LESSON 4 INTERSTATE SYSTEM

Objectives:

Define interstate system.

Explain the structural characteristics of the system.

Interstate System

It refers to the relationship between different state union. It also includes all the cultural aspects and
interaction networks of the human population. Most studies of war that take the interstate system as
the unit of analysis begin with assumptions from the ’realist’ paradigm. States are seen as unitary actors,
and their actions are explained in terms of structural characteristics of the system. The most important
feature of the interstate system is that it is anarchic. Unlike politics within states, relations between
states take place in a Hobbesian ’state of nature.’ Since an anarchic system is one in which all states
constantly face actual or potential threats, their main goal is security. Security can only be achieved in
such a system by maintaining power. In realist theories, the distribution of power in the interstate
system is the main determinant of the frequency of war. Although all realist theories agree on the
importance of power distribution in determining war, they disagree about which types of power
distributions make war more likely. Balance-of-power theories (Morgenthau, 1967) suggest that an
equal distribution of power in the system facilitates peace and that unequal power distributions lead to
war. They argue that parity deters all states from aggression and that an unequal power distribution will
generally result in the strong using force against the weak. When one state begins to gain a
preponderance of power in the system, a coalition of weaker states will form to maintain their security
by blocking the further expansion of the powerful state. The coalitions that formed against Louis XIV,
Napoleon and Hitler seem to fit this pattern. The branch of the United Nations where interstate disputes
are litigated and petitioned is the International Court of Justice. League of nations was first international
organization with the main goal of creating and promoting world peace. Megacities is defined by the
United Nations as a city which has a population of 10 million or more people.

The Notion of a System

A system is an assemblage of units, objects, or parts united by some form of regular interaction. In the
1950s, the behavioral revolution in the social sciences and growing acceptance of political realism in
international relations led scholars to conceptualize international politics as a system, using the
language of systems theory.

The International System According to Realists

 All realists characterize the international system as anarchic. No authority exists above the state, which
is sovereign. Each state must therefore look out for its own interests above all.

Polarity: system polarity refers to the number of blocs of states that exert power in the international
system. There are three types of polarity:

Multipolarity: if there are a number of influential actors in the international system, a balance-of-power
or multipolar system is formed.

In a balance-of-power system, the essential norms of the system are clear to each of the state actors. In
classical balance of power, the actors are exclusively states and there should be at least five of them.

If an actor does not follow these norms, the balance-of-power system may become unstable. When
alliances are formed, they are formed for a specific purpose, have a short duration, and shift according
to advantage rather than ideology.

Bipolarity: in the bipolar system of the Cold War, each of the blocs (the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization, or NATO, and the Warsaw Pact) sought to negotiate rather than fight, to fight minor wars
rather than major ones, and to fight major wars rather than fail to eliminate the rival bloc.

Alliances tend to be long term, based on relatively permanent, not shifting, interests.

In a tight bipolar system, international organizations either do not develop or are ineffective. In a looser
system, international organizations may develop primarily to mediate between the two blocs.

Hegemony: one state that commands influence in the international system.

Immediately after the Gulf War in 1991, many states grew concerned that the international system had
become unipolar, with no effective counterweight to the power of the United States.

System Management and Stability: Realists do not agree among themselves on how polarity matters.
Bipolar systems are very difficult to regulate formally, since neither uncommitted states nor
international organizations are able to direct the behavior of either of the two blocs. Informal regulation
may be easier.

Kenneth Waltz argues that the bipolar system is the most stable structure in the long run because there
is a clear difference in the amount of power held by the two poles as compared to that held by the rest
of the state actors.

John Mearsheimer suggests that the world will miss the stability and predictability that the Cold War
forged. He argues that more conflict pairs would develop and hence more possibilities for war.

Theoretically, in multipolar systems, the regulation of system stability ought to be easier than in bipolar
systems. Under multipolarity, numerous interactions take place among all the various parties, and thus
there is less opportunity to dwell on a specific relationship or respond to an arms buildup by just one
party in the system.

Advocates of unipolarity, known as hegemonic stability theorists, claim that unipolarity leads to the
most stable system. Paul Kennedy argues that it was the hegemony of Britain in the nineteenth century
and that of the United States after World War II that led to the greatest stability. When the hegemon
loses power and declines, then system stability is jeopardized.

Realists and International System Change

Changes in either the number of major actors or the relative power relationship among the actors may
result in a change in the international system. Wars are usually responsible for changes in power
relationships.

An example of a system change occurred at the end of World War II. The war brought the demise of
Great Britain and France, and signaled an end to Germany’s and Japan’s imperial aspirations. The United
States and Soviet Union emerged into dominant positions; the multipolar world had been replaced by a
bipolar one.

Robert Gilpin sees another form of change, where states act to preserve their own interests and thereby
change the system. Such changes occur because states respond at different rates to political, economic,
and technological developments.
Exogenous changes may also lead to a shift in the system. Advances in technology not only have
expanded the boundaries of accessible geographic space, but also brought about changes in the
boundaries of the international system. With these changes came an explosion of new actors.

Nuclear warfare has had more of an impact of on the international system more than any other
technological change. Although these weapons have not been used since 1945, the weapons remain
much feared, and efforts by nonnuclear states to develop such weapons, or threat to do so, has met
sharp resistance. The nuclear states do not want a change in the status quo and do not want them in the
hands of rogue states.

In the view of realists, international systems can change, yet the inherent bias among realist
interpretations is for continuity.

The International System According to Liberals

The international system is not central to the view of liberals. Thus, there are three different
conceptions of the international system:

Not as a structure but as a process, in which multiple interactions occur among different parties and
where various actors learn from the interaction.

Actors include, not only states, but also international governmental organizations, nongovernmental
organizations, multinational corporations, and substate actors.

Each actor has interactions with all of the other ones. Thus, a great many national interests define the
system, including economic and social issues and not just security. Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye
describe the international system as interdependent. There are multiple channels connecting states, and
multiple issues and agendas arise in the interdependent system.

An English tradition of international society: in an international society, the various actors communicate
and consent to common rules and institutions and recognize common interests.

Actors share a common identity, a sense of “we-ness”; without such an identity, a society cannot exist.
This conception has normative implications: the international system is an arena and process for positive
interactions

An anarchic one in which each individual state acts in its self-interest: This is also called neoliberal
institutionalism, a view that comes closer to realist thinking.

But, unlike many realists, they see the product of the interaction among actors as a potentially positive
one, where institutions created out of self-interest serve to moderate state behavior.

The International System According to Radicals

Radicals seek to describe and explain the structure of the system in terms of stratification: the uneven
division of resources among different groups of states. The system is stratified according to which states
have vital resources.

From the stratification of power and resources comes the division between the haves, characterized by
the North, and have-nots, positioned in the South. Economic disparities are built into the structure and
all actions are constrained by this structure.

The Implications for Stratification

When the dominant powers are challenged by those states just beneath them in terms of access to
resources, the system may become highly unstable. The rising powers seek first-tier status and are
willing to fight wars to get it. Top powers may begin a war to quell the threat.

For Marxists, crippling stratification in the system is caused by capitalists. Capitalism dominates
international institutions whose rules are structured by capitalist states to facilitate capitalist processes,
and MNCs whose headquarters are in capitalist states but whose loci of activity are in dependent states.

Radicals believe that the greatest amount of resentment will be felt in systems where stratification is
most extreme. The call for the New International Economic Order (NIEO) in the 1970s was voiced by
radicals and liberal reformers in most developing countries. They sought changes such as debt
forgiveness, how commodities were priced, and controls on multinational corporations (MNCs).
Constructivism and International System Change

Constructivists argue that the whole concept of an international system is a European idea. Nothing can
be explained by material structures alone

Martha Finnemore suggests that there have been different international orders with changing purposes.

Constructivists believe that what does change are social norms.

Social norms change through both actions of the collective and through individuals

Norms may change through coercion, but most likely they will change through international institutions,
law, and social movements

Advantages and Disadvantages of the International System as a Level of Analysis

Advantages:

Allows comparison and contrasts between systems

Comprehensiveness: it enables scholars to organize the seemingly disjointed parts into a whole.

Systems theory is a holistic approach. Although it cannot provide descriptions of events at the micro
level, it does allow plausible explanations at the more general level. For realists, generalizations provide
fodder for prediction. For liberals and radicals, these generalizations have normative implications.

Disadvantages
The emphasis at the international system level means that the “stuff of politics” is often neglected, while
the generalizations are broad and obvious.

The testing of systems theories is very difficult. Most theorists are constrained by a lack of historical
information and thus the ability to test specific hypotheses over a long time period is restricted.

The problem of boundaries: does the notion of the international system mean the political system?
What factors lie outside the system? What shapes the system?

The idea of a single international system is largely a creation of European thought. It may be better to
think of multiple international systems over time

Importance of Interstate System

A hegemon is a core state that has a significantly greater amount of economic power than any other
state, and that takes on the political role of system leader.

When one state has hegemony in the world system, it has both the incentive and the means to
maintain order in the system. It is not necessary for the most powerful state to fight wars, since their
objectives can be achieved in less costly ways, and it is not rational for other states to challenge a
hegemon with overwhelming power.

The Birth of the Interstate Highway System

Among these was the man who would become President, Army General Dwight D. Eisenhower. During
World War II, Eisenhower had been stationed in Germany, where he had been impressed by the
network of high-speed roads known as the Reichsautobahnen. After he became president in 1953,
Eisenhower was determined to build the highways that lawmakers had been talking about for years. For
instance, the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1944 had authorized the construction of a 40,000-mile
“National System of Interstate Highways” through and between the nation’s cities, but offered no way
to pay for it.
Factors Affecting Interstate Highway System

1. Economic Factors- it shows how freight and passengers travel demand patterns are shifting in
response to temporal, spatial, and sectoral changes in U.S. business and population activity patterns, as
well as evolving technology shifts that are affecting industry productivity, buying and selling,
transportation patterns. These factors are changing economic activity locations as well as freight and
passenger traffic patterns.

2. Trend Effects- it utilizes a long-term history, and a series of alternative long-term economic
forecasts to show how the above-cited shifts in spatial, sectoral, and productivity characteristics of the
economy have affected past, and will affect future. Interstate highway system freight and passenger
travel demand (including VMT patterns and trends).

3. Economic Outlook Alternatives- it portrays economic outlook forecasts reflecting alternative

assumptions about changes in future economic drivers such as fuel prices, trade, and economic
productivity. It uses the alternative forecasts to illustrate uncertainty factors, and their range of possible
impacts on future interstate Highway System travel demand.

LESSON 5 GLOBAL GOVERNANCE

Objectives:

Define global governance.

Discuss the role of global governance in international relations. Discuss limitations to effective global
governance.

Global Governance

Global governance brings together diverse actors to coordinate collective action at the level of the
planet. The goal of global governance, roughly defined, is to provide global public goods, particularly
peace and security, justice and mediation systems for conflict, functioning markets and unified
standards for trade and industry. One crucial global public good is catastrophic risk management –
putting appropriate mechanisms in place to maximally reduce the likelihood and impact of any event
that could cause the death of 1 billion people across the planet, or damage of equivalent magnitude.

The leading institution in charge of global governance today is the United Nations. It was founded in
1945, in the wake of the Second World War, as a way to prevent future conflicts on that scale.
Switzerland, Kenya, Austria and USA houses international headquarters of the United Nation. The United
Nations does not directly bring together the people of the world, but sovereign nation states, and
currently counts 193 members who make recommendations through the UN General Assembly. The
UN’s main mandate is to preserve global security, which it does particularly through the Security
Council. In addition, the UN can settle international legal issues through the International Court of
Justice, and implements its key decisions through the Secretariat, led by the Secretary General.

The United Nations has added a range of areas to its core mandate since 1945. It works through a range
of agencies and associated institutions particularly to ensure greater shared prosperity, as a desirable
goal in itself, and as an indirect way to increase global stability. As a key initiative in that regard, in 2015,
the UN articulated the Sustainable Development Goals, creating common goals for the collective future
of the planet.

Current global governance arrangements favour flexibility over rigidity, prefer voluntary measures to
binding rules and privilege partnerships over individual actions. This synopsis of the state of global
governance examines the evolving role that sovereignty and the enduring human struggles for power
and equity are playing in shaping international relations and governance. This contribution argues that
individual empowerment, increasing awareness of human security, institutional complexity,
international power shifts and the liberal world political paradigm will define the future of global
governance. The government has power to control which information can be given to which groups of
people. Many journalists have been caught between battling parties and become unfortunate casualties,
and this is all about Political globalization. Global imaginary describes the globe as an imagined
community.

Importance

Global governance is a product of neo-liberal paradigm shifts in international political and economic
relations. The privileging of capital and market mechanisms over state authority created governance
gaps that have encouraged actors from private and civil society sectors to assume authoritative roles
previously considered the purview of the State. This reinforces the divergence of views about how to
define the concept of global governance, issues that are of the utmost importance and priority. Some
scholars argue that global governance as it is practiced is not working (Coen and Pegram, 2015: 417),
while others believe that global governance is constantly adapting by readjusting strategies and
approaches to solutions and developing new tools and measures to deal with issues that impact
communities throughout the world (Held and Hale, 2011).

The perspective employed here presents global governance as a tool to identify solutions to problems
created by neo-liberal globalization (Biermann and Pattberg, 2008: 279). As such, the concept of global
governance relates to the interaction of myriad collective or individual entities emanating from various
societal and professional orientations, which form networks that engage to address issues that threaten
local and global communities. Global governance is concerned with issues that have become too
complex for a single state to address alone. Humanitarian crises, military conflicts between and within
states, climate change and economic volatility pose serious threats to human security in all societies;
therefore, a variety of actors and expertise is necessary to properly frame threats, devise pertinent
policy, implement effectively and evaluate results accurately to alleviate such threats.

Never in the history of the world, has there been such dynamic and complicated level of political, social,
economic and cultural fusion. The world as we have it now has evolved from the political era of
colonization, which featured states like the United Kingdom and France governing almost all parts of the
world, to the subsequent emancipation of states, the popularization of democracy simultaneously with
the jet rate of improvement in information technology and transport, which has more or less led to the
new world that we have today, the one where lives are so intertwined that distance, gender and colour
are no barrier, the world where racism has lost most of its meaning, as people from different races and
backgrounds are united in ensuring that the technological revolution does not negatively impact us all.

The wide spread of scientific and technological discoveries has brought about the emergence of issues
which transcend states’ borders, from free trade, deregulation, drug trade, Internet scam, Cancer, HIV,
Global warming to Terrorism. These issues have more or less propelled states’ towards joint
international efforts, aimed at providing a measure of safety and orderliness in world affairs.

Global governance has been given a lot of interpretations in literatures. Global governing can be seen as
the coming together of different transnational actors to address political, economic, social and cultural
issues of international importance that transcend national or regional borders.

Advantages of Global Governance

The form of global governance that we have today, regardless of obvious lapses, controversies and
inconsistencies, have been able to keep the world in a relative sanity, preventing anarchy, which would
have been what we will have in absence of a regulating system. Due to the growing interconnectedness,
the world needed a machinery that can be used to provide law and order and maintain relations. The
ability of the form of governing that we have today, to successfully keep the negative aspects of
globalization to a ‘bearable’ minimum, has also been a plus on its part. If we did not have international
organizations to regulate and arbitrate, states would probably have been raining weapons of mass
destruction on each other! This is very important because, in globalization of the magnitude that we
currently have, there should be a system to ensure orderliness, and the International organizations are
surprisingly providing this in their own way.

Global governing has also been able (to a limited extent), check the excesses of governments against
their own citizens and against other countries. This is more on the part of international organizations.
They have been able to impose sanctions where agreements are breached, and this has promoted some
form of accountability and responsibility. It has also been able to reduce wars between nations through
negotiations, arbitrations and sanctions, which probably even made going to war more tedious than
before.

A multitude of actors define and shape the current structure of global governance. States, international
organizations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), multinational corporations, scientific experts,
civil society groups, networks, partnerships, private military and security companies, as well as
transnational criminal and drugtrafficking networks provide world politics with multi-actor perspectives
and take part in steering the political system (Dingwerth and Pattberg, 2006; Biermann and Pattberg,
2012; Karns and Mingst, 2015). Global governance actors broaden the scope of activities in which they
are involved and they also change the patterns of interaction and cooperation in tackling current issues
on a global level. Current global governance arrangements favour flexibility over rigidity, prefer
voluntary measures to binding rules, choose partnerships over individual actions, and give rise to new
initiatives and ideas.

The Nation State

The state can be defined in terms of a geographical and cultural entity, with heterogeneous or
homogenous people occupying a definite territory. With this definition, we see that every geographically
marked entity is a state, sovereign or not. The state as we have it today has come to be associated with
sovereignty, security, power and territory, and as the only means of ensuring its citizens are well
provided for.

The inclusion of the state in global governance, thus, is automatic. Among all the actors in global
governance, the state has the longest history of existence, seen by their citizens as their representative
both nationally and internationally. The bloc of nations regarded as developed countries are those
industrialized states which have enjoyed aeons of political and economic dominance, while the
‘developing countries’ is reserved for The state has been instrumental in the creation of all other
political actors, (Held, 2000. P.398).
International Organizations

International organizations simply refer to those organizations which are created as a result of the
enhanced relationships between states, for the purpose of overseeing political, economic, and social
relations between them, to ensure fair dealings amongst states, and act as an arbitrator whenever
dispute arises.

International organizations can be split into those organizations set up through state agreements
(membership is optional for all nations of the world), and those which are also set up by the state, but
for states sharing the same region, (regional organizations). Examples of the former include The United
Nations, The World Trade Organization (WTO) formerly the General Agreements on Tariffs and Trade
(GATT), The World Bank, and The International Monetary Fund (IMF). Examples of the latter include The
European Union (EU), The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), The African Union (AU), and
The Association of Southeast Asian Nations, (ASEAN).

Transnational Corporations

Transnational corporations are such corporations, which due to large capacity or capital, have been able
to establish branches of their organization in other countries apart from their home country. They are
called transnational because they have been able to establish their subsidiaries in countries more than
one. These corporations are also referred to as Multinational Corporations (MNCs). According to Held et
al, “MNCs account for about 25% of world production, and 70% of world trade, while their sales are
equivalent to almost half of the world’s GDP”(Held et al.,1999; UNCTAD,2001, in Held and McGrew.
2002: p.3). These corporations are usually privately owned, or owned by a group of persons with public
shares. Examples of TNCs include Microsoft, Adidas, Wal-Mart, General Electric, Hewlett Packard,
ExxonMobil, Toyota, etc. TNCs exist in every industry known to mankind.

The emergence of TNCs in the global economic arena has led to their inclusion in the political arena
also, as they have become forces to reckon with in the international scene. The liberalization of trade,
globalization and democracy, revolutions in information technology and transport, has enabled these
corporations to transfer their technology and services to different countries with favourable market
structures, and has more or less unleashed their ability to give a new meaning to global economy. The
reason why TNCs are more popular and important in the world and especially in the developing world is
because, due to their large capital base, they have been able to establish their presence in a lot of
countries. Capitalism is the main driving force of TNCs, and this is a great propeller for their competition
for economic and probably, political power control.

Non-Governmental Organizations
 Non-Governmental organizations, (NGOs) can be regarded as organizations or movements which are
not established by the government of any state, rather they are liberal activist charity groups usually
founded by individuals or corporate firms, to address issues affecting the society as result of
globalization. They are either globally recognized (International NGOs), or local mobilization groups.
NGOs as we see this days, have been a significant force in global governance through their involvement
and activities on issues such as the protection of human rights, environmental hazards awareness, the
promotion of gender equality, etc, (Held and McGrew,2002. P.244)

NGOs’ activities, like every other sector of the world affairs, have been made easier and more global as
a result of the technological revolutions, (Castells, 2008. P.86). Small scale activist groups get the chance
to advertise and liaise with other people who share their vision in other parts of the world, to build a
strong network for their cause. Examples of INGOs include the Amnesty International, The Red Cross
Society, Greenpeace, etc., all of whose specialization ranges from environmental awareness and first
aid, to the popularization of fundamental human rights.

The main contributions of NGOs to global governance lies in their attempt to influence the decisions of
states and international organizations to include areas which affect not only the economic lives of
people, but the social and cultural areas as well, in their legislations, i.e., to ensure that public opinion is
sought on issues, and people benefit from both political and social globalization. They also seek
“equality and social justice”, (O’Brien, 2007. P.394). Equality and social justice as regards gender bias,
economic imbalance between nations, racism, and social stratification. NGOs have been the most
effective way of ensuring increased awareness of international politics to public opinion, they have, as
far as I see, been able to somewhat promote accountability and transparency in global governance.

Disadvantages of Global Governance

People usually say that the form of global governance that we have today has done little to be effective
in terms of keeping peace and maintaining economic and social stability. This is not an unfounded
accusation. The inability of international organizations to effectively eradicate the gap between the rich
nations and the poor nations (Murphy, C.N. 2000. P.789), socially and economically, has led to a distrust
for the system. Poorer or developing nations have been given a chance to develop through free trade,
and economic liberalization, while developed countries have been given the chance to officially exploit
the poor nations through this same economic policies. The policies made by these organizations are
deliberated upon by participating nations, but like in the case of the United Nations, vetoed by the
Security Council, which comprises of the most powerful nations of the world.
At the end of the day, we can say most policies will not end up being objective. This also brings in the
unfairness of the system. Whether it is obvious or not, global governance is still aware of hegemonic
powers and their influence, as such, preference is given to them above others. Even TNCs who do not
make international rules, will probably sign a deal with the United States faster than it would, say, Benin
Republic, except of course if it has a capitalistic motive on the latter.

The coalition of the states, international organizations, non governmental organizations, and
transnational corporations, has led to multiplicity of opinion, interests, and actions. This is bound to
have a negative effect on the society. Effective global governing cannot accommodate extreme diversity
of opinion, and this sometimes bring chaos of ideas and ineffective policy making, and there goes the
saying of ‘Too many cooks spoil the broth’! International organizations are accountable to their creators,
(the states), NGOs are accountable to their donors, while the TNCs are accountable to their owners, and
possibly, shareholders.

The multiplicity of allegiance which is capable of bringing diverse self interest in governance. At the end
of the day, only NGOs are capable of the largest rate of accountability to the people, who are supposed
to be beneficiaries of global governance. Accountability to the states by the international organizations,
is supposed to be a form of indirect accountability to the people, but this only works if the state is
effectively accountable to its people. At the end of the day, it looks like they all are pursuing interests
other than that of the people. Also, NGOs are obviously the only channel through which active public
opinion is sought, developed nations try to do this to an extent. Developing nations most times do not
have the facility or the ‘conscience’ to seek public opinion. In Nigeria for example, results of the nation’s
dealings with other countries only appear in newspapers, when most times, nobody even knew the
country was entering an agreement anywhere. The media is used to seek public opinion, and more than
half of the nation probably do not even have access to a television, newspaper or radio.

Factors Affecting Global Governance

Global governance is arguably inevitable for the survival of the human race in present and future
generations. Although global governance sometimes appears fragile and ineffective in response to
current challenges, the trend of globalization and the demand for global governance approaches have
already passed the point of no return. The future of global governance will be mainly shaped by the
following five factors: individual empowerment, increasing awareness of human security, institutional
complexity, international power shift and liberal world political paradigm. We draw this conclusion by
applying the findings and observations from different field of studies including security studies,
international political economy, global governance field and communications studies.

First, because of information technology and mass/social media, individual citizens—especially in

developed countries—have acquired much more information power than a half century ago. Individuals
can attain higher awareness of situations related to national and international affairs. Compared with
humans in the twentieth century, a majority of those in the twenty-first century can more easily access
international security information, thanks to the Internet and media exposure. Therefore, individual
citizens of the world are more likely to understand the importance and the impact of international
security on their personal lives. Digital media played a major role in the Arab Spring of 2011 in Egypt and
Tunisia: social networks allowed communities to unite around shared grievances and nurture
transportable strategies for mobilizing against dictators (Howard and Hussain, 2011).

Globalization of the new media illustrates how communities throughout the world can be mobilized for
collaborative response as well signals a new trend in the intersection of new media and conventional
media such as television, radio and mobile phone (Khondker, 2011). The US National Intelligence Council
also identified individual issues and the decreasing influence of the state as one of the main global
trends for the twentyfirst century, arguing that the potential political power of individuals has
significantly increased since the end of the Cold War because of the proliferation of information and
transportation technologies (National Intelligence Council, 2012).

This trend will strengthen the convergence between domestic and international politics, constraining
state behavior (Putnam, 1988) and continue to produce many transnational actors. Considering the
dramatic increase of individuals’ capabilities in information gathering, analysis and political projection,
the trend of individual empowerment is logically supposed to pave a wider road towards cooperative
global governance, because peace is generally preferred over war by individual humans.

Second, as the trend towards “individual empowerment” continues, global society through global
governance architecture will need to pay high attention to human security, which protects individual
humans from fatal threats to physical safety, and human dignity, whether human-made or of natural
origin. Human security is an innovative concept for security in response to horizontal (such as military,
economic and political) and vertical (such as individual, state and global) threats, which traditional
security concepts cannot effectively control (Grayson, 2008).

The focal point of state security is too narrow to encompass the myriad threats that challenge societies
today. The threat of sovereign states engaging in large-scale war is less probable today than at any time
in modern history. War has not been eliminated, rather its form has shifted from sovereign versus
sovereign to substate wars between differing identity groups or insurgencies against the state. Beyond
war, the concept of human security is concerned with varieties of security: economic, food, health,
environmental, personal, community and political security (UNDP 1994).

Human security provides an excellent compatible conceptual paradigm to global governance regimes in
the future, which must respond to transnational, multi-dimensional threats that a single country cannot
manage. For example, a number of national security analysts have already begun to recognize
environmental degradation and natural disasters such as epidemics, floods, earthquakes, poverty and
droughts as national security threats similar to military disasters (King and Murray, 2001–2002).

Third, we must additionally consider “institutional complexity” (Held and Hale, 2011) as another
direction for future global governance development. As the trend of individual empowerment gains
more momentum, the influence of civil society is expected to grow in terms of authority and resources.
Various non-state actors will not only affect their national governments’ behavior more significantly, but
will also engage in networks of transnational relations more actively. International institutions in global
governance will likely keep expanding to “regime complex”, a concept defined as “an array of partially
overlapping and non-hierarchical institutions governing a particular issue area” (Raustiala and Victor,
2004).

Fourth, global governance in the future will be also be shaped by power shifts in international relations.
Almost all the traditional institutions of global governance were initiated by Western countries, and
their pluralistic political culture and influential civil societies have shaped the political context of global
governance. States of the Global South, especially China, have improved their relative power in relation
to the Global North. As a result, the voice of actors originating from the Global South is expected to
become more prominent in global governance regimes and institutions traditionally dominated by a
small number of the Global North states. Therefore, an increase in multilateralism will further
complicate the face of global governance.

Fifth, the future of global governance is also rooted in liberal paradigms of world politics. States and
non-state or transnational actors tend to be more cooperative with global governance when a liberal
world order is maintained. Global governance regimes to date have evolved with liberal paradigms such
as democracy, bottom-up orientations and human rights promotion. While the advancement of
democratic practices in the states without strong traditions of following liberal values remain a
challenge, democracy has near-universal appeal among people of every ethnic group, every religion, and
every region of the world and democracy is embraced as an international norm by more states,
transnational organizations and international networks (McFaul, 2004).

Thakur and Weiss (2015) argue that there are particular GAPS in global governance. They are as follows:
Knowledge gaps, normative gaps, policy gaps, institutional gaps, compliance gaps.

Knowledge gap is important because if we do not know the severity of a problem, or if we don’t have
the resources to investigate a particular issue, then this could become difficult for effective global
governance. Normative gaps follow knowledge gaps. After that an issue exists, it is important to
establish norms to address that problem. Norms are rules that govern the behavior of the members of a
society. Policy gaps are related to the specifically policies that one can implement in order to address
the stated problem. Institutional gaps are the challenges of implementing any policies that are put forth
by the international community. Compliance gaps refers to the unwillingness of actors to enforce and
implement contracted International policies.

LESSON 6 GLOBAL DIVIDES

Objectives:

Define the term “global south”.

Differentiate the Global south from the Third World.

Analyze how a new conception of global relations emerged from the experiences of Latin American
Countries.

Global Divides: The North and the South

The North-South Divide is a socio-economic and political categorization of countries. The Cold-War-era
generalization places countries in two distinct groups; The North and the South. The North is comprised
of all First World countries and most Second World countries while the South is comprised of Third
World countries. This categorization ignores the geographic position of countries with some countries in
the southern hemisphere such as Australia and New Zealand being labeled as part of the North. Brandt
Line shows the “North-South” divide. This was established in the 1980’s in order to further illustrate the
geographical split between the rich and poor nations. Willy Brandt was a West German Chancellor who
developed a report which showed the “North-South” divide.

The separation between the global North and Global South is the biggest encounter to global
governance. The Global South is under the Third World. USA and Japan are under the Global North while
Nepal and Kazakhstan are under the Global South. The difference in economic welfare, political
constancy, and culture between areas causes lots of predicaments globally. The financial differences
between highly developed countries and the rest of the world prevents collaboration and social
dissimilarities between North and South create cultural clashes which cause violence . Additionally,
where there is political weakness of some areas in the global South there are security problems which
prevent success of global governance initiatives. Furthermore, the distribution of power and authority
among the political actors is tilted in favour of the global North. However, international leaders can
solve these problems by encouraging global justice. To this end, for global governance to achieve its full
potential, the world must initially consider the disparity of the countries. The global is everywhere but it
is also somewhere means “the global north and the global south can co exist in the same area.

The North (First World Countries)

 The North of the Divide is comprised of countries which have developed economies and account for
over 90% of all manufacturing industries in the world. Although these countries account for only one-
quarter of the total global population, they control 80% of the total income earned around the world. All
the members of the G8 come from the North as well as four permanent members of the UN Security
Council. About 95% of the population in countries in The North have enough basic needs and have
access to functioning education systems. Countries comprising the North include The United States,
Canada, all countries in Western Europe, Australia, New Zealand as well as the developed countries in
Asia such as Japan and South Korea

The South (Third World Countries)

The South is comprised of countries with developing economies which were initially referred to as Third
World countries during the Cold War. An important characteristic of countries in the South is the
relatively low GDP and the high population. The Third World accounts for only a fifth of the globally
earned income but accounts for over three-quarters of the global population. Another common
characteristic of the countries in the South is the lack of basic amenities. As little as 5% of the population
is able to access basic needs such as food and shelter. The economies of most countries in the South rely
on imports from the North and have low technological penetration. The countries making up the South
are mainly drawn from Africa, South America, and Asia with all African and South American countries
being from the South. The only Asian countries not from the South are Japan and South Korea. Areas
incorporated under the label GLOBAL SOUTH can also be found in the geographical north. Latinoization
is an example of the global south found in the geographical north.

Major Differences Between the North and the South:

Global North Global South

Less population

High wealth

High standard of living

High industrial development Industry

Large Population

Low wealth
Low standard of living

Low industrial development Agriculture

The Impact of Globalization on the North and South Divide

The notion of a divide between the rich north and the poor and developing south has long been a
central concept among economists and policymakers. From 1950 to 1980, the north accounted for
almost 80 percent of global GDP but only 22 percent of its population, and the south accounted for the
remainder of global population and 20 percent global income.

But the north-south divide is now obsolete. The dynamic process of globalization has resulted in
unprecedented levels of growth and interdependence. However, while this has blurred the old division,
new ones have emerged, splintering today’s world into four interconnected tiers.

The first tier comprises the affluent countries, notably the United States, European nations, Australia
and Japan — with a combined population of around one billion and per capita incomes ranging from
$79,000 (Luxembourg) to $16,000 (Republic of Korea). For the past 50 years, these affluent countries
have dominated the global economy, producing four-fifths of its economic output. However, in recent
years, a new set of economies has emerged that is contesting the affluent countries’ economic
dominance.

These emerging economies — call them the Globalizers — constitute a second tier of about 30 poor and
middle-income countries (including China and India), with per capita GDP growth rates of 3.5 percent or
more, and a total population of 3.2 billion, or roughly 50 percent of the world’s population. These
countries have experienced unprecedented levels of sustained economic growth that may well enable
them to replace the “Affluents” as engines of the world economy.

The Global North/South Divide

Classifying countries in the 1980s, the Brandt Line was developed as a way of
showing the how the world was geographically split into relatively richer and poorer nations. According
to this model:

• Richer countries are almost all located in the Northern Hemisphere, with the exception of
Australia and New Zealand.
• Poorer countries are mostly located in tropical regions and in the Southern Hemisphere.
However, over time it was realized that this view was too simplistic. Countries such as Argentina,
Malaysia and Botswana all have above global average GDP (PPP) per capita, yet still appear in the
‘Global South’. Conversely, countries such as Ukraine appear to be now amongst a poorer set of
countries by the same measure.

The Gap Between the ‘North’ and ‘South’

Despite very significant development gains globally which have raised many millions of people out of
absolute poverty, there is substantial evidence that inequality between the world’s richest and poorest
countries is widening. In 1820 western Europe's per capita income was three times bigger than Africa’s
but by 2000 it was thirteen times as big. In addition, in 2013, Oxfam reported that the richest 85 people
in the world owned the same amount of wealth as the poorest half of the world’s population. Today the
world is much more complex than the Brandt Line depicts as many poorer countries have experienced
significant economic and social development. However, inequality within countries has also been
growing and some commentators now talk of a ‘Global North’ and a ‘Global South’ referring respectively
to richer or poorer communities which are found both within and between countries. For example,
whilst India is still home to the largest concentration of poor people in a single nation it also has a very
sizable middle class and a very rich elite. There are many causes for these inequalities including the
availability of natural resources; different levels of health and education; the nature of a country’s
economy and its industrial sectors; international trading policies and access to markets; how countries
are governed and international relationships between countries; conflict within and between countries;
and a country’s vulnerability to natural hazards and climate change.

Factors Affecting the Global Divides

The major causes of the divide in global society are:

1. Economic Factors

▪ Capitalism

Capitalism embodies and sustains an Enlightenment agenda of freedom and equality. Typically, there is
freedom to trade and equality under the law, meaning that most adults – rich or poor – are formally
subject to the same legal rules. But with its inequalities of power and wealth, capitalism nurtures
economic inequality alongside equality under the law. In the The Spirit Level, authors Richard Wilkinson
and Kate Pickett showed multiple deleterious effects of inequalities of income and wealth. Using data
from twenty-three developed countries and from the separate states of the United States, they
observed negative correlations between inequality, on the one hand, and physical health, mental health,
education, child well-being, social mobility, trust and community life, on the other hand. They also found
positive correlations between inequality and drug abuse, imprisonment, obesity, violence, and teenage
pregnancies. They suggested that inequality creates adverse outcomes through psycho-social stresses
generated through interactions in an unequal society. Although economic inequality is endemic to
capitalism, data gathered by Thomas Piketty in his Capital in the Twentieth Century, show that there are
large variations in measures of inequality in different major capitalist countries, and through time. The
existence of such variety within capitalism suggests that it possible to alleviate inequality, to a significant
degree, within capitalism itself. In real-world markets different sellers or buyers vary hugely in their
capacities to influence prices and other outcomes. When a seller has sufficient saleable assets to affect
market prices, then strategic market behaviour is possible to drive out competitors. Markets involve
voluntary exchange, where both parties to an exchange expect benefits. One party to the exchange may
benefit more than the other; but there is no reason to assume that individuals who benefit more, or
benefit less (in one exchange) will generally do so. And if some traders become more powerful in the
market than others, then its competitiveness is reduced.

There is a reason why it is a mistake to focus on markets. In the sense of organized arenas of exchange,
markets have existed for thousands of years. We need to look at new institutional drivers of inequality
that became prominent in the last 400 years or so. These new institutional changes were additional to
markets. The foremost generator of inequality under capitalism is not markets but capital. This may
sound Marxist, but it is not. In Geoffrey Hodgson’s Conceptualizing Capitalism, he defined capital
differently from Marx and from most other economists and sociologists. His definition of capital
corresponds to its enduring and commonplace business meaning. (Piketty’s definition is also similar to
mine.) Capital is money, or the realizable money-value of collateralizable property. Unlike labour, capital
can be used as collateral and the loan obtained can help generate further wealth. Because workers are
free to change jobs, employers have diminished incentives to invest in the skills of their workforce.
Especially as capitalism becomes more knowledge-intensive, this can create an unskilled and low-paid
underclass and further exacerbate inequality, unless compensatory measures are put in place. A socially-
excluded underclass is observable in several developed capitalist countries.

Another source of inequality results from the inseparability of the worker from the work itself. By
contrast, the owners of other factors of production are free to trade and seek other opportunities while
their property makes money or yields other rewards. This puts workers at a disadvantage. Through
positive feedbacks, even slight disadvantages can have cumulative effects.

None of these core drivers of inequality can be diminished by extending markets or increasing
competition. These drivers are congenital to capitalism and its system of wage labour. If capitalism is to
be retained, then the compensatory arrangements that are needed to counter inequality cannot simply
be extensions of markets or private property rights. These ineradicable asymmetries between labour
and capital mean that ultraindividualist arguments against trade unions are misconceived. In a system
that is biased against them, workers have a right to organize and defend their rights, even if it reduces
competition in labour markets.

▪ Political Power, Economic Status and Economic Dependency

The transition of industrial production to cheaper labor sources, international media, and expanding
international trade and communication have in some ways made the world smaller, yet in other ways
made the gaps between nations larger by creating greater dependency of poor nations to wealthy
nations.

Modernization theorists’ ideas are rooted in the functionalist perspective of inequality. This theory
believes that poverty is a basic human condition; so all countries were poor to begin with. The first
countries to adopt modern technologies, attitudes, and institutions will in turn be the most wealthy and
successful. Countries that hold on to traditional views and processes will fall behind until modern
corporations and novel technological advancements eventually overtake traditional institutions. On the
other hand, the dependency theory is founded in the conflict perspective of inequality. According to
dependency theorists, the factor that mainly drives the “double divide” is colonial imperialism that
exploits poor countries by excessive exportation of resources, taking additional profits, and controlling
through neocolonialism. Poor countries are dependent on more powerful countries due to debt, foreign
aid and domination by the more powerful governments using economic and cultural influences. This
theory counters the modernization theory in that poverty is not the fundamental human condition; it is
created as a result of capitalism, imperialism, and neocolonialism. Dependency theorists look at external
factors affecting a nation’s struggles with poverty and inequality; whereas, modernization theorists
believe poverty is an internal struggle.

Neoliberalism is the underlying theory associated with the United States conservative party. The IMF
and World Bank are the leaders of neoclassical economics that believe in structural adjustment.
Neoclassical economics promotes that some of the main factors associated with the gaps in equality are
driven by governmental corruption, nepotism, and bureaucracy. To avoid this, nations need to support
an economy controlled by supply-and-demand, entrepreneurship, technological advancement, and free
enterprise. Neoliberals want to uphold individual rights, but are not as supportive of group rights. In
contrast, world systems theorists believe advancement is determined by the “core centers of power”
like the United States. Core powers allow nations to become semiperipheral, to serve as economic
middlemen, in order to facilitate further capitalist expansion. The poorest countries make up the
periphery and are often oppressed by the more powerful countries. This theory states the only way for
inequality to cease is for global capitalism to be “overturned or radically altered” (Sernau, 69). This is a
counter argument to neoliberal theorists who believe poor countries must work their way out of
poverty themselves to improve their economic position.
 Pascale defines “hegemonic systems” as social processes that reinforce inequalities in a more subtle
way compared to the more upfront forces like formal laws and physical force that were historically
behind the creation of inequalities. This oppression requires ordinary people to believe they have the
same interests and needs as the dominant group. Hegemonic systems are created through more subtle
processes like cultural norms, values that lead to success, and even standards of beauty. These social
processes create a culture that is based upon the beliefs and values of the dominant group and require
the subordinate group to internalize and accept the processes. By making hegemonic systems less
ordinary, it requires ordinary people to begin to look at social processes with a critical eye and ask why.
Hegemonic systems are successful when they become commonplace and ordinary people do not
question their legitimacy. This silent undertow propelled by ignorance is what allows oppression to
continue without a “sense of antagonistic domination”. When hegemonic systems become less ordinary
and people begin to realize they are in fact antagonistic and oppressive, these systems cannot be
sustained. They lose their power to control social contexts, thus leading to their demise.

▪ Importation/Exportation of Resources

The integration of national economies into a global economic system has been one

of the most important developments of the last century. This process of integration, often called
Globalization, has materialized in a remarkable growth in trade between countries.

When it comes to academic studies estimating the impact of trade on GDP growth, the most cited paper
is Frankel and Romer (1999).

In their study, Frankel and Romer used geography as a proxy for trade, in order to estimate the impact
of trade on growth. This is a classic example of the socalled instrumental variable approach. The idea is
that a country’s geography is fixed, and mainly affects national income through trade. So if we observe
that a country’s distance from other countries is a powerful predictor of economic growth (after
accounting for other characteristics), then the conclusion is drawn that it must be because trade has an
effect on economic growth. Following this logic, Frankel and Romer find evidence of a strong impact of
trade on economic growth. Other papers have applied the same approach to richer cross-country data,
and they have found similar results. A key example is Alcalá and Ciccone (2004).

This body of evidence suggests trade is indeed one of the factors driving national average incomes (GDP
per capita) and macroeconomic productivity (GDP per worker) over the long run.

If trade is causally linked to economic growth, we would expect that trade liberalization episodes also
lead to firms becoming more productive in the medium, and even short run. There is evidence
suggesting this is often the case.
 Pavcnik (2002) examined the effects of liberalized trade on plant productivity in the case of Chile, during
the late 1970s and early 1980s. She found a positive impact on firm productivity in the import-
competing sector. And she also found evidence of aggregate productivity improvements from the
reshuffling of resources and output from less to more efficient producers.

Bloom, Draca and Van Reenen (2016) examined the impact of rising Chinese import competition on
European firms over the period 1996-2007, and obtained similar results. They found that innovation
increased more in those firms most affected by Chinese imports. And they found evidence of efficiency
gains through two related channels: innovation increased and new existing technologies were adopted
within firms; and aggregate productivity also increased because employment was reallocated towards
more technologically advanced firms.

2. Cultural Factors

Culture refers to a system of shared beliefs and meanings that we learn growing up in a particular
society. Culture is something that everyone in a society experience. But culture does not necessarily
mean that everyone has the same beliefs. While many aspects of culture bring people together in a
society, culture can also have very divisive elements.

▪ Media

When we talk about the media, we generally are talking about print such as newspapers and magazines,
television, radio, and the internet. Media serves a number of important functions in a society. Media is
also interesting in terms of what it tells us about the cultural divide. Here's an interesting example.
Researchers have found that the type of television shows that are most popular tend to vary by region.
More specifically, they varied along rural, urban, and suburban lines. So, some shows will resonate more
depending on where you live. For example, a reality show that features the lives of a conservative
Christian family was found to be much more popular in rural areas than urban areas.

But media also is a unifying force. Think of all the new social networking platforms that have emerged.
These social networking sites allow us to connect and share things with one another across cultures. To
help us stay informed about things that happen in societies across the globe. They have also played an
important role in recent social and cultural movements. For example, during the uprisings in 2011 in
places like Egypt, social networking sites allowed us to stay connected to and follow the events taking
place on the ground.

▪ Food
 Food is also another important unifying cultural factor. Imagine visiting New York or San Francisco and
walking through Chinatown. You could experience traditional cuisine from across the globe. Immigrants
to a new country who open restaurants or stores bring their traditional foods with them, which is shared
with their new culture. Food is important to our identity and our cultural practices. Food allows us to get
to know about other cultures and experience their traditions.

▪ Sports

While sporting events can get heated when everyone is rooting for their favorite team, there are also
ways that sports can bridge cultural divides. One important example of this occurred in South Africa
during Apartheid. Nelson Mandela was elected as the first black president of South Africa in 1994.
During the World Cup game of rugby, he awarded the World Cup Trophy to a white rugby player named
Francois Pienaar who had grown up under the influence of white nationalism, where blacks in South
Africa were viewed as inferior. This event demonstrated the role that sports can play in easing cultural
conflict. Another good example of this is the Olympic Games. In this international sporting event,
countries from all over the world come together to compete. The game emphasizes cultural unity, and
athletes compete under the same rules. The ceremonies that open and close the games focus on
creating unity across cultures of the world.

3. Technological Factors

Technological globalization is speeded in large part by technological diffusion, the spread of technology
across borders. In the last two decades, there has been rapid improvement in the spread of technology
to peripheral and semi-peripheral nations, The processing power of computers and devices is getting
faster, internet speeds are rising 23% year-on-year and prices for technology are falling. The price of
personal computers has declined by 99.9% since January 1980 and computer software now costs 0.7%
of its price in 1980. A 2008 World Bank report discusses both the benefits and ongoing challenges of this
diffusion. In general, the report found that technological progress and economic growth rates were
linked, and that the rise in technological progress has helped improve the situations of many living in
absolute poverty (World Bank 2008). Technological advances in areas like mobile phones can lead to
competition, lowered prices, and concurrent improvements in related areas such as mobile banking and
information sharing.

However, the same patterns of social inequality that create a digital divide in the United States also
create digital divides within peripheral and semi-peripheral nations. While the growth of technology use
among countries has increased dramatically over the past several decades, the spread of technology
within countries is significantly slower among peripheral and semi-peripheral nations. In these countries,
far fewer people have the training and skills to take advantage of new technology, let alone access it.
Technological access tends to be clustered around urban areas and leaves out vast swaths of peripheral-
nation citizens. While the diffusion of information technologies has the potential to resolve many global
social problems, it is often the population most in need that is most affected by the digital divide.

LESSON 7 ASIAN REGIONALISM

Objectives:

Differentiate between regionalization and globalization.

Identify factors leading to a greater integration of the Asian region.

Analyze how different Asian states confront the challenges of globalization and regionalization.

Regionalism

Regionalism refers to the growing density of interaction and cooperation and identity between
neighboring countries. Countries within the region provide assistance in combating foreign-supported
terrorist groups, and this is known as security.

Regionalism is multidimensional—it encompasses deepening interdependence in various spheres of

economic activity, widening cooperative efforts, and a growing commitment to international
collaboration. How is regional integration progressing in different areas? Which countries are
participating most actively? Which represent the region’s strongest links to external markets? The
evolution of Asian regionalism can be assessed on a wide range of measures, but each confirms a
remarkable coming together of diverse economies.

Regionalism is a relatively new aspect of Asia’s rise. Asia’s economies are increasingly connected
through trade, financial transactions, direct investment, technology, labor and tourist flows, and other
economic relationships. This study focuses on 16 Asian economies that are already, in some respects, as
closely intertwined as Europe’s single market. This “Integrating Asia” accounts for 87% of the region’s
population and 96% of its output —hence, it is often referred to simply as Asia —and conducts more
than half of its trade with itself. It includes some of the world’s wealthiest economies and some of its
poorest, large continental powers as well as small city states, continuously independent countries and
former colonies. Its strength derives from the openness, diversity, and dynamism of its interconnected
economies.
Asian Regionalism

Asian regionalism is the product of economic interaction, not political planning. As a result of successful,
outward oriented growth strategies, Asian economies have grown not only richer, but also closer
together. In recent years, new technological trends have further strengthened ties among them, as have
the rise of the PRC and India and the region’s growing weight in the global economy. But adversity also
played a role. The 1997/98 financial crisis dealt a severe setback to much of the region, highlighting
Asia’s shared interests and common vulnerabilities and providing an impetus for regional cooperation.

The center of gravity of the global economy is shifting to Asia. The region’s economy is already similar in
size to those of Europe and North America, and its influence in the world continues to increase. In many
Asian countries, the cycle of poverty has been broken; in others, this historic aim is within sight. Asia’s
extraordinary success has brought new challenges—while rapid economic growth remains a priority,
citizens demand that it also be sustainable and more inclusive. And Asia is now so important to the
world economy that it must also play a larger role in global economic leadership. Regional economic
cooperation is essential for addressing these challenges.

Asia’s economic rise is unprecedented. The region is home to over half the world’s population,
produces three tenths of global output (in terms of purchasing power), and consistently records the
world’s highest economic growth rates. The Asian “miracle” (World Bank 1993) did not end with the
1997/98 financial crisis a decade ago; for some countries, it marked the beginning of renewed
acceleration. The question is no longer whether Asia will be central to the 21st century economy, but
rather how it will exercise its prominent role and how its dependence on the rest of the world has
decreased.

Asian Regionalism and Its History

During the Cold War era, a few regional institutions at the governmental level were active in Asia. The
Economic Commission for Asia & the Far East, which was the first regional institution established in Asia
(in 1947), reflected the development of Pan-Asian regionalism; however, it lost its initial influence
following the mid-1960s, which marked the establishment of the Asian Development Bank (ADB).
Although the ADB has been functioning as a regional international bank and promoting economic and
social development in Asia, its area of responsibility has been limited to the provision of financial
support for the economic and social development of Asian countries. Later, the ASEAN was established
in 1967. Initially, it contributed to the development of the institutional core of Asian regionalism;
however, later, the expectations among political and economic regional power elites regarding this
regional institution declined, and the ASEAN’s activities were limited to maintaining its image as the
“political symbol” of unity among
“like-minded” Southeast Asian countries.

After the 1950s, regionalism flourished in Europe and, in the 1960s, it spread to other developing
regions, including Asia. Subsequently, regionalism seemed to be inactive in the world instead the
deepening of the worldwide economic interdependence, not region-wide. However, after the mid-
1980s, regionalism was revitalized in Europe, and it spread to North America. These events caused the
activation of the orientation of regionalism in Asia and strengthened the argument for the necessity and
possibility of establishing government-level regional institutions for economic cooperation and
coordination in Asia, under the banner of “Pacific” or “Asia-Pacific” cooperation. Consequently, the Asia-
Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) was established in November 1989, immediately after the collapse
of the Berlin Wall. Subsequently, the activation of regionalism in many regions began to be called “new
regionalism.”

As discussed by many scholars, the regional institutionalization in Asia was not a high-level one.
Katzenstein argued that “Asian regionalism was characterized by dynamic developments in markets
rather than by formal political institutions.” He also argued that Asian regionalism eschewed “formal
institutions” and that the characteristic of Asian regionalism was “soft regionalism” compared to the
European “hard regionalism,” which was “based on politically established discriminatory arrangement.”
Although Katzenstein made his argument approximately 20 years ago, a lack of strict and high-level
institutionalization remains one of the main characteristics of Asian regionalism and regional institutions
to this day. Although informalism had many advocates in post-Cold War period; however, the periods
witnessed significant development of regionalism with institutional frameworks.

The international liberal order is founded on three pillars: liberal market-led capitalism, liberal
internationalism, and liberal democracy. The predominance of the liberal international order promoted
the convergence of norms and values in terms of political regimes, economic structures, ideal domestic
societies, and the management of international affairs.

Regionalism and Its Importance to Asia

How regionalism can benefit Asia Regional cooperation, effectively structured and implemented, is a
powerful new tool in Asia’s policy arsenal. It can help Asia address regional challenges as well as provide
stronger foundations for its global role.

An integrated Asia can:

• link the competitive strengths of its diverse economies in order to boost their productivity and
sustain the region’s exceptional growth;

• connect the region’s capital markets to enhance financial stability, reduce the cost of capital,
and improve opportunities for sharing risks;

• cooperate in setting exchange rate and macroeconomic policies in order to minimize the effects
of global and regional shocks and to facilitate the resolution of global imbalances;

• pool the region’s foreign exchange reserves to make more resources available for investment
and development;

• exercise leadership in global decision making to sustain the open global trade and financial
systems that have supported a half century of unparalleled economic development;

• build connected infrastructure and collaborate on inclusive development to reduce inequalities

within and across economies and thus to strengthen support for pro-growth policies; and

• create regional mechanisms to manage cross-border health, safety, and environmental issues
better.

The opportunities are clear, which is why regional integration deserves a high priority in national policy
making. Yet the challenge of cooperation should not be underestimated; it will require trust, innovation,
and compromise—and, most likely, time. Policy makers at the highest levels appear committed to
pushing the regional agenda forward, but considerable leadership and energy are needed to achieve
results.

These benefits from cooperation could extend also to developing Asian economies that are not yet part
of the region’s integrating core. Indeed, in relative terms, newcomers to regional integration have the
most to gain from the expanded opportunities for economic development that it provides. Hence, an
important aim of this study is to make the case for integration to countries that have not yet adopted an
outward-oriented development strategy and to provide guidance on how to build stronger regional
connections.
Regionalism and Its Importance to the World

The rest of the world could benefit, too. So long as Asia’s economies continue to integrate not just with
each other, but also with the rest of the world, sustained Asian dynamism, strengthened by regional
cooperation, could bolster Asia’s role as a new and stabilizing engine of global economic growth. There
are many reasons why Asia is likely to remain outward-looking—not least because its economy is in
large part built on economies of scale and scope in manufacturing and so requires global markets to
perform at its potential. Indeed, because an integrated Asia will continue to have a powerful stake in the
global economy, it would have both an incentive and the leverage to play a bigger role in keeping global
markets open and vibrant. An integrated Asia can

• generate productivity gains, new ideas, and competition that boost economic growth and raise
incomes across the world;

• contribute to the efficiency and stability of global financial markets by making Asian capital
markets stronger and safer, and by maximizing the productive use of Asian savings;

• diversify sources of global demand, helping to stabilize the world economy and diminish the
risks posed by global imbalances and downturns in other major economies;

• provide leadership to help sustain open global trade and financial systems; and

• create regional mechanisms to manage health, safety, and environmental issues better, and
thus contribute to more effective global solutions of these problems.

While Asian regionalism is primarily motivated by the desire to advance welfare in the region, it would
not do so by detracting from development elsewhere. On the contrary, Asian regionalism can help to
sustain global economic progress at a time when other major regions are reaching economic maturity.

Asian Regionalism and Its Challenges

To be more meaningful and relevant, Asian institutions need to address four challenges.
 The first is the challenge to overcome the 19th-century mindset of sovereignty and non-intervention.
Transnational issues facing the region today -- such as pollution, terrorism, illegal migration and
pandemics -- defy national boundaries and must be dealt with by both the pooling of sovereignty and
some principled departures from it.

Second, Asia needs to reconcile competing proposals for regional architecture that have cropped up
since Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama of Japan proposed his vision of an East Asian Community in 2009,
effectively countering his Australian counterpart Kevin Rudd's 2008 vision of an Asia-Pacific Community.
The Australian proposal was clearly the first on the table, yet the Hatoyama government did not bother
to address how its EAC, which includes Australia, might relate to Rudd's APC. Given that Australia and
Japan have in the past jointly provided leadership in regional economic cooperation, including in the
development of Asia-Pacific economic cooperation, their failure to coordinate these new initiatives is
confusing.

Third, Asian institutions need to move beyond the ASEAN Way of informal, strictly consensus-driven
cooperation, to adopt greater institutionalization and legalization. Asia's institutions continue to be
based on the ASEAN model, which espouses a strong attachment to sovereignty and non-interference
and avoids formal and legalistic approaches to problem-solving. ASEAN has taken an important first step
in this direction by adopting an ASEAN Charter, but it remains to be seen whether ASEAN members can
and will take up the challenge of complying with the obligations of ASEAN's numerous treaties and
agreements. The ARF, APEC and ASEAN-Plus-Three, as well as the fledgling East Asian Summit, could also
benefit from developing greater institutionalization and fostering a culture of compliance.

Finally, Asian regional institutions should widen their focus to embrace transnational issues, and move
beyond being forums for consultations and dialogue to become instruments for problem-solving.
Without needing to go as far as NATO, the EU or the Organization for Security and Cooperation in
Europe, they should nonetheless develop collective mechanisms for disaster management,
peacekeeping, and protection of human rights and environment.

To sum up, criticisms of Asian regionalism and regional institutions are not without merit. Yet, they do
not warrant the view that investing in Asian regionalism is a waste of resources and time, or that the
Asian institutions have not made positive contributions to regional stability and prosperity. Much
depends on what sort of yardstick we use to judge their performance. In general, the benefits of
regionalism and continued institutionbuilding far outweigh its costs, and the region would be a more
dangerous and uncertain place without them.

Asia is undoubtedly more diverse than Europe – whether in terms of level of development (from rich
Singapore to very poor Laos), politics (from democracy to dictatorship and everything between),
economics (free markets to state capitalism and more), or religion (Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam,
Christianity, Shintoism and more). In fact, diversity is the very definition of Asia.

But this diversity has not stopped Asian countries from working together for prosperity and peace. And
over time, market-led regionalism has proven its value and is now progressively becoming more
institutionalized.

The evidence to date suggests that Asia’s experience in regionalism has been very successful. Almost
seven decades ago, in the midst of the Cold War, no one could have imagined Asian countries working
together as they are doing today.

Asia’s regionalism is most certainly a work-in-progress, but it is progressing stepby-step. And while it
showed the European Union the importance of basing regionalism on the private sector as a driving
force, Asia can now take a decisive step forward by emulating Europe’s past focus on governments
working with each other to overcome the specters of the past.

Asian Regionalism and Its Risks

Asia’s bright economic prospects provide a supportive environment for regional cooperation. But
building an Asian economic community is a long-term undertaking, and the economic climate cannot be
expected to remain consistently favorable.

Some risks are known. Global demand and financial stability are important to Asia and could be
compromised by a deepening credit crisis; a falling dollar; a sudden unwinding of current account
imbalances; and/or rapidly rising energy, food, and other commodity prices. Other shocks, including
adverse effects of global warming, could become more severe over time. In Asia as well, after a long
period of economic expansion (in some countries stretching back nearly two decades), there are bound
to be financial reversals and economic slowdowns due to business cycles whether they originate in the
region or elsewhere, and to longer term challenges such as excess savings and population ageing. New
health or security threats could make the flow of people and goods more difficult and expensive.
Environmental damage could result in radical changes in economic policies. Social instability could
generate tensions and uncertainty that overwhelm economic progress. Many of these risks can be
diminished with adequate foresight and cooperation, and some strategies for doing so are addressed by
this study. But not all risks can be known, and the unexpected often has the greatest impact.

Unanticipated developments could set Asian regionalism back— or accelerate it. The 1997/98 financial
crisis stimulated greater regional cooperation and a greater commitment to integration. Asian
governments now realize more clearly that they face a wide range of common challenges—such as
financial contagion as well as deadly diseases like severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and avian
flu—and have much to gain from addressing them jointly.

In some respects, regional cooperation is a form of insurance. Potential problem areas can be
monitored, for instance, through Asia’s new mechanisms for macroeconomic policy surveillance.
Coordinated policy responses can head off problems or at least minimize their impact. Cooperative
mechanisms can even limit the impact of risks that cannot be identified in advance. The dense network
of consultative arrangements that Asia is building can provide an early warning system and rapid
response mechanism for emerging threats

Asian Regionalism and The Challenge of Cooperation

Asia’s approach to regionalism is likely to have other distinct characteristics as well. The region’s policy-
making style is typically pragmatic and cautious. Cooperation is primarily aimed at making markets work
better and tends to be limited to specific initiatives and objectives. Although intergovernmental dialogue
at all levels has greatly increased, formal regional institutions remain relatively underdeveloped. These
are likely to gain traction only insofar as they promise and, eventually, deliver tangible benefits—not just
to elite groups, but to the population as a whole. The public appears to have positive expectations of
regionalism.

LESSON 8 INTERCONTINENTAL DRIFT: CULTURE, MEDIA AND GLOBALIZATION

Objectives:

Analyze how various media drive various forms of global integration. Explain the dynamics between
local and global cultural production.

Globalization refers to the interconnectedness and interdependence of states forming an international

integration.

Globalization of Culture Through the Media

Trolls are the hired armies of social media to manipulate public opinion through intimidation and
spreading fake news. Internet media covers the e- mail, social media, internet sites and internet- based
video and audio. Broadcast media involves radio, film, and television. Splinternet is the segregation of
the Internet into smaller groups with similar interests to a degree that they show a narrow- minded
approach to outsiders or those with contradictory views.

Citizens of countries within the region are generally alike in appearance, temperament and experiences
which can help in easing negotiations, and this is known as culture.

Media nowadays produce shallow or empty content; giving the public correct information is secondary
to entertaining and attracting consumers from all over the world. This is known as economic
globalization.

The received view about the globalization of culture is one where the entire world has been molded in
the image of Western, mainly American, culture. In popular and professional discourses alike, the
popularity of Big Macs, Baywatch, and MTV are touted as unmistakable signs of the fulfillment of
Marshall McLuhan's prophecy of the Global Village. The globalization of culture is often chiefly imputed
to international mass media.

After all, contemporary media technologies such as satellite television and the Internet have created a
steady flow of transnational images that connect audiences worldwide. Without global media, according
to the conventional wisdom, how would teenagers in India, Turkey, and Argentina embrace a Western
lifestyle of Nike shoes, Coca-Cola, and rock music? Hence, the putatively strong influence of the mass
media on the globalization of culture.

The role of the mass media in the globalization of culture is a contested issue in international
communication theory and research. Early theories of media influence, commonly referred to as "magic
bullet" or "hypodermic needle" theories, believed that the mass media had powerful effects over
audiences. Since then, the debate about media influence has undergone an ebb and flow that has
prevented any resolution or agreement among researchers as to the level, scope, and implications of
media influence. Nevertheless, key theoretical formulations in international communication clung to a
belief in powerful media effects on cultures and communities. At the same time, a body of literature
questioning the scope and level of influence of transnational media has emerged. Whereas some
scholars within that tradition questioned cultural imperialism without providing conceptual alternatives,
others have drawn on an interdisciplinary literature from across the social sciences and humanities to
develop theoretical alternatives to cultural imperialism.

Media has posed the Western Standards as ideal. Pale skin, a fit body, and glamorous clothes and
accessories have become a common standard of beauty in many countries, and this is all about cultural
globalization.
Function

The understanding of the relation between media and globalization should not be restricted to the
differences of internet speed among countries. Aside from the evident “uneven” process of media
globalization occurring worldwide, which implies that its effects and consequences are not identically
experienced, globalists recognize a certain “power geometry” at work. It talks about the idea that some
groups are more in- command that others in the proliferation of ideas and interest.

Cultural Imperialism and the Global Media Debate

Cultural imperialism refers to the imposition of a politically or economically dominant community of

various aspects of its own culture into a non-dominant community.

In international communication theory and research, cultural imperialism theory argued that audiences
across the globe are heavily affected by media messages emanating from the Western industrialized
countries. Although there are minor differences between "media imperialism" and "cultural
imperialism," most of the literature in international communication treats the former as a category of
the latter. Grounded in an understanding of media as cultural industries, cultural imperialism is firmly
rooted in a political-economy perspective on international communication. As a school of thought,
political economy focuses on material issues such as capital, infrastructure, and political control as key
determinants of international communication processes and effects.

In the early stage of cultural imperialism, researchers focused their efforts mostly on nation-states as
primary actors in international relations. They imputed rich, industrialized, and Western nation-states
with intentions and actions by which they export their cultural products and impose their sociocultural
values on poorer and weaker nations in the developing world. This argument was supported by a
number of studies demonstrating that the flow of news and entertainment was biased in favor of
industrialized countries. This bias was clear both in terms of quantity, because most media flows were
exported by Western countries and imported by developing nations, and in terms of quality, because
developing nations received scant and prejudicial coverage in Western media.

These concerns led to the rise of the New World Information Order (NWIO) debate, later known as the
New World Information and Communication Order (NWICO) debate. Although the debate at first was
concerned with news flows between the north and the south, it soon evolved to include all international
media flows. This was due to the fact that inequality existed in news and entertainment programs alike,
and to the advent of then-new media technologies such as communication satellites, which made the
international media landscape more complex and therefore widened the scope of the debate about
international flows.
 A second stage of research identified with cultural imperialism has been associated with calls to revive
the New World Information and Communication Order debate. What differentiates this line of research
from earlier cultural imperialism formulations is its emphasis on the commercialization of the sphere of
culture. Research into this area had been a hallmark of cultural imperialism research, but now there is a
deliberate focus on transnational corporations as actors, as opposed to nation-states, and on
transnational capital flows, as opposed to image flows. Obviously, it is hard to separate the power of
transnational corporations from that of nation-states, and it is difficult to distinguish clearly between
capital flows and media flows. Therefore, the evolution of the debate is mainly a redirection of emphasis
rather than a paradigm shift.

Media, Globalization, and Hybridization

According to Marshall McLuhan, Media Theorist, television was turning the world into a global village
because as more and more people sat down in front their television and sets and listened to the same
stories, their perception of the word would contract. Several reasons explain the analytical shift from
cultural imperialism to globalization. First, the end of the Cold War as a global framework for ideological,
geopolitical, and economic competition calls for a rethinking of the analytical categories and paradigms
of thought. By giving rise to the United States as sole superpower and at the same time making the
world more fragmented, the end of the Cold War ushered in an era of complexity between global forces
of cohesion and local reactions of dispersal. In this complex era, the nation-state is no longer the sole or
dominant player, since transnational transactions occur on subnational, national, and supranational
levels. Conceptually, globalization appears to capture this complexity better than cultural imperialism.
Second, according to John Tomlinson (1991), globalization replaced cultural imperialism because it
conveys a process with less coherence and direction, which will weaken the cultural unity of all nation-
states, not only those in the developing world. Finally, globalization has emerged as a key perspective
across the humanities and social sciences, a current undoubtedly affecting the discipline of
communication.

One perspective on the globalization of culture, somewhat reminiscent of cultural imperialism in terms
of the nature of the effect of media on culture, but somewhat different in its conceptualization of the
issue, is the view that the media contribute to the homogenization of cultural differences across the
planet. This view dominates conventional wisdom perspectives on cultural globalization conjuring up
images of Planet Hollywood and the MTV generation. One of the most visible proponents of this
perspective is political scientist Benjamin Barber, who formulated his theory about the globalization of
culture in the book Jihad vs. McWorld (1996). The subtitle, "How Globalism and Tribalism Are Reshaping
the World," betrays Barber's reliance on a binary opposition between the forces of modernity and liberal
democracy with tradition and autocracy.
 Another perspective on globalization is cultural hybridity or hybridization. This view privileges an
understanding of the interface of globalization and localization as a dynamic process and hybrid product
of mixed traditions and cultural forms. As such, this perspective does not give prominence to
globalization as a homogenizing force, nor does it believe in localization as a resistive process opposed
to globalization. Rather, hybridization advocates an emphasis on processes of mediation that it views as
central to cultural globalization. The concept of hybridization is the product of interdisciplinary work
mostly based in intellectual projects such as postcolonialism, cultural studies, and performance studies.
Hybridization has been used in communication and media studies and appears to be a productive
theoretical orientation as researchers in international media studies attempt to grasp the complex
subtleties of the globalization of culture.

One of the most influential voices in the debate about cultural hybridity is Argentinean-Mexican cultural
critic Nestor García-Canclini. In his book Hybrid

Cultures (1995), García-Canclini advocates a theoretical understanding of Latin American nations as

hybrid cultures. His analysis is both broad and incisive, covering a variety of cultural processes and
institutions such as museums, television, film, universities, political cartoons, graffiti, and visual arts.
According to García-Canclini, there are three main features of cultural hybridity. The first feature
consists of mixing previously separate cultural systems, such as mixing the elite art of opera with
popular music. The second feature of hybridity is the deterritorialization of cultural processes from their
original physical environment to new and foreign contexts. Third, cultural hybridity entails impure
cultural genres that are formed out of the mixture of several cultural domains. An example of these
impure genres is when artisans in rural Mexico weave tapestries of masterpieces of European painters
such as Joan Miró and Henri Matisse, mixing high art and folk artisanship into an impure genre.

In media and communication research, the main question is "Have transnational media made cultures
across the globe hybrid by bringing into their midst foreign cultural elements, or have cultures always
been to some extent hybrid, meaning that transnational mass media only strengthened an already-
existing condition?" There is no obvious or final answer to that question, because there is not enough
empirical research about media and hybridity and because of the theoretical complexity of the issue.
What does exist in terms of theoretical understanding and research results points to a middle ground.
This position acknowledges that cultures have been in contact for a long time through warfare, trade,
migration, and slavery. Therefore, a degree of hybridization in all cultures can be assumed. At the same
time, this middle ground also recognizes that global media and information technologies have
substantially increased contacts between cultures, both in terms of intensity and of the speed with
which these contacts occur. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that transnational mass media
intensify the hybridity that is already in existence in cultures across the globe. Consequently, the
globalization of culture through the media is not a process of complete homogenization, but rather one
where cohesion and fragmentation coexist.

The Advantages of Globalization for Business

1. Ability to tap into a wider talent pool When fully taking advantage of globalization, you are no
longer restrained by talent that is available in your city. Today your global workforce could work from
anywhere in the world with an internet connection opening you up to the brightest and best candidates
the entire world has to offer.

2. New ideas due to cultural diversity Managing an international workforce includes teams working
across different locations, people traveling and moving countries for work, having a range of different
work ethics and practices and even religious differences. All of these can be challenges, but
overwhelmingly are a positive thing in the workplace as it brings together different ideas and insights
and perspectives.

3. Larger markets Globalization opens up new opportunities for businesses to sell their goods and
services to a much larger markets, which means more potential sales and greater profits. Depending on
the organization it can open up other opportunities in terms of distribution, logistics, marketing and
management of these goods and services.

4. Earnings changes. With more and more companies accessing overseas outsourcing
opportunities, wages have decreased for many workers in the original countries. Companies in the
developing world are able to offer their services at a much reduced rate from those who live in countries
with greater living standards. This means that workers in larger countries are affected. For businesses
looking to take advantage of the opportunities offered by globalization, this can include paying lower
salaries and having lower overheads when they operate in less developed nations. Other savings can be
made in countries that have more favorable taxation and reduced red tape and business costs.

Pros of cultural globalization:

Access to new cultural products (art, entertainment, education) Better understanding of foreign values
and attitudes. Less stereotyping and fewer misconceptions about other people and cultures Instant
access to information from anywhere in the world Capacity to communicate and defend one’s values
and ideals globally Customization or adaptation of global cultural trends to local environment
(“mestisage”) Cons of cultural globalization: Spread of commodity-based consumer culture Dangers of
cultural homogenization Westernization, cultural imperialism or cultural colonialism Some small cultures
may lose their distinct features Dangerous or violent ideals can also spread faster (the international
character of the terror group IS).

More than Cultural Imperialism: Contra-flows and hybridization

 Being rational creatures faced with the real threat of losing a nation’s identity due to cultural
imperialism, several coping mechanisms come into play. One of these movements is dedicated toward
opposing the blind acceptance of foreign cultures is called contra-flows and to better understand this
concept, let us consider the case of the music industry