GLOBALIZATION IS DEAD AND COVID-19 HAS KILLED IT?

[1]
In its May 14, 2020 issue, The Economist[2] featured a provocative
article entitled “Has Covid-19 killed globalization?” The article
argued that the global restrictions on the travel of peoples, goods,
and capitals (brought about by lockdowns implemented in different
countries in the world due to COVID-19), have affected the economic
activities of both the poor and the rich countries, putting them in
challenging situations. It claimed that the global economic impact of
COVID-19 pandemic has brought the greatest era of globalization to its
demise. It then sounded a dreadful alarm:
 
Wave goodbye to the greatest era of globalisation—and worry about what is going to take
its place. (emphasis supplied)
 
Based on your idea of globalization, is COVID-19 capable
of killing globalization?    
 
Think about it!
 
You can definitely answer this question based on the information
you have about COVID-19 and based on your pre-conceived idea about
globalization. Academically, however, dealing with questions like this
requires that you to suspend judgement until you have a better
understanding of the concepts involved. There are two concepts
involved in the question: COVID-19 and globalization. Let’s talk about
them first before we attempt to answer the question towards the end of
this module.
 
TIMELINE OF THE GLOBAL SPREAD OF COVID-19[3]
We review the following timeline to show the breadth and the
speed of the spread of COVID-19, which caused the World Health
Organization (WHO) to declare a Global Health Emergency and to
consider COVID-19 a pandemic. 
December 31, 2019. The Chinese government informed the WHO about the
existence of unusual pneumonia cases in the City of Wuhan, the cause
of which was unknown.  
January 7, 2020. The Chinese officials announced that the cause of
the said pneumonia cases had been identified, which was said to be
similar to the virus that caused SARS and common colds. The virus was
named 2019-nCov. 
 January 13, 2020. The first 2019-nCov infection outside China was
reported in Thailand. Following this, positive cases had been
announced in US, Nepal, France, Malaysia, Singapore, South Korea,
Vietnam, and Taiwan.
January 30, 2020. As the rate of confirmed cases and death toll
continued to increase and spread to other provinces in China,  the WHO
declared a global health emergency. After which, new cases were
recorded in India, Philippines, Russia, Spain, Sweden, the United
Kingdom, Australia, Canada, Germany, Japan, Singapore, the UAE and
Vietnam.
February 11, 2020. The WHO officially named the coronavirus SARS-COV-
2 and the disease COVID-19.
February 14, 2020. Egypt recorded its first confirmed case, the first
in the continent of Africa.
February 21, 2020. Israel announced its first confirmed case.
February 24 - March 1, 2020. Kuwait, Bahrain, Iraq, Oman, Qatar,
Norway, Romania, Greece, Georgia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, North
Macedonia, Brazil, Estonia, Denmark, Northern Ireland, the
Netherlands, Lithuania, and Wales had their first confirmed cases.
March 5, 2020. Saudi Arabia announced its first COVID-19 case.
March 11, 2020. Turkey, Ivory Coast, Honduras, Bolivia, the
Democratic Republic of the Congo, Panama and Mongolia reported their
first cases. On the same day, the WHO declared the coronavirus
outbreak a pandemic.
Fast forward... 
August 31, 2020. As of this date, there have been 25, 226, 437
confirmed COVID-19 cases and 846, 448 deaths all over the world[4]. From
only 40 cases in Wuhan City on January 1, 2020 to more than 25 million
in at least 214 countries all over the world at the end of August 2020
—a big leap in just a matter of 8 months. Note that except for
Antarctica all continents in the world have been infected by the
coronavirus.[5] This breadth and speed of the spread of the disease is
unprecedented in human history.
Now, more than eighteen (18)months after the first official
report of the existence of the dreaded virus, what is the status of
the pandemic?
As of September 2, 2021, Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource
Center records 218, 435, 582 confirmed cases and 4,543,213 deaths
worldwide. (For a live update
visit https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html)  

WHAT IS GLOBALIZATION?
 One way to understand a concept is to relate it with the concepts
associated with it. In the case of globalization, it is associated—and
sometimes erroneously taken synonymously—with the following terms:
internationalization, liberalization, universalization, and
westernization.
 
Internationalization
“[It] involves the growth of transactions and interdependencies
between countries” (Martell 2010, 9). When the Philippines, for
instance, conducts economic activities with other countries it engages
in internationalization. From the word itself, internationalization is
the process whereby nation-states “inter-act” with one another
economically, politically, socially, and culturally. “Inter” signifies
an act happening between two or more players. Thus, the inter-action
happening in internationalization involves nation-states, which are
entities defined by political and geographical borders. Nation-states
are prime movers in internationalization. Unlike internationalization,
which is defined by national and geographical boundaries,
globalization refers to the integration of the global economy whose
main actors need not be the nation-states but the transnational
corporations, international governmental and non-governmental
organizations, civil societies, and the peoples themselves.
 
Istvan Benczes (2014) best puts it when he says that
internationalization refers to the extension of a nation-state’s
economic activities to other nation-states while (economic)
globalization refers to the organic integration of the global economy.
In that integration, the active role of the nation-state is
diminished. Hence, the difference between the two processes, according
to him, lies not in the quantity, but in the quality, of the economic
relations involved.        
 
Liberalization
“[It] refers to the removal of constraints on movements of
resources between countries—an open, borderless world. Liberalization
involves abolishing regulatory measures such as trade barriers,
capital controls and visa requirements, and is linked in part with
neoliberalism”  (Martell 2010, 9). Liberalization, then, is an
economic philosophy or a policy which advocates the lifting of trade
barriers such as tariffs and quotas imposed on imported products
intended to create global market where the prices of commodities are
dictated by the invisible hand of global competition and not by state
policies adopted by nation-states. While liberalization may be the
economic philosophy or policy underlying the prevailing form of
economic globalization, another philosophy or policy may be adopted.
Hence, liberalization is not an equivalence of globalization in the
sense that (a) the latter cannot be reduced into simply an economic
philosophy or policy advocating how national and global economy should
work—it is essentially multi-dimensional; and (b) the former is not
the only economic philosophy or policy which may be adopted to advance
the interests of globalization.
 
Universalization
“[It] involves the dispersion of objects and experiences to all
parts of the earth…” (Martell 2010, 9). Universalization intends to
build a homogenized world where truths, beliefs, values, morality, and
the way of doing things are held to be valid in all places at all
times. In other words, universalization is a system of thought where
claims to truth, morality, values, and practice by those who are in
power are imposed as valid across the world. Take democracy, for
instance. It is believed to be not only the best form of government in
countries they are adopted but they are claimed to be the right form
of government which should be adopted by countries in the world so
that non-democratic countries are urged, nay forced, to adhere to
democratic principles of rule of law, due process of law, equality,
liberty, justice, and human rights. Religion is another example: Those
who didn’t believe in the religion of the ruling power were condemned
as heretics!
Universalization rests on the philosophy of rationalism which
claims that since the world is rational, humans who are rational
themselves, should relate to the world rationally. As a policy,
universalization is carried out through global policies and practices
that uphold accreditation and standardization. Accreditation conducted
by the International Standardization Organization (ISO) is one way by
which this policy of universalization is carried out. 
 
Westernization
“[It] is a particular type of universalization of Western
structures such as capitalism, industrialism, rationalism, urbanism,
individualism, and democracy, or put more critically, colonization”
(Martell 2010, 9-10). In other words, westernization is the imposition
of western values to the rest of the world. It is a kind of
universalization in the sense that only western values are held to be
right. If you don’t adhere to these values, beliefs, or practices,
you’re considered uncivilized, undeveloped, or whatever derogative
words used to describe non-subscription to whatever ideals of the
Western world. Westernization as a policy was implemented by the
colonizers in the Philippines. Spain, on one hand, forced
the Indios in the name of salvation to believe in Christianity and to
relinquish their indigenous beliefs. The Americans, on the other hand,
brought to the country the values of democracy and rationality. 
Globalization is definitely not westernization. Globalization is
not a social process whereby only western values are given primacy in
the global discourse. Rightly conceived, globalization may refer to
the social process whereby the world becomes a marketplace of ideas,
beliefs, and values, where people are free to exchange and engage in
dialogue. The East meets the West as they poetically call it.  
Internationalization, liberalization, universalization, and
westernization are terms which had already been used even before the
term globalization was made popular recently. If globalization
according to Aart Scholte referred to any of these terms, then to use
globalization to refer to the same idea would be redundant. But
globalization, according to him, is not synonymous to any of these
terms. Hence, as a concept globalization must be defined and
understood separately from—and not taken synonymously with—any of
these terms (Martell 2010).  

Another way to understand globalization is to distinguish it from the

terms it is usually confused with, namely, globalism and globality.
Confused with these terms, globalization is sometimes referred to as
an ideology that advocates the opening up of the national economic
borders or a condition characterized of intense worldwide
interconnectedness. While these characteristics are related to
globalization, they are rightly understood as  descriptive of
globalism and globality, respectively.
 
Globalism
 
    Globalism is the underlying philosophy—Manfred Steger (2005) calls
it ideology—behind the prevailing form of economic globalization. It
is a normative philosophy that tells us the imperatives of
globalization. According to Steger (2005), globalism advances six core
interrelated claims.  
 
First, “[g]lobalization is about the liberalization and global
integration of markets” (Steger 2005, 16). As already mentioned,
liberalization refers to the free flow of peoples, goods, and capital
worldwide accomplished through the abolition of economic barriers such
as visa requirements, tariffs and quotas. Liberalization implies
integration of world economies for the purpose of creating a global
market. According to Thomas Friedman “[t]he driving idea behind
globalization is free-market capitalism—the more you let market forces
rule and the more you open your economy to free trade and competition,
the more efficient your economy will be. Globalization means the
spread of free-market capitalism to virtually every country in the
world” (in Steger 2005, 17). We can argue on the defensibility of
free-market capitalism as the philosophy behind liberalization and
global market integration but let’s reserve that in the latter
sections of this course. For our purposes in this particular module,
suffice it to say that globalization—the prevailing one—is based on a
particular philosophy on how local and global economy should work. 
 
 The second claim of globalism is that “[g]lobalization is
inevitable and irreversible” (Steger 2005, 18). It is inevitable
because no matter what we do, just like water finding its way down the
sea, the wave of globalization will certainly hit the shores of all
countries in the world. Even if we adhere to different philosophy of
development or even if we adopt a different economic and political
policies—that is, even if we change the course of history,
globalization will surely happen. It is pre-determined to happen. It
is as if a dictate of law of nature. It’s irreversible; we we can no
longer go back! The egg of globalization has been hatched and there’s
nothing we can do about it. It is here with us and it will continue to
be with us no matter what we do.  
 
Think about it: What do you think is the implicit command in the second claim of
 
Again, we can be critical about this second claim, exposing the
hidden agenda behind it, but let’s reserve that in the coming days. 
 
The third claim of globalism is: “Nobody is in charge of
globalization” (Steger 2005, 20). Robert Hormats  says the good thing
about globalization is that no particular individual, government, or
institution is in control of globalization (in Steger 2005). For the
globalists, the global market is a rational machine operating in
accordance with economic laws. It is self-regulating. Nothing but the
invisible hand of competition regulates the operation of the global
market. No state or international organization has the power to
control its operation. The World Trade Organization (WTO) and other
economic and financial organizations are there to serve simply as
umpires of the global economic competition.
 

Think about it: Globalism states that no one is in control of globalization.

transferred the control from nation-states to transnational corporations, so that

 
Fourth, “Globalization benefits everyone” (Steger 2005, 21). This
is good news! Not really, perhaps! But this seems to be the most
attractive feature of globalization—at least this is how its advocates
advertise it to the world. The point is that if you want to liberate
your people from unending poverty, join the bandwagon of
globalization. If you don’t, you’ll be left out of the global
competition. This is clear in the rhetoric of the globalists. Take the
statement of former President George W. Bush, for example. He says:
“Free trade and free markets have proven their ability to lift whole
societies out of poverty—so the United States will work with
individual nations, entire regions, and the entire global trading
community to build a world that trades in freedom and therefore grows
in prosperity” in Steger 2005, 22). The United States is said to be
taking the leading role of globalizing the world not only for its own
benefits but for the good of all. But is this really the case?
 
Think about it: Is free trade good for developing countries like the Philippines?
 
Fifth, “Globalization furthers the spread of democracy in the
world (Steger 2005, 22). How do you understand this? How does
globalization promote democracy?
 
You may have already learned that democratic society is one in
which sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority
emanates from them. It is a form of society that recognizes the
liberty and equality of the people. It is one that adheres to the rule
of law and one that resolves issues by way of public discussion.
Essentially, democracy is about people empowerment.
 
Think about it: How does globalization promote democracy in the world?
 
Well, here’s a hint:  “[G]lobalists tend to treat freedom, free
markets, free trade and democracy as synonymous terms” (Steger 2005,
22).
 
The sixth claim of globalism, is that, “Globalization requires a
global war on terror” (Steger 2005, 24). Do you have any idea why a
global war on terror is an imperative of globalization?
 
Of course, there cannot be global economic development unless
there is global political stability and peace. No matter what you do,
no matter what you build, everything will come to naught if it is
destroyed by those who wreak havoc to the status quo. Global economic
development requires conformity to the rules of globalization (for its
undisrupted operation depends on them). But terrorist networks ignore,
disregard, and trample upon these rules. They are considered the anti-
thesis of the globalists. Hence, they must be destroyed and they must
be destroyed with the participation of all countries in the world.    
 
Globality
 
If globalism is the philosophy or ideology that seeks to justify
the prevailing form of globalization, globality refers to
the condition brought about by the process of globalization. In other
words, globality is the effect of the globalizing process, which
process is justified by an underlying philosophy or ideology called
globalism. But what kind of condition is globality?
 
For Steger (2005: 7) “[g]lobality…signif[ies] a social condition
characterized by the existence of global economic, political,
cultural, and environmental interconnections and flows that make many
of the currently existing borders and boundaries irrelevant.” The key
term here is interconnection. Globality, in short, is the condition of
world-wide interconnectedness.  
 
Globality, according to Steger (2005), should not be understood
as the final stage of the development of globalization. Globality is
not static. Similar to globalization, globality is dynamic which
changes its form depending on the level of global interconnections. As
a by-product of a historical process, it transforms itself into
another condition which, according to Steger, may be
called planetarity.       

Globalization defined
 
Having clarified the notion that globalization is not synonymous
with liberalization, internationalization, universalization, and
westernization and having pointed out that it should not be confused
with the two closely related terms—globalism and globality—we are now
in better position to look at the concept itself. To guide us in our
understanding of the concept, let’s consider the definitions of
globalization given by some globalization scholars. Let’s try to
discover the elements of globalization common to all these definitions
and eventually come up with a synthesized definition.  
 
For Anthony Giddens, “Globalization can […] be defined as
the intensification of worldwide social relations which link distant
localities in such a way that local happenings are shaped by events
occurring many miles away and vice versa.” (in Steger 2003, 10;
emphasis supplied). The key phrase here is “intensification of
worldwide social relations.” It is not the worldwide social relations
that characterizes globalization; it is rather the intensity of that
social relations. Globalization is characterized of that strong
interconnection facilitated by economics, politics, culture,
technology, and various global concerns. 
 
According to Fredric Jameson, “The concept of globalization
reflects the sense of an immense enlargement of world communication,
as well as of the horizon of a world market, both of which seem far
more tangible and immediate than in earlier stages of modernity” (in
Steger 2003, 10; emphasis supplied). The key phrase is “immense
enlargement of world communication.” Jameson must have in mind the
development of information and communication technology which makes
intense worldwide communication possible. Globalization has made the
world so small that communicating to another person in another
continent is just like communicating to someone in neighborhood.
Globalization, brought about by the development of information and
communication technology, has indeed tremendously increased the level
of communication, and hence the level of global awareness, occurring
among peoples of the world.       
 
Another definition of globalization worth considering is that of
David Held. According to him, “[g]lobalization may be thought of as a
process (or set of processes) which embodies a transformation in the
spatial organization of social relations and transactions – assessed
in terms of their extensity, intensity, velocity and impact -
generating transcontinental or interregional flows and networks of
activity, interaction, and the exercise of power.” (David Held in
Steger 2003, 10; emphasis supplied). What Held means by this, is that,
the social relations and interactions among peoples in the world has
become much broader in reach (worldwide) and much deeper and stronger
in connection, transcending time and space.       
 
Roland Robertson has similarly interesting definition of
globalization: “Globalization as a concept refers both to
the compression of the world and the intensification of consciousness
of the world as a whole.” (Roland Robertson in Steger 2003, 10;
emphasis supplied). This definition offers two elements of
globalization, namely, compression of the world and intensification of
consciousness of the world as a whole. To compress means to make it
smaller. It could also mean to reduce the widely dispersed world into
a unified whole. Of course, compression here should be taken
literally. It refers to the transcendence of space and time made
possible through the development in transportation and information and
communication technology. You can give various examples of this
transcendence. To give one: it only takes us some hours to reach the
continent of Europe or Africa via jet planes, something impossible
during the time of Rizal. Another example is that we can communicate
with anyone in any place in the world in real time. All of these
developments in science and technology have compressed the world which
results to the intensification of our consciousness of the world as
one we all inhabit. In other words, this compression of the world has
made us realize that we belong to the same world, a world of
challenges.    
 
James Mittelman offers a similar conception of globalization when
he says: “Globalization compresses the time and space aspects of
social relations” (in Steger 2003, 10; emphasis supplied).
 
Lastly, Aart Scholte (in Martell 2010, 10) defines globalization
as “supraterritorialization.” The term may sound heavy but Scholte
gives a clue: supraterritorialism includes jet planes,
telecommunications, global media, finance, ecological problems and
global consciousness (Martell 2010, 10). Supra means over or beyond.
Literally, supraterritorialization means going over, or going beyond,
national and regional territories. It is the removal (metaphorically)
of the difficulties imposed by physical space.  It is the removal of
territorial boundaries, which Friedman in his book The World is
Flat (2007) poetically calls the flattening of the world.  The world
is flat; meaning, the barriers imposed by space and time have been
removed, thus opening up limitless opportunities for everyone.
 
Now, given the definitions of globalization above, let’s try to
find out the elements of globalization common to all these
definitions. 
  
Let’s analyze the definitions above by showing them on the table
below.
Process (What's happening) Human Activities in the World
Intensification Worldwide social relations
World communication
Enlargement
World market
Transformation Social relations and transactions
Compression World
Intensification Consciousness of the world
Compression Time and space of social relations
Supraterritorialization [Human activities]
 
    On the one hand, the terms on the left column all signify a
process, a historical process. Globalization, then, is an on-going
event, which started in the past, happening at present, and will
continue to happen in the future. Friedman (2007) claims that
globalization has three eras, namely: globalization 1.0 (1492-1800),
globalization 2.0 (1800-2000), and globalization 3.0 (from 2000).
(Friedman’s book was originally published in 2005. With the
unimaginable speed of technological transformation, we can only
imagine that we are now living in the age of globalization 4.0 or
5.0.) 
           
On the other hand, the terms on the right column refer to the
relations, conditions, or activities being transformed by various
developments in the world. These are social relations, world
communication and world market, and world consciousness. Here, we see
that globalization as a historical process has multiple dimensions,
namely: political and economic (world communication and world market);
social (social relations and transactions), and cultural
(consciousness of the world).
 
Now, based on our analysis above, we can come up with a synthesis
of the definitions of globalization, thus:
 
Globalization is a historical process characterized of the
compression of the world, enlargement of world communication and world
market, intensification of social relations, and intensification of
the consciousness of the world.
 
Is it a good definition of globalization, or can you think of a
better one? Well, give it a try!  
 
 
HAS COVID-19 KILLED GLOBALIZATION?
 
           After defining globalization, you are now, hopefully, in a
better position to answer the question we posted in the introduction:
“Has COVID-19 killed globalization?”