See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/250230985

The Essentially Contested Concept of Globalization

Article  in  Politics and Ethics Review · April 2005

DOI: 10.3366/per.2005.1.1.45

CITATION READS

1 702

3 authors, including:

Tina Zappile
Stockton University
13 PUBLICATIONS   28 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Namibia's Voting Patterns in the U.N. System View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Tina Zappile on 12 August 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

01 pages 001-120 19/4/05 12:43 pm Page 45

THE ESSENTIALLY CONTESTED CONCEPT

OF GLOBALIZATION

JONATHAN R. STRAND, TINA F. MUELLER,

JESSICA A. McARTHUR

It is an understatement to say a growth industry has emerged around the concept

‘globalization’. Observers of all political leanings have been focusing attention
on the process of globalization and its implications for corporations, states, and
labour groups (e.g., Waters, 1995; Rodrik, 1995; Peterson, 1996; Veseth, 1997;
Sassen, 1999). At issue are the intended and unintended effects of the global-
ization of product and financial markets into transnational systems. Some
authors view globalization as threatening state sovereignty while others fear that
globalization is eroding the gains made by labour in the twentieth century.
Several authors see globalization as part of a long-term process whereby the
meaningfulness of national borders is vanishing. Still others treat globalization
as a new phenomenon. When defining globalization, economic, political, social,
and cultural factors are combined and emphasized differently. Most authors
provide a multidimensional definition of globalization, but few authors go
beyond economic measures, descriptive case studies, and/or anecdotes. Those
who do operationalize the concept often use economic measures such as trade
density or capital flows as a proxy for what most authors would agree is a more
nuanced and multifaceted concept. Moreover, many authors employ a notion
of globalization that differs little from the concepts of transnationalization
and interdependence. Needless to say, there is no intersubjective definition of
globalization.1
Beyond the definitional morass, there appears to be divergent views in
the public discourse regarding what globalization represents and whether the
process of globalization has positive or negative effects on the state, business,
and labour. If globalization is a distinct and unique socio-economic force, then
what are the implications for national governments, labour, and transnational
corporations? Is globalization eroding state sovereignty? Are workers dis-
advantaged vis-à-vis globalizing capital? Can more equitable and/or effective
global institutions be constructed in this age of globalization?

Politics and Ethics Review, 1(1) 2005, 45-59 ISSN 1743-453X

© Edinburgh University Press 2005

45
01 pages 001-120 19/4/05 12:43 pm Page 46

Jonathan R. Strand, Tina F. Mueller, Jessica A. McArthur

Counting the number of books, articles, dissertations, and op-ed pieces with
the term globalization in their titles the questions above seem to be among
the most paramount in international relations.2 Clearly globalization is almost
universally recognized as a concept worthy of study by social scientists. Often-
times authors use the term globalization as if it is an independent variable
impacting their subject (i.e., dependent variable). Others do not clearly specify
one definition of globalization but instead sidestep definition and classification
and assert an unsophisticated dialectical view that ‘globalization is everything
and its opposite’ (Friedman, 1999: 331). Both approaches overlook the immense
problem of how to operationalize the concept. To operationalize many social
concepts is to participate in debate about their meaning and significance
(MacIntyre, 1973: 8). Power, democracy, freedom, national interest, and sus-
tainable development are a few of the social concepts that are difficult to
operationalize and can be considered essentially contested.
For instance, consider that for democracy to exist most people would agree
there must be some form of free, fair, and competitive elections. Exactly what
constitutes ‘free’, ‘fair’, and ‘competitive’ elections is not always clear.
Elections are necessary but not sufficient for the existence of democracy.
Moreover, as the vast literature on the so-called liberal-communitarian debate
reveals, there are as many definitions of democracy as there are authors on the
subject. While democracy is perhaps a classic essentially contested concept, few
people would discard the concept simply because of its contested nature. What
makes essentially contested concepts interesting to study is precisely because the
concepts themselves are replete with scholarly controversy. In Connolly’s (1983:
20) words:

The internal complexity of the concept, combined with the relative openness
of each of its unit criteria, provides the space within which … disputes take
place, and because of these very features, operational tests and formal modes
of analysis do not provide sufficient leverage to settle such disputes.

When an author states that globalization is attaining or affecting something,

he or she is at once describing a situation and making a normative assessment.3
To borrow from MacIntyre (1973: 3) the objects and actions ‘captured’ by the
term globalization are ‘informed by the concept in question’. The problem is not
only that those who employ the term talk past one another. At issue is the fact
that most authors who employ the term are aware that others contest their usage.
In this paper we argue that globalization represents an essentially contested
concept in Connolly’s (1983) meaning. Drawing on Gallie (1955/1956),
Connolly posits three dimensions of conceptual contention: connotative, denot-
ative, and appraisive. Globalization is internally contested in that it lacks a clear
and intersubjective definition. There are a variety of definitions that incorporate,
to varying degrees, political, economic, social and cultural measures. Some

46
01 pages 001-120 19/4/05 12:43 pm Page 47

The Essentially Contested Concept of Globalization

definitions of the concept are so vague as to leave the reader perplexed as to what
is the author’s intended meaning. Lack of definitional consensus, what Connolly
terms internal complexity and contestability, is one of the three elements that
signify a concept is essentially contested. The second element is met by the
controversy over what tangible entities globalization can be applied. Does
globalization involve firms, states, labour, or some combination of real world
objects? The final element of contestation involves how globalization is
appraised; what are its normative implications? Essentially contested concepts
are not exclusively descriptive concepts. They are normative in the sense that
they convey some form of moral, political, or social evaluation. Utilizing
Connolly’s framework enables an assessment of how the concept of global-
ization itself is part of a political process. The way scholars use the concept of
globalization is, in essence, part of a political process of defining, determining
the appropriate units of analysis, and evaluating its implications. Put differently,
globalization – as a social science concept – is distended with such a myriad
of meanings, units of analysis, and normative convictions that the concept’s
meaningfulness must be questioned.
We argue that globalization meets Connolly’s criteria and can be fruitfully
assessed as a contested concept. As a contested concept, globalization is part
and parcel to a political process whereby the term is used by actors for different
objectives. In other words, because of the normative, appraisive element of
globalization, those who use the term often are not only describing a situation,
but are also – implicitly or explicitly – promoting a particular political position.
As such, we question the social-scientific utility of the concept. This is not to say
that globalization is meaningless. Indeed, because of the nature of contested
concepts, globalization is an interesting study in knowledge and concept
formation.
We first present several of the various, sometimes contradictory, meanings
ascribed to the term. Next, we assess what real world objects globalization is
thought to affect. Some authors maintain that globalization is merely an econ-
omic phenomenon while others assign it political, social, and cultural attributes.
We then consider the appraisive features of globalization whereby some
observers claim globalization is threatening national governments, labour, and
societal sub-groups and therefore justify a course of action to alleviate its (ill)
effects. This paper ends with our doubts about the utility of treating globalization
as an independent variable to explain change in the world political economy. In
short, we contend that the discursive properties of the many ‘globalizations’
make the employment of the concept subject to problems of interpretation.
Moreover, authors employing the term invite visceral reactions to their work
based merely on others’ opinions and perceptions of what globalization means.
Our conclusion reflects on the utility of globalization as a social science con-
cept and provides suggestions on how to best obtain value from the use of the
term.

47
01 pages 001-120 19/4/05 12:43 pm Page 48

Jonathan R. Strand, Tina F. Mueller, Jessica A. McArthur

Defining Globalization
Some authors describe globalization as an exogenous force behoving domestic
firms to create strategic alliances in pursuit of ever more quickly advancing
technologies (Yang, 1995: 2). In this economic-based definition, globalization
‘reflects an altered basis of corporate and national competitiveness as well as
of international investment and commerce’ (Yang, 1995: 2). Corporate com-
petitiveness, in this view, leads to national success for the geographic region
that contains corporate production and services. As an economic concept,
globalization can further be broken into financial and productive features (Cox,
1994).
In a more detailed examination of what globalization means, Barnet and
Cavanagh (1993: 155-60) present four ‘emerging institutions’ that make-up
globalization. First, they point out the rise of a global, perpetual financial
network that allows (electronic) trading. Short-term capital flows have increased
dramatically in the past 20 years, to the point where ‘transactions in foreign
exchange markets are now nearly 80 times larger than world trade’ (Torres, 2001:
1). Second, Barnet and Cavanagh describe what they term a ‘global cultural
bazaar’ of commercialization of cultures via an international communications
network and the export and import of cultural products such as movies. Third,
products from far-flung locations are increasingly available in the markets of
developed countries. In essence, this category represents the fact that increas-
ingly the nationality of goods and services is difficult to determine; leading
Reich (1990) to ask ‘who is us?’ Because of globalization (and regionalization)
‘fewer and fewer issues of trade and investment policy permit appeal to an
unequivocal national interest’ (Rapkin and Strand, 1995: 4). The final feature
presented by Barnet and Cavanagh (1993: 157) is the ‘global factory [which]
is a network of plants, contract, offices, and communications links for the
production of goods, the processing of information, and performance of services
of every description’. Obviously the four categories they use to frame their
discussion of globalization are not mutually exclusive or necessarily easily
measured.
Difficulties in defining the economic foundations of globalization exist in
large part because authors do not offer clear definitions. Krugman and Venables
(1995) for example, develop a simple model to assess how globalization impacts
the gains from free trade for developed and developing countries. They do not,
however, attempt to define globalization. They imply that it is the opening of
trade via global or regional multilateral trade agreements. Also implied in their
model is that trade liberalization affects wages.4 Torres (2001: 1) characterizes
globalization as ‘a process of rapid economic integration among countries driven
by the liberalization of trade, investment, and capital flows, as well as tech-
nological change’.5 Tilly (1995: 1) declares that globalization ‘means an increase
in the geographic range of locally consequential social interactions’. He pro-

48
01 pages 001-120 19/4/05 12:43 pm Page 49

The Essentially Contested Concept of Globalization

poses a measure of globalization based on measuring social interactions. He

concludes, however, that scholars ‘remain a long way from the evidence for such
a measure’ (1995: 2).
Woyach (1996: 339) defines globalization as ‘a process of long-term,
structural, and normative change’. Globalization in this sense is not exclusively
economic and it remains unclear whether economic integration drives political
and social globalization or if these elements can even be meaningfully separated
(Jones, 1995: 219). Cerny (1995: 596) defines globalization ‘as a set of economic
and political structures and processes deriving from the changing character of the
goods and assets that comprise the base of the international economy’. Yet even
a focus on ostensibly economic factors seems to inevitably turn to political and
social issues.
For instance, Amin and Thrift (1994: 2-5) list seven aspects of globalization.
Four of the seven have a mostly economic complexion; linkage of financial
systems, production networks, the rise of ‘global oligopolies’, and the ‘trans-
nationalization of technology’. The other aspects are not as easily defined as
economic. Amin and Thrift refer to a global ‘knowledge structure’ within which
knowledge is increasingly considered a factor of production. ‘New global
geographies’, they assert are being created by the tearing-down of national
borders. Finally, they claim that there has been a ‘rise of transnational economic
diplomacy and the globalization of state power’ denoted by states increasing
their use of multilateral arrangements to reach economic policy ends. Amin and
Thrift’s laundry list is not an exceptionally long one relative to others who
attempt to define globalization. Also, it is not the most non-economic definition
(e.g., Gibson-Graham 1996: Chapter 6). In a popular book, Holm and Sorensen
(1995: 1) define globalization as ‘the intensification of economic, political,
social, and cultural relations across [national] borders’. Exactly what they mean
by ‘intensification’ remains unclear. Most authors start with an economic
element in their definition of globalization. Unfortunately, many do not
explicitly state what economic measures capture globalization processes other
than pointing to increases in trade, cross-boarder capital flows, and information
flows. Needless to say, the measurement of globalization is problematical. It is
nearly impossible to operationalize the concept in a way that most authors would
agree is both valid and reliable.
Finally, most authors recognize that globalization is not a ‘new’ phenomenon.6
However, there is no consensus on when globalization first emerged. The
argument that economic and political forces are transforming and integrating
the world is certainly not new. Polanyi (1957) assessed the international
influence of financiers in shaping credit relations between Britain (as a world
leader) and other, less powerful states. He concluded that the formation of a
‘global economy’ was the ‘great transformation’ of the nineteenth century.7
James (2001) also recognizes globalization as a long-term process that produces
autogenous backlashes. Others trace the origins of globalization to Christopher

49
01 pages 001-120 19/4/05 12:43 pm Page 50

Jonathan R. Strand, Tina F. Mueller, Jessica A. McArthur

Columbus’ travels to the Western hemisphere (Broad, 1995). More recently,

international relations has be characterized as becoming ‘transnational’
(Keohane and Nye, 1972) and ‘interdependent’ (Keohane and Nye, 1989). The
timing of globalization and its theoretical linkage to these other arguments is not
clear. Hirst and Thompson (1992: 367-69) assert that since the early 1970s, a
marked increase in economic integration has occurred, as well as increasing
attempts by the developed world to manage the world economy through ‘liberal
multilaterism’. Tilly (1995) claims that the trend toward globalization is not
unique to this century. But he also notes that ‘it consists not of a one-way tidal
wave but of a net flow in a global direction with significant countercurrents’
(Tilly, 1995: 4). The only consensus on the timing of globalization seems to be
that it has accelerated and deepened since the 1990s. Moreover, in some way the
economic aspects of globalization are linked with political and social elements,
but the temporal relationship is ambiguous.
Most observers recognize that the trend toward globalization is occurring
simultaneously with a trend toward regionalization. Are the kinds of changes
indicated in the literature occurring regionally or globally and can a clear
distinction be made? Johnson (1991) claims that regionalization is the order of
the day and rejects the idea that globalization is rampant. In sum, measurement
of the spatial-temporal bounds of globalization is open-ended. Therefore, when
an author uses a particular definition she or he may be talking past another author
who utilizes a more or less inclusive definition. This is not merely a simple
matter of definition but a question of interpretation of the validity of a measure
(or measures).

The Denotative Dimension

Adding to the definitional convolution is the problem of what globalization
denotes. In other words, what is being globalized? Consensus seems to have
formed around the globalization of production, financial services, and other
relatively economic considerations. But of course these are not purely economic
considerations because governments and others formulate policy options to
grapple with the consequences of these economic forces. Ohmae (1990) claims
that globalization is eroding national borders, making the nation-state less
consequential. Less dramatically, Hirst and Thompson (1992: 361) assert that
domestic ‘policies, whether of private corporations or public regulators, now
have routinely to take account of the international determinants of the sphere of
operations’. Others assert that we have reached the ‘twilight of sovereignty’
(Wriston, 1992).
We are told that the role of governments is changing and adjusting to
globalization, yet exactly what this means is unclear. In their study of the global-
ization of telecommunications, Trebing and Estabrooks (1995: 543) conclude
that the options for governments to effectively regulate telecommunications are

50
01 pages 001-120 19/4/05 12:43 pm Page 51

The Essentially Contested Concept of Globalization

‘limited’. Gill (1992) notes that the globalization of economies (however

defined) has not been matched with a parallel internationalization of govern-
mental authority, except where the G7 and others have been able to engage in
collective action. Cerny (1995: 597) claims that globalization is engendering
actors that are autonomous from state control and ‘have a greater impact on
outcomes in critical issue-areas than does the state’.
Yang (1995) maintains that globalization is forcing governments to walk a fine
line between technonational and technoglobal policies in order to foster national
competitiveness. Answering the question how globalization affects national
governments would be an arduous enough a task, but globalization is thought to
affect such a wide range of social life that it remains unclear exactly what
tangible objects it impacts. If globalization is impacting everything then how can
its effects be meaningfully disentangled from intervening or antecedent factors?
Denotative problems derive from the number of ways globalization is thought
to impact states and, more generally, problems exist in establishing what other
aspects of social life are affected. One of the most widely cited impacts of
globalization is the weakening of labour’s position vis-à-vis capital (Krishnan,
1996; Tilly, 1995; Broad, 1995). Interestingly, what is at issue is how the state is
able to protect the rights and political influence of labour. Pierson (1996: 124)
captures this, arguing that changes in the world economy ‘have tended to
strengthen the bargaining position of capital over and against labour, which
cannot match capital’s new-found mobility ... and have undermined the authority
and capacity of the interventionist state’. People are increasingly not citizens but
consumers and members of ‘tribes’ (Barber, 1994). Therefore, labour’s position
in a globalizing world is linked inexorably to the plight of the (liberal) state.
States’ reactions to globalization, paradoxically, are also viewed as enlarging the
dichotomy between the rich and poor and fostering the further demise of labour
(MacEwan, 1994). From this perspective, globalization’s threat to labour and the
state compromises the institutions of liberal democratic societies and therefore
threatens all citizens (Robinson, 1995). Additional critical examinations suggest
globalization represents the unifying of social power of the urban over the rural,
the rich over the poor, the powerful over the frail, the technologically savvy over
the technologically inhibited (and Luddites) (Martin, 1999).
If globalization is a motivating force on the state, how have governments
responded? Governments have pursued policies that represent conflicting
objectives. On the one hand they have pursued policies to promote their national
competitiveness. These policies involve the use of tariff and non-tariff trade
barriers, subsides, capital controls, and research and development support to
‘national’ firms, especially in high-technology sectors. Such technonational
policies may conflict with policies aimed at enhancing the global coordination
of states’ policies. According to many observers, technonationalism and tech-
noglobalism have become institutionalized in the foreign economic trade
policies of the industrialized economies, especially the United States (Kohno,

51
01 pages 001-120 19/4/05 12:43 pm Page 52

Jonathan R. Strand, Tina F. Mueller, Jessica A. McArthur

1995; Ostry and Nelson, 1995). National governments are compelled to enact
trade policies (strategic or otherwise) in order to enhance their ‘competitive-
ness’. Even though some pundits argue that national competitiveness is a
potentially ‘dangerous obsession’ because it defeats global (liberal) trade
policies (Krugman, 1994) it remains an important and necessary concept for
political leaders to assess the relative position of countries in the global political
economy (Rapkin and Strand, 1996). Many authors have addressed the reactions
of national government to the globalization of the world economy (e.g., Rapkin
and Avery, 1995; Stubbs and Underhill, 1994). Feeding into the definitional
problem of scale, the reactions of national governments have been nationalistic,
regional, and global orientated policies.8 Ultimately, however, it remains unclear
what aspects of globalization promote or erode national competitiveness and
hence the ‘proper’ response by governments to globalization remains in dispute.
Examining the implications of globalization for business, labour, and the state
is further complicated by the disparate nature of the other real world objects that
globalization supposedly effects. Bitzinger (1994) refers to the globalization of
the production of military arms. We are told that telecommunications services
and automobile production are both globalized (Trebing and Estabrooks, 1995;
Yang, 1995). Globalization impacts and destroys cultures and undermines
‘social justice’ (Roniger, 1995). It affects how people identify themselves
(Kearney, 1995). And, globalization is even seen as a factor in the migration of
athletes (Maguire, 1995). Global social movements, such as protests against
further trade liberalization, are seen by many as a backlash to globalization. Not
surprising, the wide variety of entities globalization is thought to influence has
led to disagreement over how to appraise its impact, the third aspect of its
contestability.

The Appraisive Dimension

At its essence, the appraisive dimension of the globalization concept refers to
whether it is seen as a negative, positive, or perhaps neutral phenomenon. Ohmae
(1990) argues globalization is a positive step toward eliminating national
borders. Plattner (2002: 55) counters that a ‘shrinking world does not necessarily
lead to a borderless world’. McGrew (1992) laments the way globalization
compromises the form, authority, and legitimacy of the state. As governments
rush to grapple with problems they perceive in a ‘new world order’ they seem to
treat globalization as a fact that they do not control but instead are subject to.
While many on the right bemoan what they see as they loss of sovereignty when
national governments enter into multilateral and bilateral accords, observers on
the left are primarily concerned with globalization’s impact on labour.
A paramount concern for many authors is what they view as globalization’s
hazard to labour. In short, these authors claim that labour is being marginalized.
At the same time, other observers assert that globalization threatens jobs and

52
01 pages 001-120 19/4/05 12:43 pm Page 53

The Essentially Contested Concept of Globalization

ultimately labour’s economic well-being. Labour, the general argument holds, is

‘threatened’ (Tilly: 1995) by globalization and has (in part) ‘revolted’ (Krishnan:
1996) against it. One reason for the purportedly weak position of labour is its
immobility. As Herod (1997: 192) concludes, however, ‘workers have success-
fully challenged at the global scale the action of transnational corporations …
workers’ immobility in the face of capital flight should not be conceptualized as
necessarily leading to political impotence’.9 Globalization is also judged as a
threat to political, social and economic gains made by women (Peterson: 1996;
Gibson-Graham: 1996).
Others claim that globalization can reduce the quality of democracy
(Robinson: 1995). For MacEwan (1994: 1) globalization is a ‘very destructive
and painful process’. And ‘the most damaging social contradiction of global-
ization is its impact on democracy’ (1994: 2). Commenting on the protest in
France in December, 1995 that he asserts was in reaction to globalization
processes, Krishnan (1996: 7) finds some positive effects on labour; ‘[i]t was
particularly heartwarming to see working people reclaiming the streets of Paris’.
In his assessment of the impact of globalization on labour, Broad (1995: 29)
concludes ‘Henry Fordism is [potentially] replaced by Harrison Fordism’.
Where one stands in the international political economy in large part
determines how one perceives the implications of globalization. As summarized
by Torres (2001: 1) ‘many developed countries fear competition from low-wage
economies, and firms in developing countries find it difficult to compete against
powerful multinational enterprises (MNEs) from the developed world’. Thus,
the political, social, and cultural consequences of globalization accentuate dis-
crepancies between developed and developing countries. Joseph Stiglitz (2002:
9) crystallizes the different normative interpretations of globalization by stating
and asking:

Protestors see globalization in a very different light than the treasury secretary
of the United States, or the finance and trade ministers of most of the advanced
industrial countries. The differences in views are so great that one wonders,
are the protestors and the policy makers talking about the same phenomenon?
Are they looking at the same data? Are the visions of those in power so
clouded by special and particular interests?

The dichotomy suggested by Stiglitz is essentially between those in power and

the powerless. From this point of view, those who gain from globalization
embrace it while those who do not vilify it. But as Veseth (1998: 189) points out,
globalization is a complex phenomenon and as such it is prone to over-
simplification by those who wish to use it to further their agenda (regardless of
the particular agenda).
In short, authors have differing opinions on whether globalization is a positive
or negative phenomenon and whether it is deepening or overestimated. There are

53
01 pages 001-120 19/4/05 12:43 pm Page 54

Jonathan R. Strand, Tina F. Mueller, Jessica A. McArthur

those who see it as both positive and deepening (e.g., Omhae: 1990; Wriston:
1992). Others interpret globalization as a threat to labour (e.g., Robinson: 1995)
or the state (Strange: 1996). Evans (1997) counters that the state is not on its
last legs, although there is a possibility state capacity will weaken. Hirst and
Thompson (1996) argue that the level of globalization is overstated.10
Globalization is seen simultaneously as harmful, beneficial, meaningless, and
meaningful. No particular interpretation of its implications is authoritative or
hegemonic. Therefore, the appraisal of globalization is contested.

Conclusion
Prior to setting sail, a fundamental skill of the ancient sailor was the naming
of the directional points on a compass in particular order. Without a clear
knowledge of all 32 points and their relationship with one another a sailor was
prone to navigate off course. By analogy we believe many authors have not
boxed the globalization compass. Clearly, scholars are defining, applying, and
appraising the term differently and without reference to how others have
employed it. Globalization is thought to involve a myriad of interrelated econ-
omic, political, social, and cultural elements. How a researcher should measure,
combine, and weight these elements is not clear. It does not appear that observers
will anytime soon come to an agreement on how to index globalization. Not only
is there connotative disagreement over the component factors and how to
measure them, there is also no consensus on timing.
Exactly what real world objects are being globalized, Connolly’s second
element of contestability, is debatable. Consensus may be available on certain
economic aspects of globalization, but these are not easily separated from
political, social, and cultural factors. One must be circumspect of a concept
that can be applied to change in most any real world object. Indeed, Susan
Strange’s (1998) claim that globalization can sometimes be better thought of as
‘globalony’ seems apropos. Veseth’s (1998: 2) characterization of globalization
can also serve as a warning for authors who use the term:

Globalization is the Marlboro Man of international political economy. People

are attracted to the advertised image and buy the product associated with it. It
makes them feel good and look cool, and they are soon addicted. Then one day
they wake up with emphysema.11

In other words, the hype of globalization is not matched by political and/or

economic reality. Globalization is not a descriptive term, it is a normative term
and therefore, ‘characterizes a situation from the vantage point of certain
interests, purposes, or standards’ (Connolly, 1983: 23).
Using the term globalization is not merely describing change. To most authors
it also means they are making a normative statement for or against such change.

54
01 pages 001-120 19/4/05 12:43 pm Page 55

The Essentially Contested Concept of Globalization

Labour and the state are seen as only able to react to (economic) globalization,
although the reactions by especially the state are somewhat contradictory
(involving nationalistic, regional, or global orientated policies). In short, the
utility of the concept must be questioned because the concept is part of a larger
political process. Seeing globalization as a contested concept enables us to
reflect on the analytic utility of the term, especially in regards to theoretical and
methodological problems that inhibit straightforward operationalization and
valuation. However, assessing globalization within the framework of essentially
contested concepts does not mean that the definitional, denotative, and
normative controversies surrounding the term are transcended. What it does
reveal is that the measurement of globalization is not a simple matter of
measuring changes in economic indicators. Moreover, the meanings of
essentially contest concepts change over time and evolve into concepts that are
no longer, or at least, less contested. Globalization is a term that is continually
being redefined, reconstructed, and reconstituted. But there is nothing to suggest
its contestability is permanent. Furthermore, globalization may eventually be
shown to be more fad than fact, going the way of other ephemeral concepts.
We have endeavored to show that the term globalization is an essentially
contested concept. Thus far we have not addressed the magnitude of global-
ization’s contestability. In regards to the significance of its contestation we refer
to John Gray’s discussion of three levels of contestability (Gray, 1977: 338). The
first level is weak contestation that is mainly an empirical issue. To Gray, some
concepts are contestable because of scholarly controversy over identification and
measurement. This level of contestability is not a serious threat to a concept’s
use, but should be of concern for those who attempt to operationalize the concept
globalization. The above review of the uses and definitions of globalization in
social science literature demonstrates that the term is at the very least contested
in this sense.
Gray’s second level of contestation refers to situations when application of a
term is contestable, which requires that the ‘inconclusiveness of debates about
the criteria of correct application of the concept’ (Gray, 1977: 338). Given
the myriad of objects globalization is said to impact (e.g., rights of labour, the
welfare state’s ability to tax, etc.) this level of contestation is certainly met.
At Gray’s third, and most serious, level of essentially contested concepts
‘there are always good reasons for disputing the propriety of any of [a term’s]
uses’. Concepts that are seriously contested in this way are ones where no single
perspective has a monopoly on the truth regarding the evaluation of the concept
and ‘hinge upon the validity of metaphysical theses which … are not self-
evidently immune to criticism’ (Gray, 1977: 344-345).
By recognizing the essential contestability of globalization we do not
insinuate the term should be discarded. Just as other contested concepts are (and
should be) employed in social science research, globalization can be utilized.
In fact, recognition of globalization as a contest concept is a way to save

55
01 pages 001-120 19/4/05 12:43 pm Page 56

Jonathan R. Strand, Tina F. Mueller, Jessica A. McArthur

globalization from conceptual oblivion due to its imprecise use by many

scholars, sundry application, and its disparate interpretations. Scholars who
insist on using the term, however, need to explicitly define and detail how they
operationalize the concept. Failure to clarify a particular use of the concept
certainly adds to its woolliness. If the use of the term is synonymous with other
measures (e.g., capital flows) then an author should consider using the other
measures not the term globalization. Using the term globalization in place of the
actual measure may draw more attention to a paper or book but it adds avoidable
normative baggage in terms of how others interpret the term.

Acknowledgements
An earlier version of this article was presented at the 2002 meeting of the
International Studies Association-Midwest. We thank Vanya Krieckhaus and two
anonymous referees for useful comments.

Notes
11
Others have, of course, pointed out the problems of defining globalization (e.g., Kitching, 2001
& Hirst and Thompson, 1996).
12
As noted by Conley (2002: note 1), a corollary trend in publishing is the number of ‘end of …’
books published. Conley cites Mount’s (1996: 30) figure of over 150 books with ‘end of …’ in
their title.
13
We do not adopt the more radical, non-positivist metaphysics regarding essentially contested
concepts that suggests social reality does not offer any common ground or truly shared
understandings. Rather, we use the framework in the hybrid of Connolly (1983). For a useful
ontological discussion of essentially contested concepts from a realist point of view see
Grafstein (1986: 11) who argues that ‘to be a realist, one need not be unrealistically sanguine
about resolving scientific and conceptual dispute’.
14
Their results support this hypothesis.
15
Torres (2001: 1) admits that ‘[g]iven the multifaceted nature of the process, identifying a
simple relationship between globalization and social progress is impossible’. He goes on to
offer a lengthy definition of economic globalization, which he claims can be ‘simply defined
as a process of rapid economic integration between countries’ (2001: 8).
16
Friedman (1999) is a notable exception. In his widely read book, he asserts that globalization
as a world system supplanted the Cold War system and thus globalization’s genesis was the fall
of the USSR.
17
See also Helleiner (1995).
18
Swyngedouw (1997) argues that globalization represents the intertwining of local and global
spaces, and therefore local forces in one geographic location are able to impact local (and
global) entities in other spaces. To clarify this relationship he introduces a new term into the
discourse: glocalization. This hybrid word, based on the term ‘glocal’ is meant to get the
discussion beyond a local-global dichotomy and to a conversation about space. On global-
ization and political spaces generally, see the collection of essays in Cox (1997).
19
Emphasis in original.
10
Rodrik (1997) asks the timely question of whether globalization has gone too far.
11
Another critical perspective that is worthy of consideration is the Gramscian approach of
Rupert (2000).

56
01 pages 001-120 19/4/05 12:43 pm Page 57

The Essentially Contested Concept of Globalization

References
Amin, A. and N. Thrift. 1994. ‘Living in the Global’, in A. Amin and N. Thrift
(eds), Globalisation, Institutions, and Regional Development. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Barber, B. R. 1995. Jihad Versus McWorld: How Globalism and Tribalism are
Reshaping the World. New York: Random House.
Bitzinger, R. A. 1994. ‘The Globalization of the Arms Industry: The Next
Proliferation Challenge’, International Security 19(2): 170-99.
Broad, D. 1995. ‘Globalization Versus Labor’, Monthly Review 47(7): 20-31.
Cerny, P. G. 1995. ‘Globalization and the Changing Logic of Collective Action’,
International Organization 49(4): 595-625.
Conley, T. 2002. ‘The State of Globalisation and the Globalisation of the State’,
Australian Journal of International Affairs, 56(3): 447-72.
Connolly, W. E. 1983. The Terms of Political Discourse. (2nd edn) Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Cox, K. R. 1997. Spaces of Globalization: Reassessing the Power of the Local.
New York and London: Guilford Press.
Cox, R. W. 1994. ‘Global Restructuring: Making Sense of the Changing
International Political Economy’, in R. Stubbs and G. R. D. Underhill (eds),
Political Economy and Change. New York: St Martin’s.
Evans, P. 1997. ‘The Eclipse of the State? Reflections on Stateness in an Era of
Globalization’, World Politics 50(1): 62-87.
Friedman, T. L. 1999. The Lexus and the Olive Tree. New York: Farrar, Straus
and Giroux.
Gallie, W. B. 1955/1956. ‘Essentially Contested Concepts’, Proceedings of the
Aristotelian Society 56: 167-98.
Gibson-Graham, J. K. 1996. The End of Capitalism (As We Knew It): A Feminist
Critique of Political Economy. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Gill, S. 1992. ‘Economic Globalization and the Internationalization of Authority:
Limits and Contradictions’, Geoforum 23(3): 269-83.
Grafstein, R. 1988. ‘A Realist Foundation for Essentially Contested Political
Concepts’, Western Political Quarterly 41: 9-28.
Gray, J. 1977. ‘On the Contestability of Social and Political Concepts’, Political
Theory 5: 331-348.
Helleiner, E. 1995. ‘Great Transformations: A Polanyian Perspective on the
Contemporary Global Financial Order’, Studies in Political Economy 48: 149-
70.
Herod, A. 1997. ‘Labor as an Agent of Globalization and as a Global Agent’, in
K. R. Cox (ed.), Spaces of Globalization: Reasserting the Power of the Local.
New York: The Guilford Press, pp. 167-200.
Hirst, P. and G. Thompson. 1992. ‘The Problem of Globalization: International
Economic Relations, National Economic Management, and the Formation of

57
01 pages 001-120 19/4/05 12:43 pm Page 58

Jonathan R. Strand, Tina F. Mueller, Jessica A. McArthur

Regional Trading Blocs’, Economy and Society 21: 358-96.

Hirst, P. and G. Thompson. 1996. Globalization in Question: The International
Political Economy and the Possibilities of Governance. Cambridge: Polity
Press.
Holm, H. and G. Sorensen. 1995. Whose World Order?: Uneven Globalization
and the End of the Cold War. Boulder: Westview Press.
James, H. 2001. The End of Globalization: Lessons from the Great Depression.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Johnson, H. J. 1991. Dispelling the Myth of Globalization: The Case for
Regionalization. New York: Praeger.
Jones, R. J. B. 1995. Globalisation and Interdependence in the International
Political Economy. London: Pinter.
Kearney, M. 1995. ‘The Local and the Global: The Anthropology of Global-
ization and Transnationalism’, Annual Review of Anthropology 24: 547-66.
Kitching, G. 2001. Seeking Social Justice Trough Globalization: Escaping a
Nationalist Perspective. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University
Press.
Kohno, M. 1995. ‘Ideas and Foreign Policy: The Emergence of Tech-
nonationalism in U.S. Policy Toward Japan’. in D. P. Rapkin and W. P. Avery
(eds), National Competitiveness in a Global Economy. Boulder and London:
Lynne Rienner.
Krugman, P. and A. J. Venables. 1995. ‘Globalization and the Inequality of
Nations’, Quarterly Journal of Economics 110(10): 854-80.
Luard, E. 1990. The Globalization of Politics: The Changed Focus of Political
Action in the Modern World. New York: New York University Press.
MacEwan, A. 1994. ‘Globalization and Stagnation’, Monthly Review 45(11):
1-16.
MacIntyre, A. 1973. ‘The Essential Contestability of Some Social Concepts’,
Ethics 84(1): 1-9.
Maguire, J. 1994. ‘Preliminary Observations on Globalization and the Migration
of Sport Labor’, The Sociological Review 42(3): 452-82.
Martin, R. 1999. ‘Globalization? The Dependencies of a Question’, Social Text
17(3): 1-14.
McGrew, A. 1992. ‘Globalization’, in S. Hall, D. Held, and A. McGrew (eds),
Modernity and its Futures. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Mount, F. 1996. ‘No End in Sight’, Times Literary Supplement, 3 May: 30-2.
Ohmae, K. 1995. The Evolving Global Economy: Making Sense of the New
World Order. Boston: Harvard Business Review.
Ostry, S. and R. R. Nelson. 1995. Techo-Nationalism and Techno-Globalism:
Conflict and Cooperation. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution.
Peterson, V. S. 1996. ‘The Politics of Identification in the Context of Global-
ization’, Women’s Studies International Forum 19(1/2): 5-16.
Pierson, C. 1996. The Modern State. London and New York: Routledge.

58
01 pages 001-120 19/4/05 12:43 pm Page 59

The Essentially Contested Concept of Globalization

Polanyi, K. 1957. The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic

Origins of Our Time. Boston: Beacon.
Plattner, M. F. 2002. ‘Globalization and Self-Government’, Journal of
Democracy 13(3): 54-67.
Rapkin, D. P. and W. P. Avery (eds). 1995. National Competitiveness in a Global
Economy. Boulder and London: Lynne Rienner.
Rapkin, D. P. and J. R. Strand. 1996. ‘Is International Competitiveness a
Meaningful Concept?’ in C. R. Goddard, J. T. Passe-Smith, and J. G. Conklin
(eds), International Political Economy: State-Market Relations in the
Changing Global Order. Boulder and London: Lynne Rienner.
Rapkin, D. P. and J. R. Strand. 1995. ‘Competitiveness: Useful Concept, Politi-
cal Slogan, or Dangerous Obsession?’ in D. P. Rapkin and W. P. Avery (eds),
National Competitiveness in a Global Economy. Boulder and London: Lynne
Rienner.
Robinson, I. 1995. ‘Globalization and Democracy’, Dissent (Summer): 373-80.
Rodrik, D. 1997. Has Globalization Gone too Far? Washington, DC: Institute of
International Economics.
Roniger, L. 1995. ‘Public Life and Globalization as Cultural Vision’, The
Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 32(2): 259-87.
Rupert, M E. 2000. Ideologies of Globalization: Contending Visions of a New
World Order. London: Routledge.
Sassen, S. 1999. Globalization and its Discontents: Essays on the New Mobility
of People and Money. New York: New Press.
Stiglitz, J. E. 2002. Globalization and its Discontents. New York: W.W. Norton.
Strange, S. 1998. ‘Globaloney?’ Review of International Political Economy 5(4):
704-20.
Swyngedouw, E. 1997. ‘Neither Global nor Local: “Glocalization” and the
Politics of Scale’, in K. R. Cox (ed.), Spaces of Globalization: Reassessing the
Power of the Local. New York and London: Guilford Press, pp. 137-66.
Tilly, C. 1995. ‘Globalization Threatens Labor’s Rights’, International Labor
and Working-Class History 47: 1-23.
Torres, R. 2001. Towards a Socially Sustainable World Economy: An Analysis of
the Social Pillars of Globalization. Geneva: International Labor Office.
Veseth, M. 1997. Selling Globalization: The Myth of the Global Economy.
Boulder and London: Lynne Rienner.
Waters, M. 1995. Globalization. London and New York: Routledge.
Woyach, R. B. 1996. ‘The New Theoretical Challenge: Encompassing Regional
Diversity’, Mershon International Studies Review 40: 339-52.
Wriston, W. 1992. The Twilight of Sovereignty. New York: Charles Scribers and
Sons.
Yang, X. 1995. Globalization of the Automobile Industry: The United States,
Japan, and the People’s Republic of China. Westport: Praeger.

59

View publication stats