You are on page 1of 3


The authors describe the hyperglobalist perspective as an approach which sees globalization as a new
epoch in human history. This new epoch is characterized by the declining relevance and authority of
nation-states, brought about largely through the economic logic of a global market. Economies are
becoming “denationalized.”

Held and his colleagues point out, however, that even within this perspective, different authors assess the
value of these changes in very different ways. While hyperglobalist scholars may agree on the general
factors behind globalization and the likely outcome of this process, they disagree sharply over whether
these forces are good or bad. The authors distinguish between neo-liberal versus neo-Marxist
orientations, and describe their different assessments of the outcomes of globalization.

Greater Benefits or Greater Inequality?

In terms of the “winners” and “losers” of the new global order, both orientations agree that the lines and
cleavages of economic benefit are changing. One the one hand, neo-liberals view this as largely a good
thing. They say that nearly all countries have a comparative advantage in one way or another within the
global economy. There will be groups who will be worse off, but on the whole, the benefits are greater
than in the past.

On the other hand, neo-Marxist scholars view the neo-liberal optimism with deep suspicion. Global
capitalism, they believe, will only create and reinforce inequalities within and between countries.

The Demise of the Nation-State

With increasing economic globalization, transnational governance organizations will become increasingly
important. The result is that national governments will lose influence and be forced to operate increasingly
according to rules they do not create.

This may be a bad thing, according to some scholars, as the democratic social models implemented and
protected by nation-states will become increasingly insupportable. Other scholars counter, however, that
the diffusion of a “consumerist ideology” is the first step in breaking down traditional modes of
identification. The spread liberal democracy will extend the global reach of more universal principles of
economic and political organization. A truly global civilization will become possible.

Both assessments agree, however, that the fundamental reconfiguration of the global economy will spell
the demise of the nation-state and the irrelevance of the welfare state.

Held and his colleagues say that the skeptical perspective on globalization views current international
processes as more by fragmented and regionalized than globalized. In fact, according to skeptical
authors, the “golden age” of globalization occurred at the end of the 19th century. Current processes
show, at best, a regionalization.

The authors say that skeptics also disagree whether old cleavages are becoming increasingly irrelevant.
The third world is not being drawn into a global economy that destroys old lives of benefit and
exploitation. Quite the contrary, the third world, say skeptical authors, is becoming increasingly

Held and his colleagues say that skeptical authors point to the fact that foreign investment flows into the control of a few advanced economies. 2. the range of factors influencing processes of globalization is much greater. The processes are automatically progressing in a linear manner toward these ideal outcomes. Transformationalist authors understand that a new world order “architecture” is developing. For transformationalist authors. however. They are unacceptably teleological. scholars in the skeptical perspective view global capitalism as a myth. argue Held and his colleagues. The growth of multinational corporations does not mean that nation-states are no longer relevant for governing the flows of economic benefits.In contrast to perspectives that emphasize the growth of global capitalism. their approach is considerably less certain about the historical trajectories of these changes and less limiting of the factors driving globalization. Multinational corporations are still tied primarily to their home states or regions. Statistical patterns do not speak for themselves. argue the authors. So. For instance. view the nature of national governments as changing (being reconstituted and restructured) but a description of this change as merely growing or waning is oversimplified. and the outcomes are much less certain. hyperglobalist authors believe that the power of national governments is waning. Hyperglobalist authors describe the erosion of old patterns of stratification. though the exact nature of the emerging patterns of stratification are not yet clear. AN ALTERNATIVE APPROACH The hyperglobalist and skeptical perspectives suffer from two underlying problems: 1. What is really going on. even though transformationalist authors describe many of the same general changes involved in globalization.  The outcome of processes of globalization is not determined. In general. Transformationalist authors. TRANSFORMATIONALIST PERSPECTIVE Held and his colleagues say that the transformationalist perspective differs fundamentally from the other two perspectives in that:  There is no single cause (that is. is that global governance structures and culture exist as a disguised version of neo-liberal economic strategies that benefit the West. In contrast. Skeptical authors argue that the global South is becoming increasingly marginalized. Skeptic authors argue that the power of national governments is growing. they argue. Authors with a skeptical perspective reject the notions of the development of a global culture or a global governance structure. the market or economic logic) behind globalization. and these ties produce benefits for these states or regions. the historical process of globalization must be understood in more sophisticated terms . the authors of the transformationalist perspective have a much less determinate understanding of the processes of globalization than authors from the other perspectives. They compare current processes of globalization to ideal types. They are unacceptably empiricist. but have to be interpreted with reference to a range of meanings.