GLOBALIZATION: THE GREAT TRANSFORMATION.

ABSTRACT

The debate over the use of the term "globalization" is in a state of flux. In the business world, globalization has become the fashionable term for CEOs to use in presentations and in their annual reports. The topic of this article provides an understanding of the concept of globalization. It sheds light on certain strategies that aimed at limiting worldwide access to globalization benefits. In addition, a well-defined concept of globalization is introduced to enhance the quality of the discourse on globalization of business. Furthermore, the essential elements of globalization are identified.

INTRODUCTION

Globalization represents a major leap forward in the history of humankind. Throughout history, people have witnessed serious setbacks, wars, and hardships. Conflicts and misunderstandings have been the hallmarks of previous generations. These characteristics accentuated by the fact that ethnocentric thinking and attitudes were the norm rather than the exception. In today's society, access to information and opportunities to interact with people from diverse cultures and backgrounds ease communications and sensitize others to the realities and the contributions of different groups to civilizations and their progress. Indeed, people, in general, have become more tolerant of others' points of view and have simultaneously raised their expectations regarding civilized behavior.

Furthermore, the belief in democracy, pluralism, and human rights appears to be gaining acceptance globally. In the last two decades, many countries have adopted specific measures to enhance the transformation to an open society and to strengthen the rules of law. Other countries have shown a willingness to join the international community in minimizing power abuse and to ease access to power and opportunities for wealth creation.

The above developments find their roots among people in almost every corner of the world. Many business people and scholars, along with ordinary citizens, now believe these developments provide the foundation for progressive thinking and a prosperous world. That is, there is optimism that the future will be brighter, not only for the few established elites, but for every group in every quarter of the world. This optimism has far reaching implications for world trade and business conduct and operations. Optimism means hope and hope induces motivation, energy, and a commitment to a better work environment and quality of life.

Certainly, globalization sustains both optimism and opportunities. Globalization, however, is not without serious roadblocks that could frustrate humanity's progress and reduce hope to a mere dream. This is because there are certain forces (e.g., lobbyists & politically oriented intellectuals), on the international stage, that seek to steer the benefits of globalization to special groups, while releasing any responsibility to the world community. These forces are well organized and have at their disposal the intellectual machines and justifications to seize opportunities for themselves and clients. Their familiarity with market conditions and their worldwide network and mastery of information technology give them an advantage over a majority of the world's populations. Consequently, they appear to steer the discourse on globalization to serve their interests. Therefore, this paper is designed to shed light on certain strategies that are aimed at limiting worldwide access to globalization benefits, and to identify the essential elements of globalization.

In their effort to restrict the benefits of globalization for themselves, the above forces tend to embark on at least three strategies: spreading confusion about the meaning and intent of globalization; inducing fears among CEOs that global trade and business will not flourish without maintaining some type of world conflict and military intervention; and promoting the proposition that the cost of allowing participation and inclusion on a global stage outweighs the benefits.

The first strategy eases the implementation of the other two strategies. It has been effective in academia, as some scholars have begun to view globalization as a form of internationalization. Others treat globalization as "the production and distribution of products and services of a homogeneous type and quality on a worldwide basis" (see Hodgetts & Luthans, p. 91). In the business world, however, it appears that the majority of today's executives do not subscribe to such conceptualizations. For example, Harry Stonecipher (1996), President and CEO of McDonnell Douglas views globalization as "the whole movement toward a single world economy and a single world society." (p. 251) Previously, Edwin Artzt (1990), Chairman and CEO, P&G, provided a more comprehensive definition of globalization in the business world:

Globalization means doing a better job than your competitors at satisfying

consumers' needs and their demand for quality, no matter where they live.

It means creating the network and infrastructure to efficiently compete in

the increasingly homogeneous worldwide marketplace. Globalization has

special meaning with Proctor & Gamble. It means that we will continue to

change from a United States-based business that sells some of its products

in international markets into a truly world company. A company that thinks

of everything it does -- including the development of products -- in terms

of the entire world. (P. 1)

The second strategy targets business people. It promulgates fears among business executives that globalization is not possible without the use of force and military intervention abroad. For example, Friedman (1998) asserts that the hidden hand of the global market will not work without the hidden fist: "The hidden fist that keeps the world safe for the Silicon Valley's technologies to flourish is called the United States Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps." Therefore, advocates of this strategy always call for increasing military expenditures and readiness. Dictators in many countries find this appealing as a means of sustaining power, accumulating wealth through various schemes, and depriving their citizens of important educational and economic opportunities.

Among powerful nations, this strategy is promoted in order to maintain access to vital natural resources (e.g., oil) or to rally the support of the business community to otherwise unpopular policies. For example, Margaret Thatcher, former British Prime Minister, argued (1993, p. 162) that England's withdrawal of its forces from the Arab East was regrettable. She stated, "I always regretted, even at that time, the decision of Ted Heath's Government not to reverse the Wilson Government's withdrawal of our forces and the serving of many of our responsibilities east of Suez. Repeatedly, events have demonstrated that the West cannot pursue a policy of total disengagement in this strategically vital area."

A more serious flawed approach to the second strategy has been demonstrated by the pronouncements of William Cohen, U.S. Secretary of Defense, at Fortune 500 Forum in 1998. He stated, "As American business and the American military move about the world, we are relearning the old wisdom that `business follows the flag.'" This philosophy is a setback to globalization thinking and invokes an outdated slogan from the colonial area. Certainly, global economic integration and world interdependence must not be based on a conceptualization that is patently offensive in today's civilization.

The third strategy serves to rationalize the exclusion of the majority of the world's population and countries from active participation in the globalization process and its benefits. That is, there are temptations to project the existing superpower's design, priorities, and culture all over the world. For example, Waltz (2000, p. 47), among others, view globalization as domination or homogenization. This eventually leads to resentment, chronic conflict, and sub-optimization of world resources, opportunities, and benefits. Gorbachev (2000) warns that the temptation to pursue, for example, "American globalization" would be "something devoid of meaning and even dangerous." Perhaps excluding others from the benefits of globalization appeals to some quarters. In fact, there are many self-promoted "experts" residing at various think-tank institutions who profess, introduce, and defend globalization as a new exclusive club. These "experts" consider the participation of the non-elite in the strategic planning and decision-making progress as a threat to their power and prestige. Often, they view non-elite segments of the world's population as insignificant and even a liability.

Many of the politically oriented experts at think-tank institutions may be concerned that in a world focused on civility, democratization, trade, and technological advancement, they would loss their influence on world affairs. This may explain why they appear to reinvigorate cold war terminologies, advocate a hegemonic world, and ridicule inclusive and participative modernization programs. These experts' intellectual and economic justifications, however, will not likely withstand the wave of globalization and the worldwide progressive view. In the end, inclusive globalization is the only practical path destined to eradicate abject poverty, inequalities, and backwardness.