.

For transformationalists, international, sub-national and transnational groups and

organizations are growing more important as state authority and power wane.
And with the declining capacity of states and the reduced importance of territory,
the role of the identity based features such as religion and ethnicity has grown
and spread in global politics. In short, Transformationists view the process of
globalisation as uneven and uncertain in terms of results, whereby insist on its
multidimensionality.

13.4 ASSESSMENT OF GLOBALISATION

Globalisation was pandered in the 1980s as the panacea for all the socio-economic
ills of the modern world. The Transnational Corporations (TNCs) were the main
force behind its promotion. They, through the neo-liberal academia, sermmoned
the Third World that the engine of ‘economic growth’ resides in a liberal globalised
market and the resultant outcome would generate an enabling environment for
resolving such socio-economic problems like poverty and inequality (Kurian,
2007). The liberalisation was one of the tools for successful globalisation, which
appeared in two forms. Firstly, elimination/reduction of tariffs as per GATT
schedules, elimination/rationalisation of non-tariff barriers through Sanitary and
Phyto-sanitary (SPS) and Technical Barrier to Trade (TBT) agreements to WTO,
simplification of import and export procedures occurred based on numerous
international agreements. In other words, there was a reduction of restrictions on
access and operations in the global market. Secondly, there was a change in
domestic legislation relating to foreign economic relations, such as the elimination
of quotas for import and export, removal of restrictions on foreign capital in the
domestic market. As a result, labour-intensive, environmentally-polluting
industries started to be relocated to developing countries. In addition, scientific
and technological advancements created opportunities for the spatial separation
process (such as capital-intensive and energy intensive processes) and placement
of the individual phases in accordance with the prices of factors of production.
At the same time, improved transportation and communication allowed the
interaction of these scattered productions at relatively modest cost (O’Roukre,
Williamson, 1999). As a consequence of all above mentioned factors, production
received a really global character today. We can say that today’s world became
interdependent and interconnected; because one country’s well being very much
depends on the cooperation with other countries. In the 1950-1960s, each company
worked in the market limited by national borders. However, today restrictions
on movement of goods and services across national borders have decreased and
international manufacturers of the world market can move quite easily.
201
Global Shifts: Power and Multilateral institutions like the World Bank, International Monetary Fund (IMF)
Governance
and World Trade Organisation (WTO) were seen as the agencies entrapping the
Third World into the project of’ globalisation. A ‘Washington Consensus’ was
arrived at by the neo-liberal forces to legitimise and engineer market driven
programmes to facilitate flexible and free mobility of TNCs all over the world,
transcending the national political boundaries.

13.4.1 Adverse Impact of Globalisation

Economy, politics, society and environment were all affected by the impact of
globalisation.

13.4.1.1 Economic Impact

a) Deepening Poverty and Widening Inequality:

Since second world-war a number of multilateral and plurilateral
organizations/programmes have been initiated to address the issue of poverty
and inequality. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development
(UNCTAD), ‘New International Economic Order’ (NIEO), the Millennium
Development Goals (MDGs) etc. are incessant efforts to continually chase
the utopian oases of poverty-less world. In spite of all these attempts, one
could notice only aggravating poverty and mounting inequality between
the haves and have-nots, intra-nationally and inter-nationally. Globalisation
has only accentuated these maladies (Kurian, 2007). In most of the Third
World countries, except China and India, the macro economic performance
under neo-liberal globalisation was disastrous. Even in these countries,
though the national income showed remarkable progress, joblessness, and
inequality between the rich and the poor widened, making globalisation
unable to work for the vast populations. Farmers’ suicide, poverty deaths
and break up of social support system pervade all Third World countries
including India. Economists have analysed last 6 decades of globalisation
and have found that the advanced industrial countries of the world, such as
the US and the EU, received the biggest share of the gain and the poorest
countries have actually worsened off (Stiglitz, 2008). The emerging
international economy is often called ‘Casino economy’, where the main
transactions are in money and finance per se, and has nothing to do with the
‘real’ economy. This makes the whole world economy very unstable. The
1997-98 East Asian Monetary Crisis may be cited as an example. Most of
the Third World countries are now in a ‘debt trap’.

b) Labour and Unemployment:

While globalisation is very friendly to ‘capital’, it is unfriendly to ‘labour’.
Labour is downgraded as a variable factor of production. Hire and fire has
become the norm and investments by big pension and other public/private
funds from developed countries are contingent on relaxed labour laws in
the developing countries. Advancement in technology is also accentuating
the loss of jobs. Most modern manufacturing plants invest more on
automation than labour welfare. Only highly skilled managerial white collar
jobs are replacing the blue collar ones. Labour is migrating to industrial
areas whereas the global capital flights-off to a more relaxed labour
geography and replicating the models of exploitation on a global scale this
world has never seen before.
202
13.4.1.2 Political Impact Alternative Perspectives on
Globalisation

The second adverse impact that scholars find with globalisation is the political
one and relates to the potential regional or global instability because of
interdependence of national economies on global level. This is also called as
butterfly effect as a butterfly drains honey from all flowers in a lawn. In today’s
globalised world, national security and nation-states are increasingly dependent
on the activities of other countries and decisions of governments in neighbouring
states. (Michael 2005). Local economic fluctuations or crises in one country can
have regional or even global implications. Neo-liberal globalisation has a political
twin in ‘neo-conservatism’ (neocons). America claims to be its patron. Neo-cons
argue for their version of ‘democracy’. If a state fails to succumb to this they can
brand it as a ‘rogue state;’ legitimising their armed intervention in it. Invasion of
Iraq is such a case and regimes in North Korea and Iran are constantly under
threat. Under neo-liberalism and neo-conservatism national polities are pruned
and conditioned to oblige to American diktats. In the changed political scenario,
the Third World governments are often found being made accountable to global
capital interests and not so much to the interests of the people who have given
them the power to safeguard their interests (Kurian 2007).

13.4.1.3 Social and Cultural Impact

Globalisation has unleashed an unprecedented harmonisation of tangible standards

and cultural ideas. Diversity is seen as an aberration, and worthy of a momentary
celebration alone. The main goal of a global market and current capitalist
globalisation has clearly become rapid accumulation of wealth. Material success
has become the final goal of life and pandered as the normal course of an individual
(Kurian 2007). Globalisation has severely impacted the ‘community’ and an
individual and his/her freedom has become an altar of rational choice. Values
like selfishness and violence are displacing humanitarian values. Immorality is
breeding under the cover of globalisation.

13.4.1.4 Environmental Deterioration

One grave threat of globalisation is on the environment. ‘Our common future’ is

increasingly under threat by meteorological changes that are fast taking place in
the life of earth. Globalisation enables TNCs and often supported by big countries
to produce wealth at the cost of environment. Globalisation, in this manner, is
likely to have serious consequences for the future.

The current globalisation, as powerful as it might appear, is unsustainable. It is

incapable of protecting society and nature, on the one hand, and incapable of
protecting capital from the potential chaos of its own markets on the other hand.
Is an alternative globalisation possible?
Check Your Progress Exercise 3
Note: i) Use the space given below for your answer.
ii) See the end of the unit for tips for your answer.
1) Briefly discuss about the impacts of globalisation?
.....................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................
203
Global Shifts: Power and
Governance 13.5 ALTERNATIVES TO GLOBALISATION
In search of alternatives to globalisation, Mathew Kurian (2007) mentioned about
two syndromes, namely, TINA and TAMA syndromes. In ‘there is no alternative’
(TINA), defenders of globalisation hold the view that there is no theoretical and
practical alternative to globalisation. On the other, ‘there are many alternatives’
(TAMA) school suggests a diverse theoretical as well as practical alternatives to
capitalist globalisation.

13.5.1 Theoretical Perspective

We may take Karl Polanyi’s (1957) concept of ‘embeddedness’ to start a theoretical
construction of alternatives to globalisation. He argues, under prehistoric
capitalism, the economy was embedded in the society, so that social rules and
practices governed economic activities. In this phase, religion and ethics exerted
tremendous influence over the economy. But when capitalism emerged in the
18th century, the economy became disembedded from the society. Capitalist
minded political economists of classical and neo-classical schools of this time
claimed that a free market economy would spontaneously resolve the ‘basic
economic problem’ most efficiently. The so called ‘invisible hand’ or ‘market
mechanism’ enabled this disembedded-ness. Economic decisions were taken by
market laws, mainly the law of demand and the law of supply.

More serious theoretical challenge to the globalizing capitalism was posed by

economists like Karl Marx, J.M. Keynes and many others. Marx theorised that a
state driven by the proletariat would be the best agency for efficient economic
administration. Later, Lenin introduced economic planning as an alternative
mechanism for the efficient allocation of resources and just distribution of the
total produce. (Kurian, 2007). In the background of the great depression, J.M.
Keynes theorised the involvement of the state in the economy with ‘fiscal
engineering’ to steer the economy through the steady growth path. When the
Third World was formed in the post-Second World War era, the government was
assigned the social and economic agency role to maximise ‘social welfare’ and
development planning was prescribed as the means to achieve it. But in the latter
part of the 20th century there were ‘state failures’ in all parts of the world.

13.5.2 Practical Alternatives

There are a number of practical alternatives that are discussed by the scholars:

a) Promotion of Self-Reliance
‘The economy’ may be viewed at various levels, from the ‘family’ to the
‘village’ to the ‘state’ to the ‘nation’ etc. At each level, there has to be relative
self-reliance. For example, the family has to employ its productive resources
in such a way as to provide goods to meets its ‘needs’. The cooperative
efforts of members and participatory decision-making are very significant.
The woman should be given an equal status to the male members in the
family. Similarly, at the village level whatever is required by the people
should be produced as far possible within its geographic terrain. On the
state and national levels it would be preferable to phase out the dependence
on foreign aid and borrowing. Foreign debt is a trap to facilitate imperialist
globalisation (Kurian, 2007).
204
b) Avoid ‘Bads’ and ‘Consumerism’ Alternative Perspectives on
Globalisation
The TNCs are the main beneficiaries of globalisation. Through various ways
they domesticate the potential consumers in order to maintain their market.
Most of the products of TNCs may not be necessary for ordinary people but
due to ‘consumerism’ they are forced to buy all these. Consumerism has
been leading people to indebtedness and even to suicide.

c) IT to re-build ‘community’
Globalisation fragmentises ‘community’. But the information media evolved
through globalisation could be effectively used to re-build the community.
The role of media plays an important role and therefore media must be
fairer and more opened. Media nowadays is driven by consumerist forces,
and not by all citizens. People around the world are not being helped to
recognize that most important issues – overcrowded cities, quick spread of
new infections, global warming, growth of worldwide disparity, destruction
of the environment – are all part of the same global process called
globalisation. People should be aware that these issues do not just happen,
but they all are related (Cavanagh, Mander, 2004).

d) Decentralised Planning
Properly steered decentralised politics and planning can be a potential
weapon to fight globalisation. Grassroots social and economic institutions
like the Self-Help Groups (SHGs) etc. can empower people enabling them
to avert globalisation (Kurian, 2007). States must be more local oriented
and solve national problems first, but at the same time they should be able
to react promptly to global issues, because states continue to be essential
actors in determining the global regime. The same applies to business world,
in order to be successful in the global competition, companies need to “think
globally and act locally”. Practice shows that businesses which are able to
design globally for narrow local requirements and which follow “broaden
your vision, yet narrow your focus” will generate growth and success. (Pinto,
2004). The idea of globalisation that “bigger is better” is wrong. It involves
lack of concern with local issues and overrides locality. In connection with
this agenda the concept of glocalization has been introduced. It became an
aspect of business jargon during the 1980s, which originates from Japan,
where the general issue of the relationship between the particular and the
universal has historically received almost obsessive attention (Miyoshi and
Harootunian, 1989). Glocalisation is a double process – firstly, institutional
and regulatory activities move from the national scope upwards to regional
or global scopes and downwards to the scope of individual or local. Secondly,
economic activities and inter-firm networks are transforming at the same
time to become more localised and transnational (Swyngedouw, 2004).

e) Better Collaboration and Coordination

In order to have more balance as to benefits of the globalisation and the
world trade, globalisation must be more regulated and countries should
collaborate better. Developed and developing countries have to act co-
operatively, so that the gap between poor and rich does not widen more and
more each year, but it has to start narrowing. However, there are no
institutions, particularly democratic institutions to do that effectively. In
order to make globalisation more manageable and seek to base it on principles
205
Global Shifts: Power and of solidarity, it is important to reform and strengthen the role of such
Governance
international organizations as the United Nations, the World Trade
Organisation (WTO) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). It is
suggested by some activists that improved ties of international organisations
with non-governmental organizations might be one of the examples for the
reform (The Alternative Globalisation: web). The work of Bob Deacon and
his colleagues (1997) contend that globalisation’s negative effects on social
welfare can best be addressed through supranational institutions and discuss
the work of a variety of multinational agencies that currently contribute to
this goal. They argue that these organizations should be strengthened to
implement what they describe as a “global government reform agenda”. A
commitment to strengthening cooperative efforts to promote social welfare
at the international level should also be give high priority.
Check Your Progress Exercise 4
Note: i) Use the space given below for your answer.
ii) See the end of the unit for tips for your answer.
2) What are the alternative perspectives on globalisation?
.....................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................

13.6 LET US SUM UP

Globalisation has brought in new opportunities to developing and developed
counties. It has been the leading process in the global politics since the cold war,
which reflects the change and continuity. But globalisation has also thrown up
new challenges like growing inequality across and within nations, volatility in
financial market and environmental deteriorations. Globalisation holds the
promise of enormous benefits for the people of the world. To make this promise
a reality, we must find a way to carefully manage the process. Better attention
must be paid for reducing the negative effects and ensuring that the benefits are
widely and fairly distributed.

Scholars feel it is necessary to think alternative forms of globalisation, forms

that might retain some of the positive consequences of capitalism (in so far as
they can exist outside capitalism) while transcending it as a socio-economic
system in the transition to a new stage of world history. There have been, of
course, many alternatives to capitalism historically and there are many alternatives
to it today, but none of them appears greatly popular. Main requirements of an
alternative globalisation are the equality for all nations, people and countries, as
well as regulation of specific areas of the world’s development with the help of
strong democratic international institutions. This shows that an alternative
globalisation is essential for sustainable development of the world, and if the
right steps and efforts are taken worldwide, an alternative to the current
globalisation will be possible to implement. Alternative globalisation as described
206
above would bring together countries and people in single global equitable and Alternative Perspectives on
Globalisation
prosperous area, despite all the crises, failures and deviations, which is in
everyone’s interests.

13.7 SOME USEFUL REFERENCES

Bhagwati, Jagadish. 2004. In Defence of Globalisation. New Delhi: Oxford
University Press.
Cardoso, F. H. and Faleto, E. 1979. Dependency and Development in Latin
America. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Frank, A. G. 1967. Capitalism and Underdevelopment in Latin America, New
York: Monthly Review Press.
Frank, A. G. 1975. On Capitalist Underdevelopment, New York: Oxford
University Review Press.
Gilpin, Robert. 2003. The Challenge of Global Capitalism, Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
Steger, Manfred B. 2017, Globalisation: A Very Short Introduction, UK: Oxford
University Press.
Waltz, Kenneth. 1999. “Globalisation and Governance” in PS: Political Science
and Politics, Vol. 32, No. 4, pp.693-700.

13.8 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS

EXERCISES
Check Your Progress Exercise 1

Your answers should include definitions of globalisations, three phases of

globalisation since 1492 till date.

Check Your Progress Exercise 2

Highlight on Realist, Liberal and Marxist explanations of globalisation.

Check Your Progress Exercise 3

Your answer should highlight on adverse impact in various field i.e.

economic, political, socio-cultural and environment

Check Your Progress Exercise 4

Highlight both theoretical and practical perspectives of globalisation

207
Global Shifts: Power and
Governance REFERENCES
1) Cavanagh,J. and J. Mander (2004). Alternatives to Economic Globalizaion:
a better world is possible, Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
2) Deacon, B., Hulse, M. and Stubbs, P. (1997). Global social policy:
International organizations and the future of welfare, London: Sage
Publications.
3) Evans, Peter (2008). Is an Alternative Globalisation Possible? Politics
Society, 36, pp. 271 – 298, Available at: http://pas.sagepub.com/cgi/content/
abstract/36/2/271 [Accessed 23 September 2018]
4) Friedman, Thomas L. (2005). The World is Flat: A Brief History of the
Twenty-First Century, New York: Farrar, Stauss and Giroux.
5) Giddens, Anthony (1990). The Consequences of Modernity, Cambridge:
Polity Press.
6) Giddens, Anthony (1990). The Consequences of Modernity, Cambridge:
Polity.
7) Held, D and McGrew A (2002). Globalisation Anti Globalisation,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8) Held, David and Anthony McGrew (2007). Globalisation Theory:
Approaches and Controversies, Polity.
9) Hirst, Paul and Grahame Thompson (1999). Globalisation in Question, Polity
Press.
10) K. H. O’Roukre and J. G. Williamson (1999). Globalisation and History:
The evolution of a Nineteenth-Century Atlantic Economy, Achorn Graphic
Services
11) Kumar Chanchal, Lunghthuiyang Riamei and Sanju Gupta (2017).
Understanding Global Politics, New Delhi: KW Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
12) Kurian, V Mathew (2007). “Alternatives to Globalisation: A Search’ in
Mainstream, Vol XLV, No 35, Saturday 18 August 2007, https://
www.mainstreamweekly.net/article287.html
13) Leslie Sklair, 2008. The Emancipatory Potential of Generic Globalisation,
The Berkeley Electronic Press Available at: http://www.informaworld.com/
smpp/content~content=a918201775&db=all [Accessed 23 October 2018]
14) McGrew, Anthony (2008). ‘Globalisation and Global Politics’ in John Baylis,
et.al., The Globalisation of World Politics, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
15) McLuhan, M. (1962). The Gutenberg galaxy; the making of typographic
man, Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
16) Midgley, James (2007). ‘Perspectives on Globalisation, Social Justice and
Welfare’ in The Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare,Vol.34, Issue 2
June-Special issue on Globalisation, Social Justice & Social Welfare. - https:/
/scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3247&context=jssw

208
17) Mittelman, James (2006). Globalisation and Its Critics, in: Stubs, Richard References
and Geoffrey Underhill, Political Economy and the Changing Global Order,
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
18) Miyoshi, Masao and Harry D. Harootunian (1989). Postmodernism in Japan,
Duke University Press.
19) Ohmae, Kenichi (1995). The End of the Nation-State: The Rise of Regional
Economies, New York: Simon and Schuster Inc.
20) Pinto, Jim (2004). Think Globally, Act Locally, Automation World.
21) Polanayi, Karl (1957). The Great Transformation, New York: Becon.
22) Reich, Robert (1992). The Work of Nations: preparing ourselves for 21st-
century capitalism. Vintage Books
23) Robertson, R. (1992). Globalisation: Social theory and global culture,
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
24) Robertson, Roland (1992). Globalisation, Social Theory and Global Culture,
London: Sage.
25) Scholte, J. A. (2000). Globalisation: A critical introduction, New York:
Palgrave.
26) Scholte, Jan Aart (2005). Globalisation: A Critical Introduction. London:
Palgrave.
27) Stefanovic, Zoran (2008). Globalisation: Theoritical Perspectives, Impacts
and Institutional Response of the Economy, http://facta.junis.ni.ac.rs/eao/
eao200803/eao200803-09.pdf, [Accessed on 30 September, 2018].
28) Stiglitz, J.E. (2008). Making Globalisation Work, in The economic and social
review, Columbia University, USA, 39 (3).
29) Swyngedouw, Erik (2004). Globalisation or Glocalisation? Networks,
Territories and Rescaling, in Cambridge Review of International Affairs,
17(1), pp. 25-44.
30) The Alternative Globalisation, https://www.ukessays.com/essays/
international-relations/the-alternative-globalisation.php, [Accessed 23
September 2018].
31) Wallerstein, I. (1980). The capitalist world economy, New York: Cambridge
University Press.
32) Wallerstein, Immanuel (2004). World System Analysis: An Introduction,
Durham: Duke University Press.
33) Zurn, Michael (2005). From Interdependence to Globalisation, Handbook
of International Relations, London: Sage publications.

209
Global Shifts: Power and
Governance SUGGESTED READINGS
Acharya, Amitav, et.al. (eds.), (2006), Studying Non-Traditional Security in Asia:
Trends and Issues. Singapore: Marshall Cavandish.
Acharya, Bhairav, (2016). “The Future of Asylum in India: Four Principles to
Appraise Recent Legislative Proposals.” in NUJS Law Review, 9.
Alkire, Sabina. (2003). A Conceptual Framework for Human Security. (CRISE),
working Paper 2, London, University of Oxford, 2003.
Anderson, Benedict (1991), Imagined Communities, London: Verso.
Appadurai, A. (1996), Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalisation,
Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Aron, Raymond, 1966. Peace and War: A Theory of International Relations,
trans. Richard Howard and Annette Baker Fox, Garden City, New York:
Doubleday.
Baruah, S., ed. (2009). Beyond Counter-Insurgency: Breaking the Impasse in
Northeast India.
Baylis, John, Steve Smith and Patricia Owens, eds. (2001). The Globalisation of
World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Beck, Ulrich. (1992). Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage.
Behr, Hartmut and Amelia Heath, 2009. “Misreading in IR Theory and Ideology
Critique: Morgenthau, Waltz, and Neo-Realism,” Review of International Studies,
35(2): 327–349.
Behr, Hartmut, 2010. A History of International Political Theory: Ontologies of
the International, Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
Beitz, Charles, 1997. Political Theory and International Relations, Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Bell, Duncan (ed.), 2008. Political Thought in International Relations: Variations
on a Realist Theme, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bhagwati, Jagadish. (2004). In Defence of Globalisation. New Delhi: Oxford
University Press.
Blackmore, J. (2000), Globalisation, a useful concept for feminists rethinking
theory and strategies in education, in Globalisation and Education, Critical
Perspectives,(eds.) N.C. Burbules & C.A. Torres, London: Routledge.
Bolewski, Wilfried. (2007), Diplomacy and International Law in Globalized
Relationships. Springer, Berlin.
Booth, Ken and Steve Smith (eds.), 1995. International Relations Theory Today,
Cambridge: Polity.
Boucher, David, 1998. Theories of International Relations: From Thucydides to
the Present, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
210
Brown, Chris, 2001. Understanding International Relations, 2nd edition, New Suggested Readings
York: Palgrave.
Bull, Hedley, 1977. The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics,
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Bull, Hedley, 1995. “The Theory of International Politics 1919–1969,”
in International Theory: Critical Investigations, J. Den Derian (ed.), London:
MacMillan, 181–211.
Butterfield, Herbert and Martin Wight (eds.), 1966. Diplomatic Investigations:
Essays in the Theory of International Politics, Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Buzan, Barry (2004). From International to World Society?, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Caballero-Anthony, Mely et.al, eds. (2017). Non-Traditional Security in Asia:
Dilemmas in Securitization. Hampshire: Ashgate.
Cardoso, F. H. and Faleto, E. (1979). Dependency and Development in Latin
America. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Carnoy, M. (1999), Globalisation and Educational Reform: what players tried
to know, Paris: UNESCO.
Carnoy, Martin (1999), Sustainable Flexibility: Work, Family and Community in
the Information Age, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Caroline Thomas. (2000). Global Governance, Development & Human Security:
The Challenges of Poverty and Inequality. London: Pluto Press.
Carr, E. H., 2001. The Twenty Years’ Crisis, 1919–1939: An Introduction to Study
International Relations, New York: Palgrave.
Castells, Manuel (1996), The Information Age: Economy, Society, and Culture,
Vol. I: The Rise of the Network Society, Oxford: Blackwell.
Cawkwell, George, 1997. Thucydides and the Peloponnesian War, London:
Routledge.
Chima, J.S. (2010), The Sikh Separatist Insurgency: Political Leadership and
Ethnonationalist
Chin, Christine B. N. and James H. Mittelman (2000) “Conceptualizing Resistance
to Globalisation,” in Barry K. Gills (ed.), Globalisation and the Politics of
Resistance, London and New York: Macmillan Press Ltd. and St. Martin’s Press
Inc.
Cohen, Benjamin J. (2011). “Introduction” in Benjamin J. Cohen, ed.,
International Political Economy. New York: Routledge.
Cox, R. W. (1981). “Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International
Relations Theory”, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, Vol. 10, 1981.
Cox, Robert W., 1986. Neorealism and Its Critics, New York: Columbia University
Press, 204–254.
D. Held (Ed.). A Globalizing World? Culture, Economics, Politics. London. NY:
211
Global Shifts: Power and Routledge. The Open University.    
Governance
Dadwal, Shebonti Ray and Uttam Kumar Sinha, ed. 2015. Non-Traditional
Security Challenges in Asia: Approaches and Responses. Routledge.
Deng, N. (2005), On the national literature’s tactics in the globalisation’s language
environment, Journal of Human Institute of Humanities, Science and Technology,
1, 39-41.
Der Derian, James (ed.), 1995. International Theory: Critical Investigations,
London: Macmillan.
Destsch, Klaus Gunter and Bernhard Speyer, eds. (2001) The World Trade
Organization Millennium Round: Free Trade in the Twenty-first century. New
York: Routledge.
Doh, Jonathan P., and Hildy Teegen (2003). “Globalisation and NGOs:
Transforming Business, Government and Society”, Journal of International
Business Studies, 2003, pp. 565-66).
Donnelly, Jack, 2000. Realism and International Relations, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Dowlah, Caf, ed. (2004). Backwaters of Global Prosperity: How Forces of
Globalisation and GATT/WTO Trade Regimes Contribute to the Marginalization
of the World’s Poorest Nations. Westport: Praeger.
Doyle, Michael W., 1997. Ways of War and Peace: Realism, Liberalism, and
Socialism, New York: Norton.
Dunning John H. and S. M. Lundan. 2008. Multinational Enterprises and the
Global Economy, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Elliott, Lorraine. 2004. The Global Politics of the Environment. New York:
Palgrave Macmillan. Heywood, V.H, and k. Gardner, eds.1995. Global
Biodiversity Assessment, Cambridge: UNEP and Cambbridge University Press.
Emmerson, Donald, K. ed. 2009. Hard Choices: Security, Democracy and
Regionalism in Southeast Asia. Singapore: Utopia Press.
Foweraker, J. (1995). Theorizing Social Movements, London: Pluto Press.
Frank, A. G. 1967. Capitalism and Underdevelopment in Latin America, New
York: Monthly Review Press.
Frank, A. G. 1975. On Capitalist Underdevelopment, New York: Oxford
University Review Press.
Friedman, J. (1994), Culture Identity and Global Process, London, UK: Sage.
Friedman, T. (1999). The Lexus and the Olive Tree, New York: Farrar Straus
Giroux.
Ganguly, Sumit, Manjeet Pardesi and Nicolas Blarel, eds. 2017. The Oxford
Handbook to India’s National Security. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Ganguly, Sumit. 2016. Deadly Impasse: Indo-Pakistan Relations at the Dawn of
a New Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

212
Geertz, Clifford (1973), Religion as a Cultural System, The Interpretation of Suggested Readings
Cultures, New York: Basic Books.
Gibson, J., and D. McKenzie, Australia’s Pacific Seasonal Worker Pilot Scheme:
Development Impacts in the First Two Years, New Zealand: University of Waikato,
2011.
Giddens, Anthony. (1999). Runaway World: How Globalisation is Reshaping
our Lives. London: Profile Books Ltd.
Gill,Stephen(2000).TowardaPostmodernPrince?TheBattleofSeattleasaMomentintheNewPoliticsofGlobalisation,
Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 29.1: 131­140.
Gills, Barry K. (2000) (ed). Globalisation and the Politics of Resistance, New
York: St. Martin’s Press.
Gilpin, Robert. (1987). The Political Economy of International Relations. New
Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Gilpin, Robert. (2001). Global Political Economy: Understanding the
International Economic Order, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Gilpin, Robert. 2003. The Challenge of Global Capitalism, Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
Göksel, Nilüfer Karacasulu. (2012), “Globalisation and the State” http://
sam.gov.tr/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/1.-NiluferKaracasuluGoksel.pdf.
Gordon, Suzanne E. (2008), “Changing Concepts of Sovereignty and Jurisdiction
in the Global Economy: Is there a Territorial Connection?” York University. http:/
/ccges.apps01.yorku.ca/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/gordon-changing-
concepts-of-sovereignty-and-jurisdiction-in-the-global-economy-is-there-a-
territorial-connection.pdf.
Gray, John. (1995). Liberalism. Buckingham: Open University Press
Greig, J. Michael (2002), The End of Geography?: Globalisation,
Communications, and Culture in the International System, The Journal of Conflict
Resolution, Vol. 46, No. 2, April, 225-243.
Gustafson, Lowell S. (ed.), 2000. Thucydides’ Theory of International Relations,
Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.
Guzzini, Stefano, 1998. Realism in International Relations and International
Political Economy: The Continuing Story of a Death Foretold, London:
Routledge.
Harbour, Frances V., 1999. Thinking About International Ethics, Boulder:
Westview.
Hardt, M. and A. Negri (2000). Empire, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Hardt, M. and A. Negri (2004). Multitude: War and Democracy in the Age of
Empire, New York: The Penguin Press.
Hayes, Richard D., Christopher M. Korth, Manucher Roudiani. 1972.
International Business: An Introduction to the World of the Multinational Firm.
New Jersey: Englewood Press,
213
Global Shifts: Power and Held, David & McGrew, Anthony. (2003). The Global Transformations Reader:
Governance
An Introduction to the Globalisation Debate. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Herz, Thomas, 1951, Political Realism and Political Idealism: A Study of Theories
and Realities, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Heywood, Andrew. (2007). Politics. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Heywood, Andrew. (2015), Global Politics. Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Hirst, P. & Thompson G. (1999). Globalisation in Question. Cambridge:
Cambridge Polity Press.
Hobbes, Thomas, 1994 (1660), Leviathan, Edwin Curley (ed.), Indianapolis:
Hackett.
Hobsbawm, Eric. (1996). The Age of Revolution 1789-1848. New York: Vintage.
Hoekman, Bernard and Michel Kostecki. (2001). The Political Economy of the
World Trading System: From GATT to WTO. New York: Oxford University Press
Hoffman, Stanley, 1981. Duties Beyond Borders: On the Limits and Possibilities
of Ethical International Politics, Syracuse: Syracuse University Press.
Holton, Robert (2000), Globalisation’s Cultural Consequences, American
Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 570, July, 140-152.
Holum, John D. 1999. “The Proliferation of Weapons Of Mass Destruction:
Challenges and Responses. U. S. Foreign Policy Agenda”, USIA Electronic
Journals, Volume 4, No. 2.
Hopewell, Kristen. (2016). Breaking the WTO: How Emerging Powers Disrupted
the Neo-liberal Project?.California: Standford University Press.
Hudson, Alan. (1998), “Beyond the Borders: Globalisation, Sovereignty and
Extra-Territoriality”, Geopolitics. Vol. 3, No. 1.
Huntington, Samuel (1996), Clash of Civilizations, New York: Simon & Schuster.
India’s Position on Legal Status of Refugess, Introduction, 2010, available at:http:/
/shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/128419/12/09_chapter%201.pdf
International Organization for Migration (IOM), World Migration Report, 2018,
available at:https://publications.iom.int/system/files/pdf/wmr_2018_en.pdf
International Organization for Migration (IOM), World Migration Report, 2011,
available at:https://publications.iom.int/system/files/pdf/wmr2011_english.pdf
IOM’s Strategy to Enable, Engage and Empower Diaspora, IOM, Geneva, 2017,
available at:https://diaspora.iom.int/ioms-strategy-enable-engage-and-empower-
diaspora.
Ipsos MORI, Perceptions are Not Reality: What the World Gets Wrong, December,
2016, available at:www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/perceptions-are-not-reality-
what-world-gets-wrong?language_content_entity=en-uk.
Jackson, Robert and Georg Sørensen, 2003. Introduction to International
Relations: Theories and Approaches, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

214
Kaldor, Mary (2000). ‘Civilising Globalisation: The Implications of the Battle Suggested Readings
of Seattle’. Millennium: A Journal of International Studies, 29/4: 105–14.
Kean. J. (2003). Global Civil Society?, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kennan, George F., 1951. Realities of American Foreign Policy, Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Keohane, Robert O. and Joseph Nye, 1977. Power and Independence: World
Politics in Transition, Boston: Houghton Miffin.
Keohane, Robert O., 1989. International Institutions and State Power: Essays
in International Relations Theory, Boulder: Westview.
Khagram, Sanjeev, James Riker, and Kathryn Sikkink (2002). “From Santiago
to Seattle”: Transnational advocacy groups restructuring world politics. In
Restructuring world poltics, transnational social movements, networks, and
norms, eds. S. Khagram, J. Riker and K. Sikkink. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
Khor, Martin. 2001. “Globalisation and Sustainable Development: The Choices
Before Rio+10”, International Review for Environmental Strategies, vol.2, no.2.
King, Garry, and Christopher Murray., Rethinking Human Security, Political
Science Quarterly, vol. 116, no.4
Korab-Karpowicz, W. Julian, 2012. On History of Political Philosophy: Great
Political Thinkers from Thucydides to Locke, New York: Routledge.
Korab-Karpowicz, W. Julian, 2017. Tractatus Politico-Philosophicus: New
Directions for the Development of Humankind, New York: Routledge.
Koser, K., Dimensions and dynamics of irregular migration, Population, Space
and Place, 16, 3, 2010.
Kumar Chanchal, Lunghthuiyang Riamei and Sanju Gupta (2017). Understanding
Global Politics, New Delhi: KW Publishers Pvt Ltd.
Kurian, V Mathew (2007). “Alternatives to Globalisation: A Search’ in
Mainstream, Vol XLV, No 35, Saturday 18 August 2007 ,
Lebow, Richard Ned, 2003. The Tragic Vision of Politics: Ethics, Interests and
Orders, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Linklater, Andrew, 1990. Beyond Realism and Marxism: Critical Theory and
International Relations, Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Machiavelli, Niccolò, 1515. The Prince, trans. Harvey C. Mansfield, Jr., Chicago:
Chicago University Press, 1985.
Machiavelli, Niccolò, 1531. The Discourses, 2 vols., trans. Leslie J. Walker,
London: Routledge, 1975.
Macintyre, Anthony G., George W. Christopher, Edward Eitzen, Jr., et.al. 2000.
Weapons of Mass Destruction Events With Contaminated Casualties Effective
Planning for Health Care Facilities, JAMA, January 12.
Mahbub-ul-Haq. 1999. Reflections on Human Development, London: Oxford
University Press.
215
Global Shifts: Power and Mansfield, Harvey C. Jr., 1979. Machiavelli’s New Modes and Orders: A Study
Governance
of the Discourses on Livy, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Mansfield, Harvey C. Jr., 1996. Machiavelli’s Virtue, Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Maxwell, Mary, 1990. Morality among Nations: An Evolutionary View, Albany:
State University of New York Press.
Mearsheimer, John J., 1990. “Back to the Future: Instability in Europe After the
Cold War,” International Security, 19: 5–49.
Mearsheimer, John J., 2001. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, New York:
Norton.
Meinecke, Friedrich, 1998. Machiavellism: The Doctrine of Raison d’État in
Modern History, trans. Douglas Scott. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction
Publishers.
Migration Advisory Committee, (2014), Migrants in Low-Skilled Work: The
Growth of EU and Non-EU Labour in Low-Skilled Jobs and its Impact on the
UK, London.
Modelski, George. 1979. “Transnational Corporations and the World Order in
George Modelski, ed. Transnational Corporations and World Order, Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Molloy, Seán, 2003. “Realism: a problematic paradigm,” Security Dialogue,
34(1): 71–85.
Molloy, Seán, 2006. The Hidden History of Realism. A Genealogy of Power
Politics, Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
Morgenthau, Hans J., 1946. Scientific Man Versus Power Politics, Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Morgenthau, Hans J., 1951. In Defense of the National Interest: A Critical
Examination of American Foreign Policy, New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Morgenthau, Hans J., 1954. Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power
and Peace, 2nd ed., New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Morgenthau, Hans J., 1970. Truth and Power: Essays of a Decade, 1960–1970,
New York: Praeger.
Nardin, Terry and David R. Mapel, 1992. Traditions in International Ethics,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nau, Henry R. (2009). Perspective on International Relations, Washington DC:
CQ Press.
Nayyar, Deepak, ed. (2002) Governing Globalisation: Issues and Institutions,
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Niebuhr, Reinhold, 1932. Moral Man and Immoral Society: A Study of Ethics
and Politics, New York: Charles Scriber’s Sons.
Niebuhr, Reinhold,, 1944. The Children of Light and the Children of Darkness:
A Vindication of Democracy and a Critique of Its Traditional Defense, New
216 York: Charles Scribner & Sons.
Nye, Joseph S. and John D. Donahue, eds. (2000). Governance in a Globalizing Suggested Readings
World, Washington, D.C: Brookings Institution Press.
Oommen, G. Z., South Asia–Gulf migratory corridor: Emerging patterns, prospects
and challenges. Migration and Development, 5, 3, 2015.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), The fiscal
impact of immigration in OECD countries. In: International Migration Outlook
2013. OECD, Paris, 2013.
Ozkan, Gokhan (2012). ‘Emergence of International Political Economy as a Sub-
Discipline of International Relations and Impact of the Global Crisis on
International Political Economy’, International Journal of Business and Social
Science, Vol. 3 No. 13; July. Pp. 198-204.
Paul, Darel E. and Abla Amawi, eds. (2013). The Theoretical Evolution of
International Political Economy: A Reader New York: Oxford University Press
Pednekar, Samiksha. ‘The impact of international institutions on the idea of
sovereignty’. Linkedin. July 20, 2016. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/impact-
international-institutions-idea-sovereignty-samiksha-pednekar.
Pieterse, Jan Naderveen (2015),Globalisation and Culture: Global Mélange,
Lanham, Boulder, New York, London: Rowman & Littlefield.
Pieterse, Jan. (1995), Globalisation as hybridization, in Global modernities,(ed.)
Mike Featherstone, S. Lash, Ronald Robertson, London: Sage Publications.
Pocock, J. G. A., 1975. The Machiavellian Movement: Florentine Political
Thought and the Atlantic Political Tradition, Princeton: Princeton University
Press.
Rao, MB and Manjula Guru. (2001). WTO and International Trade . New Delhi:
Vikas Publishing House.
Rao, P.K. (2000). The World Trade Organization and the Environment. New
York: St Martin’s Press.
Ringmar, Erik. (2017). “The Making of the Modern World”, in Stephen
McGlinchey, ed. International Relations. Bristol: E-International Relations
Publishing.
Ritzer, George. (2010). Globalisation: A Basic Text. Sussex: Wiley Blackwell.
Robertson, Ronald (1992), Globalisation: Social Theory and Global Culture,
London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Rosenau, James N. and Marry Durfee, 1995. Thinking Theory Thoroughly:
Coherent Approaches to an Incoherent World, Boulder: Westview.
Russell, Greg, 1990. Hans J. Morgenthau and the Ethics of American Statecraft,
Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.
Ryan, Alan, (1993). “Liberalism”. Pp. 291-311 in Robert E. Good and Philip
Petti eds. A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy. Oxford: Blackwell.
Sachs, Wolfgang. 1999. Planet Dialectics: Explorations in Environment and
Development, London: Zed Books
217
Global Shifts: Power and Sagan, Scott D. 2009. “The Causes of Nuclear Weapon Proliferation”, Annual
Governance
Review of Political Science.
Sampson, Gary P., ed. (2001). The Role of the World Trade Organization in Global
Governance. New York: the UN University Press.
Sarooshi, Dan. (2010) International Organzations and their Exercise of Sovereign
Powers. Oxford, UK.
Scheuerman, William, 2011. The Realist Case for Global Reform, Cambridge:
Polity.
Scheuerman, William. (2014). Globalisation. In Stanford Encyclopaedia of
Philosophy. Retrieved from http://www.bibme.org/citation-guide/apa/website/
Scholte. J.A. (2005). Globalisation: A Critical Introduction. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Shultz, George P., William J. Perry, Henry A. Kissinger and Sam Nunn. 2007. “A
World Free of Nuclear Weapons”, Wall Street Journal, January.
Sleat, Matt, 2013. Liberal Realism: A Realist Theory of Liberal Politics,
Manchester: Manchester University Press. (Scholar)
Smith, Steve, Ken Booth, and Marysia Zalewski (eds.), 1996. International
Theory: Positivism and Beyond, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Somavia, Juan. 1999. People’s Security-Globlalising Social Progress. ILO.
Speth, James Gustave. 2004. Global Environmental Challenges, Transitions to
a Sustainable World. Yale: Yale University Press.
Srivastava, R., and A. Pandey., Internal and International Migration in South
Asia: Drivers, Interlinkage and Policy Issues, 2017. United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization, New Delhi.
Steger, Manfred B. (2017), Globalisation: A very short Introduction, UK: Oxford
University Press.
Strong, Maurice. 2001. Where on Earth Are We Going. New York: Texere.
Thompson, Kenneth W., 1980. Masters of International Thought, Baton Rouge:
Louisiana State University Press.
Thompson, Kenneth W., 1985. Moralism and Morality in Politics and Diplomacy,
Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Thorsen, Dag Einar and Amund Lie. 2009. What is Neoliberalism?. Working
Paper. University of Oslo www.folk.uio.no/daget/neoliberalism.pdf
Thucydides, 1993. On Justice, Power, and Human Nature: The Essence of
Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War, Paul Woodruff (ed. and trans.),
Indianapolis: Hackett.
Thucydides. History of the Peloponnesian War, trans. Rex Warner,
Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1972.
UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Global Trends: Forced
Displacement in 2017, Geneva, 2017.
218
UNCTAD. 2007. The Universe of the Largest Transnational Corporations. New Suggested Readings
York: United Nations Publication. http://unctad.org/en/Docs/iteiia20072en.pdf
UNCTAD. 2013. “Global Value Chains: Investment and Trade for Development”
in World Investment Report 2013. http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/
wir2013en.pdf
UNCTAD. 2017. “Investment and the Digital Economy”, World Investment
Report 2017, http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/wir2017_en.pdf
Van Hear, N., “Diasporas, recovery and development in conflict-ridden societies”,
in The Migration-Development-Nexus:A Transnational Perspective on Changing
Paradigms and Organizations, T. Faist, M. Fauser and P. Kivisto, eds., London,
Palgrave Macmillan, 2011.
Vasquez, John A., 1998. The Power of Power Politics: From Classical Realism
to Neotraditionalism, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Vinod, M. J. & Deshpande, M. (2013). Contemporary Political Theory. New
Delhi: PHI Learning Private Ltd.
Walid, Abdulrahim. (n.d), ‘State Juisdiction’. Private Site for Legal Research
and Studies. https://sites.google.com/site/walidabdulrahim/home/my-studies-in-
english/7-state-jurisdiction.
Wallerstein, Immanuel (1990), Culture as the ideological battleground of the
modern world system, Theory, Culture and Society, 7: 257-81.
Waltz, Kenneth, 1979. Theory of International Politics, Boston, MA: McGraw-
Hill.
Waltz, Kenneth. 1999. “Globalisation and Governance” in PS: Political Science
and Politics, Vol. 32, No. 4, pp. 693-700.
Walzenbach, Gunter. (2017). “Global Political Economy” in Stephen McGlinchey,
ed. International Relations. Bristol: E-International Relations Publishing.
Walzer, Michael, 1977. Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical
Illustrations, New York: Basic Books.
Wang, Yi (2007), Globalisation Enhances Cultural Identity, Intercultural
Communication Studies, XVI, 83-86.
Weaver, Ole, 1996. “The Rise and the Fall of the Inter-Paradigm Debate,”
in International Theory: Positivism and Beyond, Steven Smith, Ken Booth, and
Marysia Zalewski (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 149–185.
Wendt, Alexander, 1987, 1999. Social Theory of International Politics,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wendt, Alexander, 1987. “Anarchy is What States Make of It: The Social
Construction of Power Politics,” International Organization, 46: 391–425.
Wight, Martin, 1991. International Theory: Three Traditions, Leicester:
University of Leicester Press.
Wilkins, Mira. 1991. “European and North American Multinationals, 1870-1914:
Comparison and Contrast”, in Mira Wilkins, ed., The Growth of Multinationals,
Massachusetts: Edward Elgar Publishing. 219
Global Shifts: Power and Wilkins, Mira. 1991. “Modern European Economic History and the
Governance
Multinationals”, ibid.
Wilkins, Mira. 2005. “Multinational Enterprise to 1930: Discontinuities and
Continuities”, in Alfred D. Chandler Jr and Bruce Mazlish eds. Leviathans:
Multinational Corporations and the New Global History, New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Wilkinson, Rorden (2006). The WTO: Crisis and the Governance of Global  
Trade, Abingdon, UK: Routledge
Williams, Bernard, 1985. Ethics and the Limit of Philosophy, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Williams, Bernard, 2005. “Realism and Moralism in Political Theory,” in In the
Beginning was the Deed: Realism and Moralism in Political Argument, ed. G.
Hawthorn, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1–17.
Williams, Mary Frances, 1998. Ethics in Thucydides: The Ancient Simplicity,
Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Williams, Michael C., 2005. The Realist Tradition and the Limit of International
Relations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Williams, Michael C., 2007. Realism Reconsidered: The Legacy of Hans
Morgenthau in International Relations, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Williams, Raymond (1976), Keywords, London: Flamingo.
Wohlforth, William C., 2008. “Realism,” The Oxford Handbook of International
Relations, Christian Reus-Smit and Duncan Snidal (eds.), Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Wohlforth, William C., 2011. “Gilpinian Realism and International
Relations,” International Relations, 25(4): 499–511.
World Bank (2018) “Organization”, http://www.worldbank.org/en/about/
leadership
World Bank, Migration and Development, A Role for the World Bank Group,
Washington, D.C., 2016.

220