Brown (2008) Contemporary Globalization Theory

Globalization is What We Make of It:Contemporary Globalization Theory andthe Future Construction of GlobalInterconnection

Garrett Wallace BrownUniversity of Sheffield

There are four perennial questions that preoccupy globalization theory. For those who write aboutglobalization, there is a constant attempt to discover what globalization is, when it may have started, whatbenefits and burdens it offers for global cohabitation and whether globalization is ultimately a good thingor a bad thing.The purpose of this article is to review several new works in contemporary globalizationtheory and to assess what new answers they offer to these questions.Through this examination it will beargued that although these recent works provide significant improvements to former discussions onglobalization, they still tend to lack an obvious insight. Namely, they fail to highlight fully the fact thatwhatever globalization is, it is as important to think normatively about directing its future as it is tounderstand its past. In other words, globalization is entirely what we make of it, both in how wecognitively come to understand it, but also in how we decide to shape its future.

I think globalization is something you have the privilege to enjoy (MrNdlovo).

The above was a response given by a prominent village leader in KwaZulu-Natalwhile I was conducting field research on The Global Fund’s efforts to fightHIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria in South Africa. There are obvious infer-ences that can be drawn from such a statement about globalization.The tone andcontext of his remark insinuated that the word ‘you’ meant ‘you Westerners’, andby ‘privilege to enjoy’, he meant that it is largely people from Western industrialcountries that reap the benefits of globalization.Although one could dismiss thequote as a somewhat simplistic and naïve rendering of the complexities involvedin global interconnectedness, it nevertheless tells us something important abouthow globalization is conceptualized and the difficulties involved with under-standing it. For Mr Ndlovo’s quote highlights a misconception and a reality, aswell as articulating the fact that whatever globalization is, it is not somethingeasily definable or discerned.

On the one hand the quote highlights a misconception and simplistic under-representation of the effects of globalization. For the AIDS epidemic is, for once,indigenous to Africa and it is not the direct result of former globalizations whichtook the form of infection via European exploration and colonization. In addi-tion, the fact that there is an international response to HIV/AIDS is a direct result

POLITICAL STUDIES REVIEW: 2008 VOL 6, 42–53

© 2008 The Author. Journal compilation © 2008 Political Studies Association

http://www.politicalstudies.org

of globalization. For it is because of the global media and pressure from interna-tional non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that Africa’s plight has reachedsome level of global consciousness. In addition, Mr Ndlovo’s statement fails toreflect a very real positive aspect of globalization, which has taken the form of theinternational community’s creation of a monetary funding mechanism to collectand deliver assistance to his village.Although this effort is not enough,Mr Ndlovois receiving some benefits from the various global efforts that have dedicatedthemselves to reducing the destructive force of HIV/AIDS.Through its variousmanifestations, globalization is the reason why there is a new clinic in his villageand why there are foreign volunteers, increased foreign money and a growingglobal interest in helping his people.

On the other hand, his quote also captures something very real about how wemake sense of globalization, for it illustrates the fact that regardless of thepositive elements resulting from globalization, it is how Mr Ndlovo perceivesglobalization that dictates his interpretation of what it means. The roots of hisunderstanding are most likely influenced by learned memories of Africa’shistory with European colonialism, knowledge of various injustices inflicted inthe past by outsiders and, most importantly, by a growing sense of exclusionfrom a rapidly interconnected and modernizing world. As Daniel Cohen sug-gests, the promises of Western advancement are transmitted by television tothose in developing countries, ‘which for them is a window on our materialprosperity’ (Cohen, 2005, p. 5). For Mr Ndlovo, globalization is not only some-thing that offers real promises for the advancement of others, but it is alsosomething that has left him and his people behind. Therefore, for Mr Ndlovo,globalization is something the industrial countries of the world seem to enjoyand something that he feels no immediate relationship with, regardless of thefact that he is certainly in some way entangled in the interconnected web ofglobalization.

Although it might seem odd to introduce an article on globalization by exam-ining how it is defined by a remote African villager, it does illustrate the factthat globalization can be many things with various manifestations, meanings,connections and interrelated complexities. As Paul Hopper has recently sug-gested, it might be more appropriate to think of globalization in terms ofglobalizations, where even in the remote context of African village life, glo-balization reveals itself to have immense complexities, variations and intercon-nections (Hopper, 2006). For Mr Ndlovo’s context shows that globalization cantake many forms. It can be the spread of AIDS from the African continent, thelack of economic development promised by global capitalism, the internationalresponse to the AIDS pandemic, the global media’s portrayal of human suffer-ing, the network of NGOs involved, the volunteers from across the globe, theairline that flew them to South Africa, the Western television programs beamedinto his village and, most importantly, Mr Ndlovo’s understanding of what it allmeans for him.

GLOBALIZATION IS WHAT WE MAKE OF IT 43

© 2008 The Author. Journal compilation © 2008 Political Studies AssociationPolitical Studies Review: 2008, 6(1)

Conceptualizing Globalization

As was alluded to above, it might be best to think of globalization as a pluralisticphenomenon with multifarious complexities and, in many cases, indeterminateidiosyncrasies. Conceptualizing globalization in this fashion is a departure frommany prominent globalization theories.This is because most globalization theo-ries have been primarily focused on trying to define its specific properties and todetermine whether or not these specific elements represent anything new aboutthe world.These studies tend to focus on discovering a dominant trend in globalexchange and either to hail this trend as a sign of greater global interdependenceand prosperity or to dismiss it outright as radically overblown, insignificant or asbeing downright dangerous. For scholars like Susan Strange, globalization repre-sents a falsehood, because it represents nothing more than ‘a term used by a lot ofwooly thinkers who lump together all sorts of superficially converging trends’(Strange, 1995, p. 293). To other more radical thinkers, globalization and itspromotion of a liberal ideology marked an ‘end of history’ and the ushering in ofa new human epoch of liberal interdependence (Fukuyama, 1993). Many earlyglobalization theorists defined it in purely economic terms, in that globalizationis seen as a process of increased global capital trends associated with an expandingglobal marketplace and an exponential growth in global economic transactions(Greider, 1997). For theorists like Kinichi Ohmae, global capitalism holds thepromise of creating global interdependence to the point where traditional terri-torial boundaries and notions of absolute state sovereignty are being weakened infavor of a more politically interconnected and economically unified world(Ohmae, 2005). However, the debate about globalization has remained a mainstayin the study of global economics, with scholars such as Paul Hirst and GrahameThompson suggesting that the world economy is actually less ‘globalized’ todaythan it was in the late 1800s (Hirst andThompson, 1996).According to Hirst andThompson, economic interconnection is largely restricted to the three tradingblocks of North America, Europe and Japan. It is therefore better, according tothem, to discuss global economic processes as ‘triadization’ rather thanglobalization. Implicit in this understanding of globalization is a leftist critique ofglobal capitalism with the intent of representing the global economy as exploit-ative and beneficial only to a core group of countries (Thompson, 2005). Lastly,there are some ‘post-globalists’ who believe that the era of globalization is‘unexpectedly over’ (Ferguson, 2005), that it is so conceptually impoverished as to‘not even have existed’ (Rosenberg, 2005) and that the forces of globalizationhave been reversed since 9/11 because of rising nationalism and fundamentalistgeopolitics (Saul, 2005).

The immediate problem with these globalization theories is that they focus toomuch on highlighting a single trend or element associated with globalization inorder to come to a definitive judgement as to whether globalization represents agood thing, a bad thing or a mythical aberration.The problem is that globalizationreflects all three of these judgements.This is because the processes of globalization

44 GARRETT WALLACE BROWN


are dialectic, in that they often have two contradictory sides: one side thatpromotes more interconnectedness, resulting in greater economic markets,democracy and peace between democratic states, while on the other side itsimultaneously promotes the possibility for greater economic inequality, ideo-logical ethnic conflict and a failure to secure human development. In addition,globalization makes promises for human progress and development which,depending upon its context, is either something that is fulfilling one’s expectationor, as in the case of Mr Ndlovo, something that is perceived as leaving one behind.Therefore, the question as to what globalization is and whether it is a good thingor a bad thing is perhaps best answered by suggesting that globalization can bemany things and how it is conceptualized as being a negative or positive phe-nomenon often depends on one’s perception of it. In globalization’s simplestform, it encompasses a growing interconnection between peoples, nations, cul-tures, governments, environments, economies and indeterminate global networksthat are ultimately bound by the spherical shape of the earth. Nevertheless, thedirection in which globalization is moving is neither simply positive nor negative,for it is both, and as will be argued later, it is only through normative theorizingthat we can hope to give it some clearer direction in the future.

In Paul Hopper’s recent book, Living with Globalization, he suggests that the studyof globalization should move away from singular focused definitions of global-ization, opting instead for a more pluralistic understanding which better capturesits multidimensional processes.Although Hopper acknowledges that capitalism isone of globalization’s primary engines, he forcefully illustrates that ‘globalizationmeans global interconnectedness constituted by numerous flows and processes,and not just the economic’ (Hopper, 2006, p. 10). He goes on to add that ‘whenthinking about globalization we need to pay closer attention to how its numerousflows and processes are encountered and informed by different actors and agen-cies in a range of cultural, political and social contexts’ (Hopper, 2006, p. 1).As wasargued above, how globalization is conceptualized often depends on the relation-ship one has with its processes and how these processes impact upon our lives.

In many ways, Hopper provides a refreshing approach to globalization theory,for he focuses less on generalizations about globalization’s inherent goodnessor badness and focuses more on localized understandings which give rise toperceptions of both. As Hopper states, ‘we must take a differentiating approachand examine how its multiple processes and dimensions are encountered andinformed by different social groups ... within particular contexts’ (Hopper, 2006,p. 139, emphasis in original). The primary benefit of this approach is that itrecognizes the dialectic character of globalization in that each point of connec-tion between peoples, corporations, governments, ethnic groups and ideologiescan have both positive and negative effects, or in the case of Mr Ndlovo, theperception of having no effect at all.To illustrate the multidimensional characterof globalization,Hopper examines how conceptions of global interconnection aresocially constructed and reaffirmed by various actors engaged with, or seeking



exclusion from, increased global contact and interdependence. To do this,Hopper examines how perceptions in Britain, Europe, America, China, Islamiccountries, and by global terror networks, have been informed, or had beliefsreconfirmed, by the various processes of globalization. By examining particularviews about globalization, Hopper is able to analyze what implications theseviews may have in perpetuating various contradictory aspects of globalization andhow these in turn reinforce movement towards or away from greater globalinterconnectedness.

However, as with many globalization theories, Hopper’s work seems to lack adistinct normative component. This is because it is not exactly clear whetherHopper is portraying globalization as a phenomenon that we must simply ‘livewith’ or if globalization should also be understood as a term that reflects theprospect for greater human involvement in shaping its future direction. If glo-balization is the former, then what is disturbing about portraying globalization inthis fashion is that it limits human agency to having a merely reactionary role.Aconcern then arises from the fact that whatever globalization is, its processes havebeen entirely of human doing and it is therefore much more reflective of actualhuman decisions and aspirations then might usually be acknowledged by global-ization theorists. If Hopper also means the latter (which I think he does), then itis as important to know ‘what it means to be living with globalization’ as it is tothink normatively about how to live with globalization, so that globalization canbetter maintain our positive expectations while also limiting the negative con-sequences which seem to be resulting from globalization’s current course. Inother words, although Hopper is correct to suggest that globalization is oftenwhat people cognitively make of it, globalization can also be what people wish tomake of it.Thus, it is as important to know what people think about globalizationand how this reinforces its dialectic behavior as it is to know what should be doneto help change future perceptions and experiences.

Ageless Movements of Globalization(s)

For those who believe that globalization is a real phenomenon, there remainsconsiderable debate between scholars as to when globalization may have begunand how it has changed the human experience. For many, globalization is as oldas human history and it began once the first humanoid stepped off the Africancontinent (Pieterse, 2004). For others, a necessary requirement for a condition of‘real globalization’ is the existence of an institutional component and since globalinstitutions did not exist prior to the 1900s, globalization is therefore to beunderstood as a primarily twentieth-century phenomenon (Bull, 2000). Fortheorists who wish to expand the boundaries of its definition, in order to includepolitical, technological, sociological and cultural elements, as well as economic,then the idea of globalization has been replaced by something resemblingHopper’s notion of globalizations. These globalizations are seen to be repre-sented by various global movements and interconnections which took the form



of exploration, the expansion of trade, military conquest, migration, colonialism,the global movement of disease, the cross-pollination of ideas and the develop-ment of global politics.

Daniel Cohen in his recent book Globalization and Its Enemies suggests that‘globalization has always been a part of human history’ and outlines three clearperiods that best represent advancing human interconnectedness (Cohen, 2005, p.15). According to Cohen, the first substantial period of globalization can beunderstood as taking place during the sixteenth century and the age of globalexploration and expansion. Cohen suggests that the Spanish conquistadors largelyspearheaded this movement and that the world soon became locked into inter-connected spheres of influence between European powers and various indig-enous peoples of the world.The second form of globalization was marked by theexpansion of Britain’s trading empire in the nineteenth century. According toCohen, this period was marked by a significant increase in trade betweencountries and the transfer of technological and cultural goods between peoplesacross the globe. Lastly, Cohen argues that the current form of globalization isrepresented by an information age marked by an explosion of high-speed com-munication and financial transactions. Although Cohen agrees with Hirst andThompson that the nineteenth century was more ‘globalized’ in terms of inter-national trade in relation to percentages of gross domestic product (GDP), he alsobelieves that recent technological, cultural and ideological transfers betweenpeoples have changed the nature of global exchange and that this marks a newperiod of multidimensional globalization.

However, what is most interesting about Cohen’s argument is not his determina-tion that there have been many global movements throughout human history, butthe idea that unlike past globalizations, the newest era of globalization holds certainpromises that have failed to materialize for many people of the world.Whereasprior globalizations were characterized by the obvious exploitative elements ofmilitary expansion and colonialism, the current era of globalization has beenbrimming with promises for human development and global advancement.According to Cohen, the problem with the current age of globalization is not thatit is necessarily exploitative, but that it offers promises that it has failed to deliver.As Cohen states,‘for the majority of poor inhabitants of our planet, globalizationis only a fleeting image.What we too often ignore is how strong this image is, howpregnant with promises yet to be fulfilled’ (Cohen, 2005, p. 6).

There are two interrelated points of interest in Cohen’s argument. First, hisargument is able to capture the dialectic dimension of globalization withoutdogmatically praising or admonishing it.As Cohen states, ‘globalization creates astrange world where ... it has altered people’s expectations more than it hasincreased their ability to act’ (Cohen, 2005, p. 166). The reality, according toCohen, is that ‘for the majority of the poor inhabitants of our planet, globalizationremains an inaccessible idea’ (Cohen, 2005, p. 166). In this regard, globalization isnot something exclusively good or bad, it is a phenomenon that holds promises



and expectations which for some remain undelivered, which has in turn led tofrustration and diffidence. As Mr Ndlovo’s comment at the beginning of thisarticle highlights, globalization is often perceived as something only certainmembers of the world currently ‘have the privilege to enjoy’. Nevertheless, thisdoes not also mean that Mr Ndlovo would not like to enjoy the benefits ofglobalization, for the fact of the matter is that he very much would. Second,Cohen’s argument suggests that globalization is as much a normative concern asit is an empirical one.As Cohen suggests, ‘the tragedy of the poorest countries isthat they want to participate, without losing themselves, in a world that essentiallyignores them’ (Cohen, 2005, p. 164). To facilitate this participation, Cohenconcludes by arguing that we must think normatively about making the processesof globalization more just and inclusive, and that this will require a futuregeneration of globalization theorists to think constructively about what institu-tions we should create and what normative principles we should employ tounderwrite those institutions.

The Benefits and Burdens of Globalization

As was mentioned above, globalization theory has tended to focus on particularaspects of global interconnectedness in order to determine whether globalizationis ultimately a good thing or a bad thing.This has often led to some very polarizedopinions regarding the benefits and burdens associated with globalization andwhat, if anything, we should do about it. For some, the processes of globalization,under a neoliberal model, are largely beneficial and there is an existing capacityto create solutions to the negative externalities involved (Wolf, 2004). Since thispicture of globalization is not as apocalyptic as is often argued, we shouldtherefore maintain a ‘realistic optimism’ about globalization and the future oppor-tunities it will provide (Wolf, 2005). For others, globalization poses some seriousburdens for humanity to try and resolve, such as increasing environmentaldestruction (Ehrlich and Ehrlich, 2005), a massive growth in global inequality(Pogge, 2002), security issues resulting from resource depletion and a resultingclash of civilizations (Huntington, 2005). As David Held has recently argued, ifglobalization is left to continue on its unbridled course then there is a realpossibility that it could seriously affect the ability of the human race to coexistpeacefully, or to continue to exist at all (Held, 2005; 2007).

In response to the benefit or burden debate, Jan-Erik Lane’s recent bookGlobalization and Politics defends the argument that the world is facing monu-mental challenges and seeks to explore whether our global responses are sufficientto counteract the problems associated with globalization.To do this, Lane divideshis examination into two parts. First, his project seeks to demonstrate empiricallythat increased globalization offers critical coordination problems for humanity toresolve. Second, Lane examines what coordinated responses are being offered (orcould be offered) to reduce and/or to counter the negative effects associated withglobalization.



According to Lane, the major problems with globalization are in relation toconcerns about energy renewal, the sustainability of the world’s ecosystem, theinequalities associated with the global market and with the continued mainte-nance of peaceful relations between polarized ethnic and religious societies undera condition of inescapable global cohabitation and scarce resources. Lane arguesthat the current course of global economic development is absolutely dependenton a depleting source of fossil fuels. This presents global society with difficultoptions regarding sustainable development and the possible economic downturnsthat will inevitably happen unless sustainable fuel alternatives are found. Inaddition, the tide of global warming and possible ecological disaster has alreadyreached the point of no return and even if humanity were able to cut carbonemissions totally tomorrow, the damage could only be lessened and not reversed.These global issues pose difficult hardships for the peaceful coexistence of futuregenerations, which will have to compete for scarce global resources and struggleto survive in areas affected by rising temperatures. After providing a detailedanalysis of each of these concerns, Lane concludes that these global problems poseserious consequences for human progress and that they threaten to place mankindin direct conflict with both Mother Nature and itself. As Lane suggests, ‘thecontinents of this planet are from now on interlinked in one common walk of life,which ultimately concerns not the emergence of this or that country as devel-oped, nor the time span of the hegemony of this or that state, but the possibleextinction of the human race’ (Lane, 2006, p. 2, emphasis in original).

Lane responds to those who dismiss the argument that globalization poses asmany serious burdens as it does benefits by demonstrating that the globalresponses to these concerns are often insufficient and/or totally non-existent.Toprove this point, Lane examines what coordinated efforts are being made tocounter global warming and the depletion of fossil fuels.The problem, accordingto Lane, is that there exists ‘a heavy institutional deficit’ at the global level withvery little cooperation or agreement between peoples, corporations and govern-ments in relation to these potential calamities. The reason for this lack ofcoordination, according to Lane, is the fact that globalization remains a contestedconcept without consensus as to what dangers and benefits it creates. Thisconfusion results from the fact that:

Globalization is a contested set of phenomena because the countriesparticipating in the process benefit differently.When groups believe thatthey stand more to gain than to lose, then they endorse globalization.However, when they fear the consequences of globalization, then theyoppose it (Lane, 2006, p. 4).

Although not stated directly, Lane’s argument seems to support the thesis thatglobalization can mean many things to many people and that our opinions aboutwhether it is a benefit or burden are determined largely by the context in whichpeople interact with its processes. In this regard, Lane’s project helps to demon-strate the dialectic nature of how we cognitively understand and react to global-



ization, in that globalization can provide positive opportunities as much as it posesnegative consequences. For Lane, the only way to alter the critical burdens facinghuman global coexistence is to attempt to foster greater cooperation and coor-dination in regard to how the processes of future globalization(s) are to bemanaged.This in turn will not only help to reduce the negative side-effects ofglobalization, but will also help to change individual perceptions about whatpositive roles globalization can play in their own lives. However, Lane leaves uswith only a rough sketch of what normative solutions we should adopt indirecting a future globalization, adding that we must begin to think in universalterms, focusing on common human needs that are anchored to universal notionsof justice and global community (Lane, 2006, pp. 187–8). Lane ultimately remainsreservedly hopeful for these advancements, but warns that if we cannot coordi-nate an appropriate system to manage globalization universally, ‘then the dangersof globalization will probably come to outweigh its promises’ (Lane, 2006, p. 14).

Globalization as a Normative Concern

As has been argued, the problem with most globalization theories in the past isthat they have often been too narrowly concerned with determining whetherglobalization is primarily a good thing, a bad thing or a thing worth mentioningat all. However, as the above survey of recent literature has illustrated, thistraditional mode of analysis has given way to a reformulated approach, whichunderstands globalization as containing many interlinked, multitudinous andparadoxical components. In doing so, there seems to be a growing consensus thatthe processes of globalization are often dialectic and contradictory, with theexistence of many indeterminable links which limit our ability conclusively todefine globalization and its impacts.

Nevertheless, this should not be interpreted as a call to abandon empiricalinvestigation and the attempt to understand better the processes of globalization.For both empirical and normative analysis are codependent necessities in comingto terms with globalization.This is because despite the fact that globalization ismultifarious, complex, often indeterminable, constantly in flux and operating ona scale which often seems impossible to measure, we have been able to measuremany connections, effects, modes of connection and perceptions involving itsnature. In many ways, a continued push to discover the workings of globalizationis needed in order to inform a meaningful normative response.This is because itwill only be through understanding the various experiences of globalization thatwe will be able to highlight the various empirical considerations which normativethinking must take into account. However, unlike the past, this search for empiri-cal understanding does not mean that we should postpone the need to thinknormatively about globalization. Although the processes of globalization arecomplex, there exists enough empirical knowledge to understand the majorconsiderations that need to be addressed immediately. It would seem that the



question is no longer exclusively,‘what is globalization and is it good or bad?’ butalso,‘what should we do about what we already know is bad about globalization?’.

As Hopper points out, this will require those who study globalization to look moreclosely at the various local intersections and contexts which help to inform ourunderstandings of globalization and its effects.However, as Cohen also argued, thiswill require new and innovative thinking about what we should do to correct whatwe already know is creating many of the negative responses to globalization. Inmany ways, where most contemporary globalization theories fail is in providingcoherent and consistent ideas about what normative principles should be adoptedto underpin and transform future global interconnectedness. In other words, thereis a general lack of normative thinking in current globalization debates about howto improve human interconnection and future globalizations.This is because mostglobalization theorists are still preoccupied with classifying themselves as beingglobalists, hyper-globalists, sceptics, transformationalists or post-globalists, whileonly exploring why a particular research niche is more tenable than another.Nevertheless, once we are willing to accept that globalization is made up of manydialectical components, then the question becomes less about which approachprovides a definitive conclusion about what globalization is, and more about howeach approach is able to capture specific elements involved with the variousprocesses of global interconnection.

To a small degree some globalization theorists have made progress towardsthinking normatively about how global cohabitation and interconnection oughtto be organized.The increase of alternative ideas about cosmopolitanism, globalcivil society and global governance over the last ten years highlights a movementtowards renewed thinking about global cohabitation and towards discussionsabout how we might manage the negative aspects of globalization.However, theseefforts are still not enough and require increased reinvigoration and imaginativethinking. In the case of cosmopolitanism, its moral foundations of individualism,equality and global universality beyond the nation state remain largely underde-veloped in regard to how these principles are to underpin and motivate any globalinstitutional framework. It is because of inadequate movement from theory topractice that cosmopolitanism remains unconvincing to many sceptics.Althoughcosmopolitanism is one of the few theories to provide anything near a coherentglobal normative political theory, it is still in need of renewed innovation, areformulation in light of a more complex understanding of globalization and aneed to better develop plausible transitions from theory to practice.

In the case of global civil society, there has been promising work on the idea of aglobal ethic formulated through increased global dialogue and a ‘bottom-upapproach’ (Eade and O’Byrne, 2005). However, the study of global civil societyoften rests on a premise of open dialogue and deliberation that needs to be betterformulated in response to processes of globalization that open as many opportu-nities for communication as they close off deliberation and restrict meaningfuldialogue. Although the bottom-up approach of civil society is compatible with



and complementary to cosmopolitan ethics (O’Byrne,2005),both are anchored tosimilar principles of human worth (Hayden, 2002; Jones, 1999; Marchetti, 2005),a sense of global justice (Caney, 2005; Pogge, 2001), cosmopolitan law (Brown,2006;Buchanan,2004;Waldron,1999) and cosmopolitan democracy (Held,1996;2003; McGrew, 2002).The problem that cosmopolitans and advocates of globalcivil society face is that given the current condition of contradictory globaliza-tion(s),many of these baseline principles remain undeveloped globally and thus donot provide the foundational structure that these theories often demand.

The fact that globalization has not delivered the unifying cosmopolitanism thatwas often hoped for could explain why there has been a renewed enthusiasmin creating links between cosmopolitan principles, civil society and globalgovernance. In response to the monumental collective action problems associatedwith globalization, it is becoming increasingly apparent that radical changes toglobal governance are needed and that robust normative principles are alsoneeded to ground these new institutions toward a more just and participatorysystem of global cohabitation. In this regard, it is through the practical realities ofhaving to govern globalization that many normative theorists hope to create alink between theory and practice.

It is due to the need to create stronger links between theory and practice that thestudy of globalization is as much of a normative concern as an empirical one.Thisis due to the fact that whatever globalization is, it is many things, and globalizationhas become what we have made it, both in how we cognitively come to makesense of it, but also in how we decide to shape its future. For globalization seemsto be a good thing, a bad thing and a dialectically polarizing phenomenoncreating opportunities for it to be both.This leaves globalization theorists with theresponsibility of moving beyond the traditional impulse to discover the one trendthat captures the true nature of globalization and move toward genuine ideas ofwhat should be done about what we already know to be wrong with it. In thisregard the quote by Mr Ndlovo at the beginning of the article becomes relevant.For not only should we seek to understand why Mr Ndlovo feels that global-ization is something only some people ‘have the privilege to enjoy’, but we shouldalso be asking what we should do to make sure this will no longer be the case.

(Accepted: 3 May 2007)

About the AuthorGarrett Wallace Brown, Department of Politics, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2TN, UK;email: [email protected]

ReferencesBrown, G. W. (2006) ‘Kantian Cosmopolitan Law and the Idea of a Cosmopolitan Constitution’, History of

Political Thought, 27 (3), 661–84.



mailto:[email protected]

Buchanan, A. (2004) Justice, Legitimacy and Self-Determination: Moral Foundations for International Law. Oxford:Oxford University Press.

Bull, H. (2000) ‘BeyondThe State System?’, in D. Held and A. McGrew (eds), The GlobalTransformations Reader.Cambridge: Polity Press, pp. 577–82.

Caney, S. (2005) Justice beyond Borders: A Global Political Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cohen, D. (2005) Globalization and Its Enemies. London: MIT Press.

Eade, J. and O’Byrne, D. (2005) Global Ethics and Civil Society. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Ehrlich, P. C. and Ehrlich, A. F. H. (2005) One with Nineveh: Politics, Consumption, and the Human Future.Washington DC: Island Press.

Ferguson, N. (2005) ‘Sinking Globalization’, Foreign Affairs, 84 (2), 64–77.

Fukuyama, F. (1993) The End of History and the Last Man. New York: Penguin.

Greider, W. (1997) One World, Ready or Not:The Magic Logic of Global Capitalism. London: Penguin.

Hayden, P. (2002) Cosmopolitan Global Politics. Burlington VT: Ashgate.

Held, D. (1996) Democracy and the Global Order: From the Modern State to Cosmopolitan Democracy. Cambridge:Polity Press.

Held, D. (2003) ‘Cosmopolitanism: Globalization Tamed?’, Review of International Studies, 29 (4), 160–86.

Held, D. (2005) ‘Globalization: The Dangers and the Answers’, in D. Held (ed.), Debating Globalization.Cambridge: Polity, pp. 1–36.

Held, D. (2007) ‘Reframing Global Governance: Apocalypse Soon or Reform!’, in D. Held and A. McGrew(eds), Globalization Theory. Cambridge: Polity Press, pp. 240–60.

Hirst, P. and Thompson G. (1996) Globalization in Question. Cambridge: Polity.

Hopper, P. (2006) Living with Globalization. Oxford: Berg.

Huntington, S. (2005) Who Are We? America’s Great Debate. New York: Free Press.

Jones, C. (1999) Global Justice: Defending Cosmopolitanism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lane, J.-E. (2006) Globalization and Politics: Promises and Dangers. Aldershot: Ashgate.

McGrew, A. (2002) ‘Transnational Democracy’, in A. Carter and G. Stokes (eds), Democratic Theory Today.Cambridge: Polity Press, pp. 269–94.

Marchetti, R. (2005) ‘Consequentialist Cosmopolitanism and Global Political Agency’, in J. Eade and D.O’Byrne (eds), Global Ethics and Civil Society. Aldershot: Ashgate, pp. 57–73.

O’Byrne, D. (2005) ‘Globalization, Cosmopolitanism and the Problem of Civil Society’, in J. Eade and D.O’Byrne (eds), Global Ethics and Civil Society. Aldershot: Ashgate, pp. 1–14.

Ohmae, K. (2005) The Next Global Stage:The Challenges and Opportunities in Our Borderless World. Chicago IL:Wharton School Press.

Pieterse, J. N. (2004) Globalization and Culture. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield.

Pogge, T. (ed.) (2001) Global Justice. Oxford: Blackwell.

Pogge, T. (2002) World Poverty and Human Rights. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Rosenberg, J. (2005) ‘Globalization Theory: A Post Mortem’, International Politics, 42 (1), 2–74.

Saul, R. J. (2005) The Collapse of Globalism. London: Atlantic Books.

Strange, S. (1995) ‘The Limits of Politics’, Government and Opposition, 30 (3), 291–311.

Thompson, G. (2005) ‘The Limits of Globalization’, in D. Held (ed.), Debating Globalization. Cambridge: Polity,pp. 52–8.

Waldron, J. (1999) ‘What is Cosmopolitan?’, Journal of Political Philosophy, 8 (2), 227–43.

Wolf, M. (2004) Why Globalization Works. New Haven CT: Yale University Press.

Wolf, M. (2005) ‘A Case for Optimism’, in D. Held (ed.), Debating Globalization. Cambridge: Polity, pp. 37–42.



Documents

Brown (2008) Contemporary Globalization Theory