Globalization and global politics – Comprehensive Notes
Framing Questions
Why is globalization so contentious?
What are the implications of the current crisis of globalization for world politics and world order?
How does the study of globalization advance understanding of world politics?
Introduction to Globalization and Global Politics
Globalization is a concept referring to the widening, deepening, and acceleration of worldwide connectivity or interconnectedness.
Popular metaphors depict globalization as a shrinking, connected, or globalized world (e.g., the ‘shrinking world’, ‘networked world’, ‘death of distance’, ‘global village’, ‘global civilization’).
Globalization simultaneously unifies and divides; it is complex and contradictory beyond these metaphors.
Making sense of globalization is essential to understanding twenty‑first‑century world politics.
Making Sense of Globalization
Globalization today is evident in almost every aspect of modern life, from fashion to finance, social media to supermarket merchandise, multinational corporations to the #MeToo movement.
It is so integral that it is an institutionalized feature of modern life for the world’s most prosperous citizens (e.g., universities are global institutions from recruitment to dissemination of research).
Mapping Globalization
In today’s global economy, nations, communities, and households are bound together through complex webs of global trade, finance, and production networks.
No national economy can insulate itself from global markets; the 2008 Global Financial Crisis (GFC) demonstrated the high level of interdependence.
A global crisis was averted through coordinated action by major economies at the 2009 G20 summit, prompting the ironic headline that “(Communist) China comes to the ‘rescue of global capitalism’.”
Pre‑GFC, global flows of capital, goods, and services reached historic levels; at its peak in 2007, these flows were estimated at of world GDP ().
Global economic integration intensified to include most of the world’s population as emerging economies (e.g., China, Brazil, India) joined a 24‑hour world economy.
After the GFC, the pace of economic globalization slowed; capital and trade flows temporarily reversed. By 2019, global flows were below peak 2007 levels but had largely recovered to around of world GDP and were expected to grow (
sources: McKinsey Global Institute 2016; WTO 2018a; Lund et al. 2019).Daily turnover in international money markets is approximately , nearly the combined annual GDP of the UK and France (as of 2017).
Transnational corporations (TNCs) exert enormous influence: turnovers exceed the GDP of many countries; they account for over of world output, control production networks that account for of world trade, and are primary sources of international investment.
An example: each iPhone involves design, services, and components from about companies across the globe.
BMW’s largest plant is in Spartanburg, South Carolina; together with other German‑owned plants in the US, BMW accounts for over of American car exports to China (as of 2018).
Contemporaries: globalization is closely linked to revolutions in transport and communications—from jet transport and containerization to mobile phones and the internet.
Between and , global data flows increased by ; internet access expanded from just over users to in 2018 (≈ of the world’s population).
Digitalization enables just‑in‑time production networks and rapid global mobilization of like‑minded people (e.g., the #MeToo movement in 2017 spread globally in real time).
Transnational connectivity also enables transnational organized crime and terrorism (e.g., networks like Yakuza, Al Shabaab; money laundering), contributing to a more disorderly and insecure world.
Globalization is a source of significant risks and vulnerabilities; this has expanded the jurisdiction of global institutions and regulatory regimes (e.g., G20, UN, WTO, ILO, International Accounting Standards Board, Forest Stewardship Council).
Global governance has grown in scope and depth: rule‑making and regulation now occur across formal intergovernmental bodies and private global regulators.
Global standards and norms increasingly become embedded in domestic law and policy; national bureaucracies are increasingly networked internationally (e.g., BRICS National Security Advisors network).
Migration patterns have shifted: migration from the Global South to the North and East to West has increased public concern about migrant movements; in 2000–2015, migration to OECD countries rose from about to annually; globally, people lived outside their birth country in 2018 (≈ women, migrant workers).
The world’s expanding middle classes travel more; in 2017 there were about tourist visits (vs. in 2000; in 2010), spending about in 2017 (WTO 2018a).
Globalization has contributed to cultural mixing, but cultural convergence is not universal; digital platforms connect audiences across borders, yet cultural identities and differences persist and often intensify.
Hyphenated and mixed identities proliferate (e.g., Asian‑British, Italian‑American, Japanese‑Brazilian).
Cultural globalization is associated with increasing cultural complexity (e.g., Hallyu in northeast India; Ibeyi performing in Yoruba, English, French, Spanish).
The internet sometimes strengthens perceived cultural or religious differences rather than bridging them, though hybridity is increasingly visible in cuisine, language, and fashion.
Box 1.1: Global Entrepreneurs – Agents of Globalization
Moambeiras (suitcase traders) of Luanda, Angola: about women travel weekly to São Paulo to buy Brazilian fashion merchandise for Luanda markets.
Brazil is popular due to shared colonial history/Portuguese language; telenovelas and fashion circulate; Angolan diaspora in Brazil; some moambeiras trading with China as competition grows.
These women illustrate informal globalization as a bridge to economic security for some in the Global South.
Box 1.2: The Engines of Globalization
Explanations of globalization typically emphasize three interrelated factors:
Technics (technological change and social organization) – modern communications infrastructure is essential for a global system.
Economics – capitalism’s insatiable demand for new markets and profits drives global economic activity.
Politics – power, interests, and institutions provide the normative infrastructure for globalization.
Governments (e.g., US, China, Brazil, UK) have been critical actors in nurturing globalization.
Box 1.3: Approaches to Conceptualizing Globalization
Materialist: globalization as a substantive, empirical process of increasing worldwide connectivity.
Constructivist: globalization as a discursive, ideational phenomenon with no fixed meaning; “what we make of it.”
Ideological: globalization as a political/economic project and ideology (e.g., neoliberal globalization).
This chapter primarily follows the materialist approach but draws on the others; accounts often combine approaches.
Globalization and Complex Interdependence
Global connectivity has created highly complex systemic interdependencies not only among countries but among global systems (finance, environment, etc.).
These interdependencies generate systemic risks (e.g., a household mortgage default in Ohio could precipitate a global financial shock).
The GFC highlighted such risks and nearly caused a global financial collapse; global governance and regulation have expanded to prevent systemic failures.
Globalization implicates health pandemics, mass‑destruction technologies, hacking, and climate change; borders offer limited protection from distant dangers.
There has been substantial growth in global governance: more than permanent intergovernmental organizations; UN remains central; private, non‑governmental, and private governance bodies proliferate (e.g., IASC, FSC).
Global governance extends into domestic policy; standards and rules cross borders and become part of national law; domestic state bureaucracies coordinate internationally (e.g., anti‑money laundering via FATF).
Migration, People, and Culture in Globalization
Globalization involves not only flows of capital and goods but also people and cultures.
Although capital and goods flow freely, people often face border controls; migration is increasing, but not universal across all states.
Global migration and globalization of culture evoke debates about identity and belonging; Appiah’s concept of the ‘lies that bind’ captures anxieties about cultural homogenization.
Digital globalization supports cultural exchange (Netflix, Facebook, etc.) but does not guarantee cultural convergence; cultural mixing continues to produce diverse, hybrid identities.
Defining Globalization
Globalization is a historical process characterized by:
The stretching of social, political, and economic activity across national frontiers, so events in one region can impact distant regions (e.g., civil conflict in Syria/Yemen displacing millions and affecting Europe).
Intensification of interconnectedness across almost every sphere of modern life (economic and ecological, global presence of Google, spread of SARS, etc.).
Accelerating pace of global flows and processes; rapid circulation of ideas, news, goods, information, capital, and technology (e.g., synchronized stock market collapse during ‘Red October’ 2018).
Deepening enmeshment of local and global; domestic and international become indistinguishable (e.g., carbon emission reductions in Mumbai or Glasgow affecting Pacific islanders).
Globalization emphasizes flows, connections, systems, and networks transcending states and continents; it highlights a structural shift in the scale of human social and economic organization and a deterritorialization of activity.
Globalization can be distinguished from universalism; it exhibits a variable geometry, with differential inclusion across regions and populations (Castells).
Time–space compression is a hallmark: technologies of mobility and communication shrink geographic distance and time.
The concept of ‘transworld’ relations (as opposed to international) captures globalization’s reach beyond traditional borders.
Box 1.3 (Approaches) remains a reference point: materialist, constructivist, and ideological explanations often converge or conflict in explaining globalization’s causes and consequences.
Box 1.4: Waves of Globalization
Wave 1 (1450–1850): Age of Discovery – European expansion and conquest shaped early globalization.
Wave 2 (1850–1914): Belle Époque/Pax Britannica – massive global spread of European empires; globalization collapsed in 1914 with WWI.
Wave 3 (1960s–present): Contemporary globalization – a new epoch of global connectivity that some argue surpasses the Belle Époque.
Some argue a Wave 4 is forming, driven by digital technologies and the rise of China, Brazil, and India.
The Crisis of Globalization and the Liberal World Order
The GFC precipitated the first crisis of globalization, with global economic flows reversing rapidly; an existential threat to the global economic system.
G20 coordination contained the immediate crisis, but it intensified a broader “left behind” movement (Eatwell & Goodwin 2018).
The political shockwaves include Brexit (UK’s 2016 referendum) and the rise of nationalist populism (MAGA in the US, etc.), signaling a backlash against globalization and liberal multilateralism.
The crisis has been associated with a perceived decline or reevaluation of Western liberal hegemony and the liberal world order.
Three developments converge in this crisis:
1) Global populist revolt; 2) Drift toward authoritarianism; 3) Return and intensification of great power rivalry.Right‑wing nationalist populism has become mainstream across Europe, the Americas, and beyond; it is rooted in distrust of mainstream politics, opposition to multiculturalism, rising inequality, and dealignment with traditional parties.
US policy under Trump (and broader Western shifts) has emphasized protectionism, unilateralism, and skepticism toward multilateralism, challenging the liberal order (e.g., withdrawing from the Climate Treaty and TPP).
There is a perceived drift toward authoritarianism globally; some democracies are described as “illiberal democracies” (e.g., Hungary, Turkey) or face democratic erosion elsewhere (Freedom House 2018).
The return of great power rivalry (notably US–China competition, plus Russia and others) signals a shift from a unipolar order to a multipolar or “multiplex” order.
Three major interpretations of this conjuncture:
Skeptical: the crises reflect underlying relative decline of US power; globalization and liberal order are not doomed but are contested.
Liberal: stress the dangers to the liberal order and advocate renewed Western leadership and strength to defend the order.
Transformationalist: argue the crises reflect reconfiguration rather than demise; a post‑American/post‑Western order is emerging, with a multiplex structure and greater plurality.
The chapter argues globalization is more resilient than its critics claim; its resurgence is driven by digital globalization, non‑Western power centers (especially China), and China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).
The concept of the multiplex order, proposed by Amitav Acharya, envisions a diverse, decentred, complex, and pluralistic global order with many actors beyond the state and a multiplicity of governance levels.
Box 1.5: The Multiplex Order – Amitav Acharya’s four features:
Decentred: no single global hegemon; multiple powers.
Diverse: less US/Western‑centric; inclusive of global scope.
Complex: multiple overlapping governance layers; high interdependence.
Pluralistic: many actors beyond states; diffuse power and influence.
Box 1.6: Global Perspectives – non‑Western contributions to global politics; emphasis on post‑Western order and the legitimacy and resilience of global governance structures.
From Intergovernmentalism to Global Governance
Since the UN’s founding in 1945, there has been a profound expansion of global and regional institutions; Michael Zürn describes this as a global governance system rather than world government (Zurn 2018).
Global governance addresses “transboundary issues” (climate change, migration) produced by globalization and systemic interdependencies.
The shift does not erase the state but redefines sovereignty; the state is embedded in global governance and must cooperate multilaterally to achieve domestic objectives.
The state faces a trade‑off between effective governance and self‑governance; sovereignty remains a juridical attribute, but state autonomy is reconfigured, not erased.
Opposing Opinions 1.1 argues about sovereignty: various perspectives claim globalization erodes sovereignty, or, alternatively, strengthens state capacity through global cooperation.
Despite globalization, borders and migration controls remain powerful; illicit migration and trafficking require multilateral solutions.
Global governance can enhance security and resilience but also challenges democratic accountability and the distribution of power across diverse actors.
From State‑Centric Politics to Global Politics
Globalization has shifted politics from a state‑centric focus to geocentric/global politics; decisions in one locale affect distant communities, and vice versa.
Global politics is not solely about great powers; it includes interconnections among states, international agencies, non‑state actors, and civil society.
Geopolitics in the 21st century is better understood as inter‑polar – a system of interconnected great powers – rather than strictly multipolar.
Global politics recognizes that domestic and international are increasingly interwoven; local politics is globalized and world politics is localized.
Global politics emphasizes contestation, domination, and resistance among powerful states and transnational non‑state actors.
Global Perspectives on World Order
The crisis of the liberal world order has generated debate about the shape of a post‑Western/global order.
Liberal accounts warn of a dystopian order without rules, urging renewed Western leadership and a stronger rules‑based system.
Transformationalist accounts foresee a transformation toward a post‑American or post‑Western global order that includes a patchwork of regional norms and a plurality of governance arrangements; Acharya argues for a multiplex order that accommodates diverse powers and norms.
Three drivers of globalization’s resurgence after the GFC: (i) digital/global e‑commerce expansion; (ii) non‑Western centers gaining power (China, etc.); (iii) China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) as a “project of the century” connecting Asia, Europe, and Africa with vast infrastructure investments (e.g., Pakistan’s $60B projects).
The BRI represents a high‑speed, infrastructural form of globalization with Chinese characteristics; it is shaping the new phase of globalization and is controversial (some call it a “high‑speed empire”).
Box 1.2 (Globalization 4.0): digital globalization and globalization with Chinese characteristics; SpeedOutfitters case (Indiana) shows cross‑border e‑commerce expansion; 97% of eBay sellers export; global/ digital services drive the new phase; a $1 trillion global e‑commerce market is projected by 2020.
Globalization 4.0: A New Phase of Globalization
Two key developments shaping a new phase:
Digital globalization: services disruption by the digital revolution; fusion of robotics, AI, supercomputing, and advanced manufacturing (the fourth industrial revolution) drives a renewed phase of globalization (or “globotics”).
Globalization with Chinese characteristics: BRIs and Chinese‑led connectivity projects expand global reach.
SpeedOutfitters (Elkhart, Indiana) demonstrates the growing share of cross‑border sales and the rise of platform‑driven global commerce (eBay/Amazon marketplace).
The Addis Ababa–Djibouti railway exemplifies China’s Belt and Road Initiative in Africa; the railway links Addis Ababa with Djibouti and is essential for Ethiopia’s trade, financed under China’s “project of the century.”
Pakistan alone has infrastructure projects worth around under the BRI.
The BRI is a contested but significant force in shaping a new, decentred globalization; it embodies globalization with Chinese characteristics.
From State‑Centric to Global Politics: The Conceptual Shift
The shift toward global politics requires rethinking traditional frameworks that center the state; global politics is characterized by domination, competition, and resistance among powerful states and transnational non‑state actors.
Global politics implies that political life operates across borders; power is exercised and contested at multiple scales.
Sovereignty is reinterpreted; borders are porous; governance is increasingly transnational and multi‑level (local, regional, global).
Box 1.5: The Multiplex Order (Amitav Acharya)
A multiplex order is:
Decentred: no global hegemon; many powers.
Diverse: less Western‑centric; broader global inclusivity.
Complex: multiple, overlapping levels of governance; high interdependence.
Pluralistic: many actors beyond states; power dispersed among state and non‑state actors, traditional and new powers.
The multiplex order is a decentralized, diversified, interconnected, and pluralistic world order where North/South and established/new powers interact in a networked system.
Box 1.6: Global Perspectives – Post‑Western Global Order
Amitav Acharya and others argue for a post‑Western/global order that is more diverse, pluralistic, and networked, with power distributed across multiple actors and regions.
The emerging order is not inherently anti‑Western; it is a non‑Western order that coexists with traditional liberal norms and institutions.
Key Transformations in World Politics Associated with Globalization
Three major transformations:
1) From state‑centred international politics to geocentric/global politics.
2) From a liberal world order to a post‑Western/global order (multiplex/alternative orders coexisting).
3) From intergovernmentalism to global governance (increasing cross‑border issues necessitate multilateral cooperation and private governance).Global governance reshapes state power by embedding national policies within international regimes and cross‑border networks.
Case Studies and Contemporary Dynamics
Case Study 1.1: Rubbishing globalization – the crisis in toxic trade (recycling waste)
A Beijing import ban (July 2017) on all recycled waste, effective Jan 2018, disrupted global recycling flows.
In 2016, ~ of the world’s of recyclable waste was processed outside its country of origin; over of plastic and electronic waste exports from G7 countries and of paper waste ended up in China/Hong Kong.
The ban redirected recycling exports from the West to other Asian countries, significantly altering recycling economics and leading to waste piling up in British, European, Australian, and US cities.
Basel Convention efforts regulate hazardous waste; amendment to cover recycling waste has not yet entered into force (as of 2019) due to industry opposition and some Western governments’ concerns.
The Basel Action Network and other environmental groups advocate for tougher global regulation akin to Bamako Convention for Africa.
Ethical questions include responsibilities to global environmental justice, allocation of waste burdens, and the ethics of exporting waste to lower‑income regions.
Case Study 1.2: Globalization 4.0 – SpeedOutfitters and the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI)
SpeedOutfitters (Elkhart, IN): of total sales outside the US in ; ${}^{ }97\%$ of eBay sellers export; global e‑commerce projected to reach by 2020.
The Addis Ababa–Djibouti railway (2018) marks a milestone for China’s BRI; the project connects Ethiopia’s trade flows through Djibouti; Pakistan’s infrastructure commitments under the BRI are valued at .
The BRI symbolizes a global infrastructure network expanding Chinese influence; raises questions about debt diplomacy, governance, transparency, and regional power shifts.
From National to Global Governance and Sovereignty
Global governance does not abolish the state; states retain sovereignty but share policy space with global/regional institutions and non‑state actors.
Sovereignty is reconfigured; the state’s capacity to self‑govern may be constrained by global rules and networks, but intergovernmental cooperation can strengthen domestic policy outcomes.
Opposing Opinions 1.1 (
a) Globalization erodes state power and sovereignty; b) Global governance enhances security but reduces democratic autonomy; c) Globalization threatens democratic accountability; d) Border controls remain critical for sovereignty; e) Multilateral cooperation is essential to address vulnerabilities.The chapter argues against the idea that globalization leads to the end of the state; instead, it produces reconfiguration and transformation of sovereignty and governance.
The chapter also emphasizes that the current crisis is about legitimacy of Western liberal hegemony rather than the outright collapse of globalization; a rebalancing toward a post‑Western/global plural order is underway.
Transformations in World Politics and Implications for Study
Globalization challenges traditional state‑centric IR theories by introducing geocentric, world‑centric, and global imaginaries (Steger; Albert).
It invites a holistic view of global systems (economic, political, social) and emphasizes interdependence and systemic risk.
It highlights Western‑centrism in IR and calls for greater reflexivity about assumptions and theories.
It foregrounds disruptive change and transformations (as opposed to continuity) and urges a rethinking of power dynamics and legitimacy in world politics.
The broader project asks: How should globalization be governed, for whom, and under what norms and institutions?
Key Points (Summary)
Globalization refers to widening, deepening, and accelerating worldwide interconnectedness.
After the GFC, economic globalization briefly retreated but recovered; non‑economic dimensions (digital globalization) have continued to intensify.
Globalization is driving a growth in transnational/global governance, rule‑making, and regulation.
Globalization is highly uneven in its inclusivity and distributional consequences; DL (distribution of benefits and burdens) is marked by a geography of inclusion and exclusion.
It is associated with time–space compression and deterritorialization/denationalization of power.
Sceptical perspectives view globalization as a myth or a by‑product of hegemonic power; globalists view it as a real and disruptive force.
Transformationalists (a subset of globalists) argue for radical changes in the understanding of world politics, suggesting a post‑Western/global order (multiplex) is emerging.
Liberal world order debates include arguments about its resilience vs. its decline; some see a return to a dystopian world without rules, while others see a post‑American/multiplex order emerging.
The new phase of globalization is increasingly led by digital technologies and the non‑Western rise (China, India, etc.), with the Belt and Road Initiative playing a central role.
Global governance and state sovereignty are not mutually exclusive; globalization reshapes sovereignty and policy autonomy, but does not erase it.
Key Questions for Review
How do globalization, internationalization, and international interdependence differ?
What are the three major transformations in world politics associated with globalization?
Why is global politics today described as ‘contentious global politics’?
What are the sceptical vs globalist interpretations of globalization, and where do liberal vs transformationalist positions sit within globalist thought?
How does the multiplex order differ from the liberal world order, and what implications does this have for future world politics?
What are the main arguments around the crisis of globalization and the liberal world order, and is deglobalization imminent?
How do Case Study 1.1 (recycling/toxic trade) and Case Study 1.2 (Globalization 4.0 and BRI) illustrate the complexities of globalization?