More handpicked essays just for you.
Globalisation ; critically discuss this
Multiculturalism affects society
Globalisation ; critically discuss this
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Britain is widely regarded as a Postmodern society, and if this is the
case must be subject to two of the central issues of this
circumstance: those of first globalisation, then multinationalism.
What is it that these concepts constitute that affects contemporary
British society? The academic, David Held describes globalisation as
"the increasing extent, intensity, velocity and impact of world-wide
interconnectedness" - that is the growing extent to which societies,
more local groupings and indeed individuals are interdependent, and
can be affected by events well outside their immediate sphere of
concern. Put simply, it is the decreasing importance of the nation
state and its boundaries. It is as a result of this, most would say,
that communities external to the nation state, and particularly other
nation states, are able to have increasing influence over each other,
in a process described as multinationalism.
In order to consider multinationalism, we must first seek to
understand its prerequisite in globalisation. It is generally regarded
as having initially been an economic phenomenon, brought about by both
an increase in world trade and an accentuated recognition of the
necessity of international co-operation in the wake of World War One.
Its earliest effects may perhaps be demonstrated by the foundation of
the League of Nations, the predecessor in many ways of the UN, in 1919
with the aim of promoting internationalism to prevent a further war.
This however, was just a shift in governments' perception of the
nation state, and the most telling demonstration must surely be in the
world-wide effects of the Wall Street Crash in ...
... middle of paper ...
...nd in
a truly Postmodern sense begin to break down boundaries. Perhaps this
compacted world situation and the increasing freedoms that closer
international co-operation bring have led to the development in turn
of multinationalism, across the world. More and more TNCs place us in
competition and economic union with the rest of the world, and the
flow of individuals and communities from nation to nation has
developed an increasingly free exchange of culture, heritage and
faith, with the sharing of traditions and customs now embraced in the
West at least. Globalisation and multinationalism are indeed key to
Postmodernism, in that they have broken down the once constricting
boundaries of the nation state and of government and traditional
institutions, placing choice of cultural identity in the hands of the
individual.
Postmodernism movement started in the 1960’s, carrying on until present. James Morley defined the postmodernism movement as “a rejection of the sovereign autonomous individual with an emphasis upon anarchic collective anonymous experience.” In other words, postmodernism rejects what has been established and makes emphasis on combined revolutionary experiences. Postmodernism can be said it is the "derivate" of modernism; it follows most of the same ideas than modernism but resist the very idea of boundaries. According to our lecture notes “Dominant culture uses perception against others to maintain authority.”
Criteria: What acts have actually been made to respond to the legacies of historical globalization? How have these effects been made in trying to respond to historical globalization? What has changed since then? What has not changed?
The latest official figures indicate that there are now more than 37,000 transnational companies controlling almost a quarter of a million subsidiaries. Ninety per cent or 34,000 are based in industrialised countries. Just over half of their subsidiaries are operating in the Developing World. 56% of the parent corporations have their base in the European Union but only 24% of their subsidiaries operate within European boundaries. The number of multinationals is growing daily and increasingly have a base in the newly industrialised countries.
As I began my research for this essay, it became clearly obvious that there is no consensus on the roots of nations. From Gellner to Smith, a million little points in time and space can be credited for the creation of a nation, which in itself carries various meanings and connotations. Believing that both modernists, who interpret nationalism as being associated with industrial economy and centralized authority, and primordialists, who argue nations are ancient and natural phenomena, make valid points, I have opted to adhere to Michael Mann’s explanation that the structure of nations ‘had multiple causes and stages cascading on top of each other in unexpected and unfortunate ways. They were contingent because different causal chains, each of which we can trace and explain quite well, came together in a way that we cannot explain in terms of either of them, yet which proved timely for the outcome’ (Mann 2012: 3). Nevertheless, despite the range of explanations for nationalism, one concept is reoccurring. Humans, either in their local, state or international societies, are driven by power, and those who have the ability to force their decisions upon others yield power. Regardless of the fact that colonialism and imperialism are no longer recognized as current practices, international society still exists under the umbrella of neo-colonial influences, of which globalization is a product of.
Hennart, J-F (2001) Theories of the Multinational Enterprise, In Rugman A. M. and T. L. Brewer (eds.) (2001) The Oxford Handbook of International Business, OUP, Oxford
The major lasting impact of human mobility across borders and across cultures is the rise of the western domination and exploitation of cultures; and which now manifests itself globalization. In this essay I seek to explain the cultural values which made western domination possible and the impact this culture, once globalized had on ecosystems. The supremacy was the product of cultural forces which were favorable to European domination, and on the part of conquered peoples, their biological susceptibility to European diseases. The cultural tradition of Western Europeans favored travel and exploration, the possession of technologies as well as a judgment system which based the value of a culture on it's technological capabilities. From an evolutionary perspective, Europeans harbored stronger disease strains than the cultures they came in contact with, particularly in the Americas; the resulting spread of illness and death among susceptible peoples gave Europeans a huge window of opportunity in which to perform their cultural imperative, which was world dominance. The ramifications of travel are a combination of cultural and environmental results. The environmental effects of travel supercede the purely ecological disruptions of forests, rivers and wildlife, and encompass the spread of cultural values and ideas about the environment and their establishment.
Although it already existed long before through primitive trade and migration, globalization has become a major factor in the world organization since the twentieth century. With the creation of transnational companies, intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations, political and economic associations appeared new powerful actors that cannot be left apart in states’ decisions and whose influence may, according to some, threaten the authority of nation-states. Indeed it can be thought that globalization is causing the end of borders between countries and what is more that it is creating a sort of universal society in which states’ sovereignty is not the main authority anymore. However this essay will try to demonstrate that globalization is not undermining state sovereignty but that it is in fact leading to its transformation and to a new variety of nations. In order to prove it I will first define the main key words and will then focus on the different arguments about the effects of globalization and finally I will demonstrate that globalization has led to a transformation of the concept of state sovereignty.
In this essay I will give a detailed explanation of what sociologists mean by the term ‘globalisation’ and how they have tried to explain it.
Multinational enterprises date back to the era of merchant-adventurers, when the Dutch East India Company and the Massachusetts Bay Company traversed the world to extract resources and agricultural products from colonies (Gilpin 278-79). While contemporary multinational corporations (MNCs) do not command the armies and territories their colonial counterparts did, they are nevertheless highly influential actors in today’s increasingly globalized world.
... If one is to read this literature in a way which will shed some light on the postcolonial condition, one must understand and adopt the theory that we are all walking amalgamations of our own unique cultures and traditions. We are all always struggling with our own identities, personal and national. We must understand that there is no "one true voice" representing an easily identifiable postcolonial condition, but, instead, each author is his or her own voice and must be read as such.
An outstanding mechanism frequently used to interpret ‘Globalization’ is the ‘World Economy’. Back to the colonial age, the coinstantaneous behaviors of worldwide capitals and energy resources flowed from colonies to western countries has been regarded as the rudiment of the economic geography (Jürgen and Niles, 2005). Nowadays, the global economy was dominated by transnational corporations and banking institutions mostly located in developed countries. However, it is apparently that countries with higher level of comprehensive national strength are eager for a bigger market to dump surplus domestic produce and allocate energy resources in a global scale, thus leads to a world economic integration. This module was supported by several historical globalists (Paul Hirst, Grahame Thompson and Deepak Nayyer) ‘their position is that globalization is nothing new but more fashionable and exaggerate, a tremendous amount of internationalization of money and trade in earlier periods is hardly less than today.’ (Frans J Schuurman 2001:64).
The progression and evolution of international business has played an integral role in the overall development and progress of the world economy, culture, and politics. The multinational corporation was an essential part of this process and has roots as far back as the 15th and 16th centuries in Western Europe, specifically in the nations of England and Holland, during a period known as mercantilism. This was a time of unprecedented global exploration, colonization, and other imperialist ventures. Organizations such as the British East India Trading Company, promoted both global trade and the acquisition of natural resources, primarily for their home countries in areas including Africa, East Asia, and the Americas. Global trade was the primary factor in the growth of the world economy during this time. However the modern MNC, as it is known today, did not appear until the 19th century. These new entities provided a new level of inter-firm connectedness, a wider division of labor, and a higher level of product integration across countries in which MNCs are growing. Studies have shown that modern MNCs are characterized by a high degree of complexity, and have not followed a linear pattern in their development. In addition, it is crucial to understand the geographical context in which these MNCs were founded. This paper will analyze the development of the multinational corporation (MNC) from the 1870s to the modern day and examine it what ways, and to what degree it has changed over time.
There is an undeniable fact that there has been a rise in globalization. It has become a hot topic amongst the field of international politics. With the rise of globalization, the sovereignty of the state is now being undermined. It has become an undisputed fact that the world has evolved to a new level of globalization, the transferring goods, information, ideas and services around the globe has changed at an unimaginable rate. With all that is going on, one would question how globalization has changed the system that is typically a collection of sovereign states. Do states still have the main source of power? What gives a state the right to rule a geographically defined region? It is believed by many that due to the introduction of international systems and increasing rate of globalization, the sovereignty of the state has been slowly eroded over time. My paper has two parts: First, it aims to take a close look at how globalization has changed the way the economy worked, specifically how it opened doors for multinational corporations to rise in power. Second, to answer the question, is it possible for it to exist today? And even so, should it?
In this letter I would like to address an issue present in the phenomenon of globalization. This refers to the increasing integration of economies around the world, particularly through trade and financial flows. Globalization also indicates the movement of people (labor) and knowledge (technology) across international borders that bring broader cultural dimensions. However, globalization is often associated with Americanization, which results of bringing a foreign country under the commercial influence of the United States, yet this can be dangerous because Americanization has the potential of infiltrating and marring another country’s culture such as it has in the Middle East.
With many of us ‘experts’ in different stories - some were macroeconomists who understood globalisation theory, some of us were labour or industry economists who understood the theories of work and industry change, some were organisation researchers who knew about change management - we started to pick holes in other people’s stories and they picked holes in ours, many with the preface, “Your story doesn’t work for me because .