You are on page 1of 2

Universidad Tecnolgica de Bolvar

Marketing Internacional
Prof. Jorge Cassalins

Esta lectura se presenta nicamente como material acadmico


y pretende respetar los derechos de autor respectivos.

A Brief History of Globalization


What do economists mean by globalization?
Globalization does not have one standard definition, and interpretations vary across perspectives. Even with
the discipline of economics, it is difficult to identify an authoritative definition. By 'globalization', economists
are generally speaking of increasing market integration allowing for the movement of goods, finance, capital,
production, investment, and to a lesser extent labour, across borders. Globalization by its definition implies
that the integration approaches a singular market system world-wide. As such, a more cautious view would
see the world as globalizing, a process underway but not complete. Nevertheless, few economies can be
said to be isolated from the world economy, and all economies encounter globalizing pressures and are in
some way affected by globalization even if they resist integration. The answers to what globalization is to
the economist, where it started and what is causing it are closely linked.
When did globalization begin?
Interdependence in trade produced by open trade borders across territorial boundaries existed here in the
Americas before the arrival of the Europeans, and also flourished along the Indian Ocean from Southern
Africa through to the Middle East, Persia and Asia and across the Silk Road from the Far East across
Central Asia to Europe in medieval times. These trade routes and the merchant trader economy that
facilitated them could be said to demonstrate elements of a globalizing economy and produced degrees of
inter-societal integration. The introducing of the Westphalian system of nation-states created an
international system that now co-exists and creates ongoing tensions with globalization.
To add to this historical perspective, one might argue that two early paradigms grew out of the relationship
of material progress, to civilization progress to resources and wealth accumulation required for the pace of
progress of each. In one paradigm, sustainable use of resources is matched with the desire for good
relations with neighbours, friendly and mutual trade and slower material and technological progress. In the
second paradigm, faster growth and progress was driven by competition with neighbours and ultimately
dominance over trade. Whenever progress/dominance civilization outgrew its own available resources and
required more than could be gained through friendly trade it required conquest or at least dominance over
trade to ensure sufficient concentration of wealth. It pursued conquest and dominance over its other
dominance/progress oriented neighbours, and over mutuality/sustainability societies as well. It acquired
colonies that by design offered a balance of trade more beneficial to the empire than colony. Colonial elites
faced a tension between loyalty to empire and the benefits of development through the empire's resources
which were predominant in the early stages of colonialism, and the benefits of independence and free trade
which tended to outweigh the former as the colonial economy grew.
After 1492, the Americas and Europe were in contact, with the European economy displacing the
indigenous trading systems of the Americas. During the colonial mercantilist period, wealth and power was
concentrated in the royalty and aristocracy. The feudal reign benefited the merchant class to a degree, until
settlers recognized their disadvantage and pursued independence and colonial and merchants at home
recognized that mercantilist constraints on trade between empires stood in the way of their enterprise. John
Lockes liberal philosophy lay the foundation for secular, democratic ideals along with other Enlightenment
writers, and lay the ground Adam Smiths and David Ricardos classic economic liberalism. The decline of
monarchic mercantilism and the rise of liberalism resulted in an early globalization which occurred in the
decades leading up to WWI, in part causing the war which in turn halted the globalization. The Westphalian
states that had acquired vast empires now dealt with each others aggressiveness along with the instability
from the struggle of merchant capitalists to shift power from monarchies, and the power struggle of the
working class with capitalists. Internal conflict and military alliances were the result. The Russian Revolution
had the proletariat revolt against the aristocracy and the economic elite, and planted the seeds for a divided
world in the second half of the twentieth century.
What is causing it?
After WWII, the reconstruction funds in Europe, the Marshall Plan and GATT were able to create strong
growth in the West through reconstruction and liberalized trade creating the fierce international competition
by the mid-70s. Post-WWII saw the independence of the former colonies of the West, and the pattern of

Universidad Tecnolgica de Bolvar


Marketing Internacional
Prof. Jorge Cassalins

Esta lectura se presenta nicamente como material acadmico


y pretende respetar los derechos de autor respectivos.

lending from Bretton Woods along with liberalization prescriptions of the SAPs saw developing countries
reduce tariffs, open up to foreign investment and reduce subsidies and state involvement in their
economies. Cold War bad lending and proxy wars created rampant corruption and fueled conflicts that had
their roots in colonialism, contributing to a wildly distorted global economy. Communications technology and
liberalization of finance and pure capital created the de-localizing character of globalization, vastly distorted
winners and losers and concentrated wealth in major urban financial centres. Since 1989, the other
international economy centered in Soviet socialism and the network of socialist states began to rapidly
dissolve with the fall of the Iron Curtain, opening the possibility for a global economy. Today, therefore, it is
possible to describe the international economy as one of globalization in the sense that goods, capital,
investment and production can flow across nearly any border driven by market forces rather than state
forces. The markets that are not integrated significantly into the global economy are less significant, are not
free from the influence of globalization and face globalizing pressures.
Market integration for the developing countries is marked by a low level of participation in the more valuable
segments of the supply chain, demonstrating that liberalizing policies alone cant achieve integration and
can actually work against it. The mass liberalization during the SAP period drove down commodity prices
while the share of exports in commodities for developing countries remained too high. At the same time, the
value of capital moved to technology and knowledge largely monopolized in the West, known as the
knowledge economy. The question remains as to whether developing countries are truly integrated into the
economy of finance, high technology and knowledge where most of the wealth is concentrated and
whether finance, high-technology and knowledge actually operate as free markets. For instance, a
consumer purchasing pharmaceuticals is faced with a virtual no-choice purchase (perhaps life or death)
from a firm with a 20 year monopoly on pricing. This has to be the farthest thing from perfect competition,
which is a free market's answer to efficiency and social welfare for the consumer. Add to this, the duplicitous
position of Northern countries on liberalization and protection. Northern countries ask developing countries
to liberalize indiscriminately for their own good, while they themselves pick and choose which industries to
protect and when to liberalize them. Are they really promoting free trade, or just dominance over trade?
The second paradigm revisited
To return to the original paradigms, the societies pursuing slower growth, friendly trade and sustainable
resource use were slower to migrate, since mass migration in the last few centuries has largely been a
product of empire. These societies are known as indigenous since they form the original peoples in the
lands they occupy. The indigenous civilizations viewed property in a less fixed fashion, and slower material
progress and less emphasis on dominance meant they had not acquired the technologies and resource
systems for military strength. The meeting of dominance/progress societies with fixed property and higher
military capability, with mutually relating/sustainability societies with loosely defined collective territory and
lower military technology put the latter at a disadvantage in land dealings and military, and to add to this
their populations were often decimated by disease they hadn't been exposed to before.
However, it can also be argued that the dominance/progress paradigm has been its own worst enemy, if the
lasting well-being of the majority of people is any type of goal for economics. The lack of real mutuality in
trade predictably resulted in mutual loss on many levels, even as material gains flowed to to the dominant in
dominance/progress socieities. The fast growth civilizations created enormous instability and inequity within
their own societies and dominated other indigenous and non-indigenous societies. The domination over
indigenous societies has created a long-lasting state of unequal and strained relations between them, and
the domination of non-indigenous societies has created long-lasting enmities and cyclical war. The real
questions of globalization as market integration is whether the paradigm of progress/dominance has ever
created real free markets given the significant distortions that the pursuit of dominance creates? Can such a
paradigm create stable market integration that can last more than a few historical seconds before imploding
in environmental and violent catastrophes? Is there a second trend slower to mature and arising from the
paradigm of sustainability/mutual trade, that will create true market integration globally - one that is
sustainable, being based on ecological wisdom and friendly trade?

You might also like