Veseth, M. (2005) Globaloney: Unraveling the Myths of Globalisation , Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham MD.
He knew nothing of historical criticism, yet he showed how events in history move in obedience to certain general laws; and this is his great merit as an historian. His natural bent was politics, but in his dealings with military matters he showed such skill as would amaze us even if we did not know he had never been a soldier. He recognized that to be strong a state must have its standing army, and he upholds this not only in the "Principe" and the "Discorsi" but in his various military writings. The broad and stable laws of military tactics he lays down in masterly fashion; yet it is curious to note that he lays no great stress on firearms.
This is not some heterodox stance. The most conventional textbook economics actually argues for surprisingly radical conclusions regarding the effects of globalization in the . economy. When people say that economics teaches that expanded trade is a “win-win” proposition, this means only that trade is “win-win” for total national income in each partner country. 2 But textbook economics does not predict that expanded trade will be a win-win for all groups within those countries.
Even after the terrorist attacks of September 11, the public did not perceive much slowing in the pace of globalization. In December 2001, the Pew Research Center asked how much "the pace of globalization [had] recently been slowed." A slight majority (52%) felt it had been slowed "hardly any" (30%) or "not at all" (22%). Forty percent felt it had been slowed "a little" and just 8% "a lot." And even among those who felt the pace of globalization had been slowed a little or a lot, a strong majority (68%) felt the slowdown was a short-term phenomenon. Moreover, a strong majority (63%) of this group said that the slowing down of globalization was a "bad thing for ordinary people"; only 32% felt it was a good thing. [ 13 ]
Americans Increasingly Familiar With Globalization
Americans are also becoming more familiar with the concept of globalization. In two ATIF polls from the early 1990s, more than four in ten said they were not familiar enough with the idea to say how they felt about it, or expressed no opinion. In the 1999 PIPA poll, just 29% said they were not familiar with the concept of globalization. A poll by the Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation and Harvard University during the 2000 presidential campaign asked how well respondents understood what candidates meant when they used the phrase "globalization of the world economy." Just 15 percent said they either did not know or did not understand the phrase at all. A solid majority (57%) said they understood the phrase very well (18%) or fairly well (39%). Another 28% understood it some, but not too well. [ 14 ]
Consistent with these findings, a fairly strong majority believes globalization in general has had at least some impact on them. A February 2000 Belden & Russonello survey found 69% felt that globalization of "the economy, communication, health, environment, and other areas" had a great deal (33%) or some impact (36%) on them personally. Just 29% thought it had just a little impact (10%) or not much impact at all (19%). [ 15 ]
What Globalization Means to Americans
In PIPA's October 1999 poll, respondents who had heard of the term 'globalization' (70% of sample) were asked to say what it meant to them. In various ways, virtually all responses described globalization as a growing interconnectedness of the world. As one respondent said, "It means we've become a more global society, economically and politically, so decisions being made here affect other areas, and other governments' decisions affect us." Said another, "Whatever happens in one country affects all countries." People made similar connections in the focus groups. In Baltimore, one man called it "a big merging of everything…a single culture, a big openness; the Internet…instant communication."
The dimensions of this interconnectedness varied. Most commonly cited was the economic dimension. One poll respondent said, "It means we trade with everybody and everybody trades with us." Another explained, "It means that in business everybody all over the world is connected monetarily."
However, this does not mean globalization was seen as only, or even primarily, an economic process. A bit more than half of survey respondents did not mention the economic dimension at all. A substantial number spoke in terms of values and norms. As one respondent said, globalization is "looking at things in terms of the world instead of a single country," while another said it is "all countries united, working for a better world." Others talked in terms of international institutions, for example defining globalization as "the United Nations and their [sic] influence." In a focus group, one woman said she believed globalization meant "respect for others, not necessarily for changing them but for respecting them where they are…I think that somehow we're all one."
Even though most views of globalization were positive on balance, the focus groups did bring to light some concerns about the increasing interconnectedness of the world. Naturally there was concern about the threats to American jobs that come with the growth of international trade. In addition some mentioned the faster spread of diseases, such as AIDS, while others brought up the possibility that outsiders may gain too much power in the US, or that countries will lose their individual identities. Some participants bristled at the notion of global government. As one man said, "Globalization as trade is good. Globalization as government is bad."
No one knows the future of globalization. Most experts agree that it will continue to grow and have an increasingly larger impact on people's lives in the future.