- Contents -
I. Introduction
II. What is Globalization?
III. The Definition of Democracy
IV. Whether Globalization Affects Democracy?
V. Positive view: Globalization Promotes Democracy
VI. Negative view: Globalization Obstructs Democracy
VII. Conclusion
References & footnotes
I. Introduction
Nowadays terms “Globalization” and “Democracy” are used very frequently both – in casual and in scientific fields and have a long history. The term “Globalization” has been used only for more than a half of century, but become very controversial word with a lot of connotations and images
[1]. But, as it will be examined later in this article, it is difficult to say, when globalization as a process began, too. Furthermore, is globalization and economic globalization synonyms? In some papers it is held, that dynamism of capitalism or global capitalism is a source and sometimes is the same as globalization
[2]. There is no agreement in scientific arena, what globalization is and how it is coming to the play, but in the second section of this work it will be tried to do.
Democracy, as a term, has been used from ancient Greek times and is less inconsistent as “Globalization”. Of course, the term from its ancient meaning got more associations, such as human rights, etc. and varieties of democracy (direct, representative, consensus, interactive, etc.). Therefore, sometimes Democracy is used as the synonym of Freedom, but it is only association; to be more specific, “Democracy is the institutionalization of freedom”
[3]. The evolution of democracy, or maybe for some researchers it is seen as devolution, will be shortly described in the third section of article.
The investigation of democracy and globalization requires entering international relations’ or world politics’ arena. Globalization seems as phenomenon, which created highly near connections between states, people and other engines, changed views and understandings, and still is in the process. So here the theories of world politics will be omitted, because of very understandable reason – the constructivists’, Marxists’ and others’ views of globalization and how it is working, needs another writing.
What is more, this composition examines previous and present relationships between globalization and democracy. It analyzes, whether globalization affects democracy: if yes, how – positively or negatively, if no, why (IV, V and VI sections).
Consequently, it is essential to add that the main purpose of this paper is to show all the most important sides of globalization and democracy and answer the main question, how economic globalization can change the democratic world and how in the future the balance between these two inevitable processes: democratization and globalization could be kept.
II. What is Globalization?
A lot papers and books have been published about the globalization. Despite it is comparatively a new concept, it has aroused enthusiasm of researchers and common people that is why it is becoming more and more important. Describing the term “globalization” there is a lot of definitions, by the most interesting of them globalization is:
“The intensification of worldwide social relations which link distant localities in such a way that local happenings are shaped by events occurring many miles away and vice versa”.[4]
“The integration of the world-economy”.[5]
“Deterritorialization or <…> the growth of supraterritorial relations between people”.[6]
“Time-space compression”.[7]
“By globalization we simply mean the process of increasing interconnectedness between societies such that events in one part of the world more and more have effects on peoples and societies far away. A globalized world is one in which political, economic, cultural, and social events become more and more interconnected, and also one in which they have more impact.”[8]As it is seen in these descriptions, globalization affect societies more and more extensively and make them more and more deeply affected by events of other societies. Likewise, globalization is working through social, economic, cultural, political spheres, and sometimes military, legal and ecological spheres are added too
[9]. Shortly the processes will be described below.
Social: movements from one part of the world to another are one of the major global issues, especially migration from South to North and East to West. ‘Culture revitalization’, international agencies and multi-ethnic societies are changes, which the globalizing world is meeting with
[10].
Economic: Castells’ called ‘global informational capitalism’ – global capitalist economy, when worldwide trade and finance, and production are composing global markets and multinational corporations begin to play very important role: their production’s organization and marketing on the worldwide basis creates countries losers and countries winners
[11]. Trans-national corporations become very important players in the global politics
[12].
Cultural: the global diffusion of popular culture, global media corporations and communications networks, etc. and a complex mix of homogenization and increased heterogeneity create a new world culture, newly defining nationalism, ethnicity, and difference
[13].
Military: such issues as proliferation of weapons, the growth of transnational terrorism, global insecurity problems and the increasing significance of transnational military corporations change the world military forces’ course.
Legal: the increased importance of human rights and the enlargement of transnational and international law, and established new organizations for protection such as International Criminal Law, Amnesty International, Freedom House, etc. indicate the new web of law in the world.
[14] Ecological: imminent global ecological environmental problems from global warning to species protection require working without boundaries and together. International regimes and International organizations for solving ecological problems and taking care of nature become transnational important actors in world arena
[15].
Political: globalization change democracy in democratic countries and the being of nation-state. It brings a lot of new institutions and actors (it could be said, that these institutions and actors came as a result of globalization) in to world politics arena: transnational companies, international organizations, regimes, etc.
[16] Notwithstanding, these spheres show the main patterns of existence of globalization. Proceeding this section, it is worth to go through Steve Smith, John Baylis and Patricia Owens effectively summarized arguments for and against globalization. They have found 8 arguments in favour of globalization and 7 arguments, suggesting the opposite side
[17] and shortly they will be reconsidered below.
The main arguments for globalization, which indicates that globalization is a reality, are: economic transformation, communications, global culture, homogeneity, collapse of time-space, global polity, cosmopolitan culture and risk culture. First, economic transformation is really noticeable. States cannot control their economies, because world economy is becoming more and more interdependent with expansion of trade and finances. It shapes new political and economic understanding.
Second, electronic communications changed the world: the internet, media, television, etc, made easier for events from one part of the world come to another. Third, global culture, which is significantly shaped by Hollywood, in other areas by Bollywood, Korean Waves, etc. becomes more homogeneous and shares a common culture and values, what diminishes the differences between people. Fourth, time-space collapsing created the speed, which makes ideas and values old by communications and media. Also, it requires more and more discoveries and innovations, which could demonstrate the evolution of society.
Fifth, transnational political and social movements and organizations, transfer of loyalty from the state to sub-state, etc., emerge global polity. Sixth, there is a significant development of cosmopolitan culture. Increasingly the “thinking globally and acting locally” have begun to take larger horizons. Seventh, the most intimidating problems in the world are wide-spread and affecting worldwide such as pollution, AIDS, etc. and states’ governments are unable to solve them separately.
Concluding, the vast majority of these arguments repeats partly the thoughts pointed earlier, but all of them indicates that the world is changing technically (new engines, industry, etc.), politically (transnational actors and international bodies, etc.) and socially (the reduction of borders’ significant, differences, etc.)
[18].
On the other hand, there are some views, that globalization is only a myth. Generally, there are 7 main points, seeing globalization as a new stage of world politics. First, somebody point that globalization becomes a cant of the last phase of capitalism, because present internationalized economy is not unique in history. There could be found a lot of parallels of the same situation in the history, despite the growing interconnectedness depend on the communications, which were developed only in past several decades. Therefore, most of so called transnational companies are national companies trading internationally. There is no switch of flowing of finance and capital: they still concentrated on the developed countries in the world. As Hirst and Thompson portrait, world economy is not global: Europe, North America and Japan get the main flows of finance, investment, and trade and world economy is as three blocs’ or three regions’ economic relationship
[19]. (It is arguable that economic openness of these countries is developed enough, because for instance, 61% of EU countries’ trade takes place inside the union.
[20]) These three blocs can control markets and forces, if they agree together on the coordinated policies. Of course, Hirst and Thompson value only economic globalization and they do not agree on thesis that our economy is the global market
[21].
Second, globalization is spotty in its outcomes. Sometimes it sounds as only a theory for Western and well-developed countries. There are a lot of people in the world who have never made a telephone call or used computer with the internet. So, it looks like globalization refers to the developed world and the rest parts of the planet is not suitable to measure the extent and depth of globalization.
Third, forces, which globalise the world, are found mainly in Western countries. The globalization brings only Western values, thus, it could be called the latest stage of Western imperialism or the Western culture’s triumph, because in vast majority of countries, which could be portrayed as globalized, there are the same economic, political and social system, because globalization cannot work, if there are boundaries, despite, it tries to diminish them.
Fourth, the world is economically divided and technologies and progress go to developing or developed countries creating that non-developed countries stay in the position that they had been before – losers, because advantages of globalization with progress bypass “losers”, which are not globalized and developed enough
[22].
Fifth argument against globalization is that its consequences are not only good: the terrorism, World Wide Web’s anarchy, drug cartels are benefited with deterritorialization and intensification of social, economic, etc. relations.
Sixth, a lot of actors, which act very intensively, can not be accountable in globalized world such as big corporations IBM, Shell, Nokia, etc. (J. Ralston Saul in his lecture “Democracy and Globalisation” gives the other view of the corporations and all materials of globalization and democracy, however, his view will not be analyzed here because of the paper limits but the other opinion should be mentioned
[23]) and a large variety of NGOs (non-governmental organizations), despite some of them are considered as ‘good’ global players, Amnesty International, Greenpeace, etc.
Seventh, the so called Asian ‘Tigers’ has shown the tremendous economic success, although, they have their subscriptions to different values, peculiar to Asia. To sum up,
globalization from ones view is only the Western imperialism or the last capitalism stadium, which effects less than half of world popularity and mainly developing and developed countries. Thus it has some negative aspects such as creating losers and stragglers, giving paths for terrorism and drugs trafficking and changing the face of democracy.
What is more, sceptics of globalization further will say, that the world is less globalized now than it was in comparison globalized between 1870 and 1914 and that it is at best “a self serving myth or ideology which reinforces Western
[24] and particularly US hegemony in world politics”
[25], but in this paper globalization will be stated as important factor in world politics.
Therefore, the definitions of globalization were named above, but one question is left still open: could economic globalization and globalization be used as synonyms? Specifically, economic globalization means the trade, finance and investment, but, naturally and as some scholars observed, economic globalization is always led by the globalization in social, cultural and other spheres. It is really difficult to separate these two terms. In econometrics studies it is possible to measure economic rates and they will be objective, but how to measure objectively globalization working through ecological, social and cultural spheres it is a more sensitive question. Quantitative methods are still more objective than qualitative methods that is way perhaps economic globalization in statistical studies is used as globalization as a whole.
In summary, globalization as a process was analyzed earlier than this name was firstly used. It is evident that globalization seems as the last stage of capitalism or Western imperialism; because these processes are still continuing and globalization go hand in hand with them. Not exaggerating the value and importance of globalization or oppositely, requires consensus in academic field, but in this paper it is considered that globalization exist as one of the processes taking place in contemporary world.
III. The Definition of Democracy
Democracy is the rule by the people, of the people and for the people
W.Churchill
Democracy is one of the most important concepts in political science. This intention is used in variety of fields: from every day life to century’s conferences. Historically, democracy has been written about widely by the end of French Revolution. It is claimed that most regimes and systems in the world should be democratic. Scientists tried to answer questions about the theory or practice of democracy at various times and various places. In such conditions the meaning of the conception may become “so malleable that it is difficult to ascertain how widely differing conceptions and aspects of democracy may be reconciled”.
[26] The main key points of definition of democracy will be presented in this section, because different approaches may yield different results and here is a need to conceptualize more clearly what will democracy kept in this paper.
It was decided that the pillars of democracy from the book
What is Democracy shortly reflect the best, what is important for democracy.
[27] There are eleven main points (they will be discussed below):
*Sovereignty of the people
*Government based upon consent of the governed
*Majority rule
*Minority rights
*Guarantee of basic human rights
*Free and fair elections
*Equality before the law
*Due process of law
*Constitutional limits on government
*Social, economic, and political pluralism
*Values of tolerance, pragmatism, cooperation, and compromise
As it looks from the “pillars” of democracy and what democracy literally means it is the “rule by the people”. It is like a form of government in which political power is exercised by the people (citizens). Generally, a process of decision making that involves all members of the community without any boundaries. Of course, it is expressed in varied ways, but in Western countries it is associated with the assumption that people have the highest power. The government regulates only with acceptance of the people, who gave them the right to do this. Furthermore, this system allows to governor those, who get the trust of the vast majority of citizens, but when an important public decision is being made, the majority should take care about the minority rights, because the rule by majority is not necessarily democratic. In most of the democratic countries this is protected by the constitution, which one of the main requirements is not to violate the minority rights. Likewise, human rights became very important after the French Revolution in 1789. Nowadays all democratic countries are required to look for human rights and many international organizations and NGOs working in the countries and worldwide are supervising and announcing about the situation in human rights sector. Sometimes it seems as though the most important measure: if basic human rights are not protected in a country, it never will be called as democratic.
What is more, democracy is unimaginable without elections. In ancient times they were used for electing person who will take some responsibility. Nowadays, elections are direct or representative and are used for more affairs. As Schumpeter described in his book Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy (1942), elections are the part of democratic method in which people campaign competitively for the people’s votes, what is called as a competitive struggle, to attain the power to make decisions, affecting the people or community as a whole
[28]. Also, the elections in democratic country must be fair and free (it is as a result of basic human rights and equality before the law), but many democratic countries experience corruption and other fairness problems, thus these fair and free elections should be kept as the ideal variant of democracy.
Moreover, equality before the law is one of the most important and very old feature and requirement for democratic country. Everybody, who is citizens, must have the same basic rights and responsibilities. Understanding of the equality changed through the times: two centuries ago women did not have any rights and responsibilities, but were punished the same as the men, but in today’s world it is a consensus that man and women should be in the same position before the law and there should not be any privileges and differences between people from different social, religious, ethnic, etc. base.
Similarly, every process should be due to the law. It is one of the main constitutional principles, that all processes would be the same, except for those which are not institutionalised by the law. Alike, constitutional limits on government reason another time that democratic country must have a constitution, which could keep the balance between the governed people and people, who govern.
On the top, democracy is associated with pluralism in all spheres, freedom, compromising, cooperation, tolerance, etc. These values are not very new in the present, but most of them got their appearance only in XX century as they are understood today and most of the time is measured as the index of civil society or civic culture
[29]. Of course, all above mentioned requirements for a country to be called democratic are only ideals, which countries should seek to achieve. Democracy has evolved from the ancient times till today, but it saved all the main values and got new.
Finally, democracy is a political system which has many different meanings and comes through different forms. It is not the synonym of freedom or capitalism (some parallels could be found) and fundamentally it signifies the government for people, from people to people, the constitution with protections and security of basic human rights and etc. and practised in competitive elections. In next sections of this paper will be tried to look how globalization affects all these main democracy values and requirements and what changes maybe globalization has made for the evolution of democracy, because all these two processes are going hand in hand
[30].
IV. Whether Globalization Affects Democracy?
The question, whether globalization affects democracy, is not new in political and social science arena. There are a lot of published essays, papers and books for this theme. In this paper they will not be all overlooked, but few of them will be used, because of very useful data or insights.
Commonly, there are two discrepant positions. One represents the side, who thinks that globalization has an effect on democracy, other – side which predicates that globalization has no significant influence on democracy. Those, who declare that globalization affects democracy, are separated in two different positions: supporters of globalization as factor promoting democracy and the opposite - advocates of globalization as destructive element for democracy.
In this section will be discussed the view that globalization has no influence on democracy, and other two positions will be analyzed in separate parts of this paper (Section V and VI).
The arguments that globalization do not have effect on democracy are based mainly on the sceptical view of globalization as a concept. First, the most important and strong statement is that the extent of globalization is exaggerated
[31]. The multinational companies and corporations with FDI (foreign direct investment) concentrate in few regions. Lower-developed countries do not participate in global economy, what means, as it were, that economic relations between these regions are kept like the trade worldwide. Thus, as it was observed earlier, globalization does not have an effect on democracy level in developed countries. Oppositely, as G. Almond and S. Verba explored
[32], the democracy level in the most developed countries (USA, Great Britain) lowered in the past half century looking through the civic culture and democracy level index
[33] and as sceptics agree, if the developed country has a stable democracy, there is no effect of globalization to country’s level of democracy.
As was mentioned, globalization is not involving everything in its system. Some scholars state that welfare states could keep their power, but they should agree on the way how to find the decisions and solutions, which would be acceptable for all members
[34].
The last argument why globalization not necessarily affects democracy is that an effect of globalization varies on countries. The best distinct examples could be found either in Europe, or in Asia. For instance, both The Republic of Korea (South Korea) and Singapore are called Asian ‘tigers’ and achieved high economic growing because of economic globalization in past decades, but the results of democracy level differ
[35]. South Korea by Freedom House was evaluated as free country with successful liberal democracy, and as CIA World Fact Book 2008 describes as “fully functioning modern democracy”
[36]. However, Singapore as well as South Korea is one of the wealthiest countries in Asia, but it “remains as a one-party predominant autocracy, which Freedom House rates as only partly free”
[37]. The examples, where economic globalization created economic growing, but democracy levels differ, could be found more across the world.
V. Positive View: Globalization Promotes Democracy First, globalization influences democracy positively by increasing economic development. In Western countries, which have comparatively a long democratic tradition, is a view that economic growth creates a middle class, which means that society with a middle class, becomes more open with more education and emerging economic base and it asserts its rights in the policy-making process
[38], encourages education and tightens income inequality. Together, it increases people’s right to participate in political life and governance of the state (creation of NGOs, clubs, etc.). Most of the times, foreign direct investment and financial capital flows apportion to resources for their most efficient usage, the same as democracy, which appropriate for its most efficient function
[39].
Second, it is thought that globalization promotes democracy through the demand of international business. International business brings secure peace and stability, because it develops economic links between nations: states become more and more associated and related to each other. Hence, it may be concluded that globalization reduces the possibility of democratic countries’ fights and requires from authoritarian countries to liberalize politics
[40].
Third, globalization influences the process of democratization. It spreads democratic values through economic, social and informative means. If we state that the early origins of globalization are in XV century, a lot of states of autocratic and monarchic regimes changed their systems and began to democratize. It follows that globalization and international economy operated upon the waves of democratization
[41]. Besides, academically it is an opinion that “exogenous economic forces can exacerbate elite schisms and create an opening for democracy”
[42] – the more countries will be affected by globalization, the higher possibility that they choose democracy as the state regime.
[43] The scheme below very clearly demonstrates the working directions between processes in the society.
Figure 1
[44] 
Fourth, non-democratic countries are advertised to decentralize power. The international trade and finances need open market for goods, which phase down the political control over economic and social spheres. The decentralization of power means that weakened grass-roots could begin to play in the political and social arena, which enhances the level of democracy with creating civil society or civic culture
[45].
Fifth, one of the most influential argument is that globalization brings the era of the information. There is a separate discussion in political science about the change of powers owners: nowadays who has information - has the power. Globalization makes flows of information circulate cheaper than before. Thus, in information technologies age, democracies can maintain contacts with other democracies that let the spread of democracy values. Besides, it provides the pro-democracy international non-governmental organizations (INGOs) to be more effective. Especially, it is important in less developed countries or developing countries, because through the INGOs country could achieve quicker the main democratic values and ideals
[46].
Sixth, domestic institutions which are the background for democracy are strengthened via globalization. The effective activity of market requires ordered property rights and tax system. Similarly, it brings the respecting the rule of law and human rights. Alike, the greater state’s engagement in international business and community is, the more transparency and answerability of domestic institutions of it is observed
[47].
Seventh, composing all arguments mentioned above it is obvious that globalization deepens the diffusion of democratic ideas. Scholars propose that non-democratic country if it is encircled with democracies and becomes involved in economic relations with them, it is thought that country may become more opened in economic sphere, and fall more integrated and democratized in short time
[48].
Despite empirical Li and Reuveny analysis showed that only foreign direct investment inflows from economic parameter promote democracy and, as their analysis presented, the significance of this parameter soften during the time
[49], but democracy cannot by measured only quantifiable and as it is seen the influence is mainly political than economic. Concluding, there are a lot of spheres in which globalization could promote democracy.
VI. Negative View: Globalization Obstructs Democracy
To begin with, the economic globalization changes countries’ domestic policies. Frequently governments want to attract international world investors and firms, which do not care about the countries’ inward problems and policies, which sometimes are adjusted to get the eye of foreign companies’ capital. In the governments competition for foreign investors capital the “losers” are common people, because state policy depends not on their problems and needs, but on the “floating trends” in global investing world. Consequently, more than 4 enumerated democracy pillars are touched – it means that the level of democracy declines.
The second proposition is that globalization creates indoors failures in globalized countries. Situation looks like this: international companies overcome domestic producers and firms, which cannot compete with multinational companies’ production and service; governments because of lack of money do not compensate (or if they try, it creates another problem – budget deficit) the detriments of lost positions in the market; the part of GDP is being lost and those firms, which cannot compete in the market go to bankrupt
[50]. Another factor is international organizations, which work the same as transnational companies, and international economic agreements, which influence the countries sometimes more effectively and more destructive than multinational corporations
[51]. There are a lot of examples when states were pushed to accept rules which did not reflect the citizens wishes and expectations, what decreases democracy as well.
Third, globalization creates opportunities for quick finances flowing from one part of the world to another part what sometimes results in losing finance balance in the countries. In such situations there is a possibility of crises: one of the best examples is the Asian Crisis in 1997, where the decision to retake short investments created a region finance crises. It happened because of two main reasons of globalization: it allows circulating money very widely and quickly, and the relations and contacts between countries are much more increased. Therein lies that democracy level is decreasing too. As it was mentioned before, the level of democracy in the country depends on the economic achievements of the state. Of course, it does not mean that crises-stricken country will change the democratic regime to other. This element mainly indicates the need of economic and finance stability for the democratic country, which is sometimes hardly to maintain for country by itself because of the same globalization
[52].
Fourth, it is an opposite side of the globalization as creator of tolerance and provider understanding of other cultures and nations. It together with positive effect intensifies separation of ethnics and division of people from different social backgrounds. The differences between people and classes are more noticeable than before. In the globalized world there are no borders for information (of course, there is another problem of manipulation of the information, which will be discussed later as one of the most influential destructive agent) and the news from other parts of the world could be reached within few seconds through the internet. This deepens the distribution of “losers” – lower paid, poor people and “winners” – well paid, rich people. It is arguable, but the most democratic countries are those, which could be characterized as egalitarians or to bear resemblance to egalitarians.
Fifth, when information costs are reduced and the flows of it depend on multinational companies, there is a high possibility of manipulation with news. Some things, which are very important and could change the situation in the public spheres, are represented in views which are suitable for information “oligarchs”. The main problem for democracy comes here if manipulation with information moves to domestic issues and change connection between government and citizens, when it operates on transparency and accountability for people and democracy level goes down.
Sixth, globalization changes the concept of state. After the spring of nations the base of state was citizens who share the same culture, language, religion and history. Nowadays, a lot of countries face with migration and problems with citizenship. Democracy requires to save minority rights, but in some places (especially, in the big cities) it is difficult to segregate what is minority and who should be protected. Thus, large amounts of immigrants produce other problems in domestic politics, thereupon, stable and effective democracy is achieved more hardly in such conditions.
Despite globalization seems worldwide spread, sceptics notice that it is only well developed countries’ force. It is another question, if globalization in south poor countries exists, but certainly globalization shows the really extensive difference between North and South. This difference raises problems for less developed countries to achieve democratic regimes as they are in North. The developing countries try to imitate the Western countries, but the main problem is that economically they are not strong enough to create welfare state, but they want to have something the same. As Gilpin
[53] and others observed, the countries, which try as soon as possible to become democracy and have all the institutions needful for it, lose democratic values and if there is no economic growing, states wander out of democratic way.
Finally, it is evident that the same factors of globalization could have positive and negative effects. Most of the obstructing factors are other side of promoting factors. Multinational companies, the increase influence of information, etc. design democracy in negative way as well. Therefore, problems of migration, the gap between south and west, are questions, which the democratic world should answer in the future the same.
VII. Conclusion
Globalization and democracy have a lot of descriptions and understandings. In academic field there is no agreement what globalization really is and positions various from “it does not exist” to “it is worldwide phenomenon”. As it is seen, this as the process includes a lot of other processes without them it would not be stated as so worldwide spread.
Democracy in this paper was stated as the system which implicates main eleven points. Moreover, democracy in this paper as the regime seems very associated with globalization. Some scholars argue that the democratization of the world is the result of the growing impact of globalization, which most of the time means the encouragement of the economic development. As it was examined in this paper, both democracy and globalization go hand in hand and affects each other, change their “faces”. Despite globalization as the concept is conditionally new, but if it is understood as growing and growing coherency of the world through economic and other fields development, it take its position together with democracy.
Furthermore, there are many positions for and against globalization and most of them are examined through democracy discourse, but the shortage of this paper does not allowed fully examine them. The further research in how globalization affects democracy requires more instruments and maybe more empirical data (more countries analyzed in wider time-period and especially those, which do not depend for Western background), cause the term itself is too controversial and rather heavily is made unambiguous.
To conclude, the past few decades disclosed that globalization has an influence on democracy. Both positive and negative effects were observed. Actually, the econometric results of researches did not showed a lot of correlations between economic globalization parameters, and potentially economic globalization affects democracy more politically than economically. The same process of globalization, for instance, the multinational companies or World Wide Web, has the obstructive and promoting sides; and the main problem is how to make more sensitive the destructive consequences of the globalization – it is the challenge for nowadays democracy. Or maybe democracy will another time change its appearance what happened in XVIII century? The time will show weather globalized world is ready to follow democratic way worldwide.
References
Almond, Gabriel A. and Verba, Sidney (1989) The Civic Culture Revisited, 2nd e. (California: Sage
Publications).
Baylis, John, Smith, S. and Owens, P. (eds.) (2008) The Globalization of World Politics: An introduction to international relations, 4th e. (New York: Oxford University Press).
Booth, Ken and Smith, Steve (eds) (2000) Tarptautiniu Santykiu Teorija Siandien (Vilnius: Algarve), in English: Booth, Ken and Smith, Steve (eds) (1997) International Relations Theory
Today (Polity Press in association with Blackwell Publishers Ltd.)
Chanda, Nayan (2007) presentation for SSRC staff. Available at Internet:
http://www.ssrc.org/features/globalization062707/
Chortareas, Georgios E. and Peladigis, Theodore (2004) “Trade flows: A Facet of Regionalism or
Globalisation?”, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 28:2, pp. 253-271.
De la Dehesa, Guillermo (2006) Winners and Losers in Globalization (Blackwell).
Dobrişan, Dorin (2006), “Economic Globalization, Financial Crises and Inequality”, Economics,
Management, and Financial Markets, 1:1 (August), pp. 12-25.
Eichengreen, Barry and Leblang, David (2006) “Democracy and Globalization”, Working Paper
12450. Available at Internet: http://www.nber.org/papers/w12450.
Giddens, Anthony (1990) Consequences of Modernity (Cambridge: Polity Press).
Gilpin, R. (2001) Global Political Economy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).
Gilpin, Robert (1998) Tarptautiniu santykiu politine ekonomija (Vilnius: Algarve), in English:
Gilpin, Robert, (1987) The Political Economy of International Relations (Princeton, New Jersey:
Princeton University Press).
Harvey, D. (1989) The Condition of Postmodernity: An Enquiry into the Conditions of Cultural
Change (Oxford: Blackwell).
Held, David (1998) “Democracy and Globalization”, in Archibugi, Daniele, et al., Re-imagining
Political Community, pp. 11-27.
Hirst, P. and Thompson, G. (1998) “Global Myths and National Policies” in Holden, B. (ed.)
Global Democracy (London: Routledge).
Hirst, P. and Thompson, G. (1996) Globalization in Question: The International Economy and the
Possibilities of Governance (London: Polity Press).
Li, Quan and Reuveny, Rafael (2000) “Economic Globalization and Democracy: Empirical
Analysis” (A paper presented at the International Studies Association meeting, Los Angeles, CA,
2000, and the Midwest Political Science Association annual meeting, Chicago, 2000).
Morgan, Barbara (ed.) (1998) What is Democracy? Internet book, available at Internet:
http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/whatsdem/homepage.htm
Morris, Lydia (1997) “Globalization, Migration and the Nation State: The Path to a Post National
Europe?”, The British Journal of Sociology, 48:2 (June), pp. 192-209.
Muller, Edward N. (1998) “Democracy, Economic Development, and Income Inequality”,
American Sociological Review, 53:1 (February), pp. 50-68.
Näsström, Sofia (2003) “What Globalization Overshadows”, Political Theory, 31:6 (December),
pp. 808-834.
Norris, Pippa (2007) “Wealth and Democracy” (Chapter 4), in Norris, Pippa (2008) Do powersharing institutions work? (New York/Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
O’Loughlin, John, Ward, Michael D., Lofdahl, Corey L., Cohen, Jordin S., Brown, David S.,
Reilly, David, Gleditsch, Kristian S. and Shin, Michael (1998) “The Diffusion of Democracy, 1946-
1994”, Annals of Association of American Geographers, 88:4 (December), pp. 545-574.
Parenti, Michael (2007) “Globalization and Democracy: Some Basics”. Available at Internet:
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/05/25/1439/
Ralston Saul, John (1999) “Democracy and Globalisation” (the transcript of lecture). Available at
Internet: http://www.abc.net.au/specials/saul/default.htm.
Rao, Shakuntala (2007) “The Globalization of Bollywood: an ethnography of non-elite audiences in
India”, The Communication Review, 10, pp. 57-76.
Rudra, Nita (2002) “Globalization and the Decline of the Welfare State in Less-Developed
Countries”, International Organization, 56:2 (Spring), pp. 411-445.
Scholte, J. A. (2000) Globalization – A Critical Introduction, 2nd e. (Basingstoke: Macmillan).
Sheth, D. L. (1995) “Democracy and Globalization in India: Post-Cold War Discourse”, Annals of
the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 540, pp. 24-39.
Shim, Doobo (2006) “Hibridity and the Rise of Korea Popular Culture in Asia”, Media Culture and
Society, 28(1), pp. 25-44.
Schwartzman, Kathleen C. (1998) “Globalization and Democracy”, Annual Review of Sociology,
24, pp. 159-181.
Schumpeter, Joseph (1942) Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy (New York: Harper Colophon),
pp. 240-270.
Zhang, Ye (2003) “China’s Emerging Civil Society” (Center for Northeast Asian Policy, Studies
The Brookings Institution, 2002-3, The Asian Foundation, Beijing, 2003).
CIA World Fact Book 2008, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-worldfactbook/
geos/ks.html
Footnotes
[1] Chanda, Nayan (2007). Presentation for SSRC staff (http://www.ssrc.org/features/globalization062707/).
[2] Booth, Ken and Smith, Steve (eds) (2000) Tarptautiniu Santykiu Teorija Siandien (Vilnius: Algarve), pp. 60-61.
[3] “Defining Democracy” in Morgan, Barbara (ed.) (1998) What is Democracy?
[4] Giddens, Anthony (1990) Consequences of Modernity (Cambridge: Polity Press), p. 64.
[5] Gilpin, R. (2001) Global Political Economy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press), p. 364.
[6] Scholte, J. A. (2000) Globalization – A Critical Introduction, 2nd e. (Basingstoke: Macmillan), p. 46.
[7] Harvey, D. (1989) The Condition of Postmodernity: An Enquiry into the Conditions of Cultural Change (Oxford: Blackwell), p. 240.
[8] Smith, Steve, Baylis, John, and Owens, Patricia (2008) “Introduction”, in Baylis, John, Smith, S. and Owens, P. (eds.) (2008) The Globalization of World Politics: An introduction to international relations, 4th e. (New York: Oxford University Press), p.8.
[9] McGrew, Anthony (2008) “Globalization and Global Politics”, in Baylis, John, Smith, S. and Owens, P. (eds.) (2008), pp. 21-22.
[10] Morris, Lydia (1997) “Globalization, Migration and the Nation State: The Path to a Post National Europe?”, The British Journal of Sociology, 48:2 (June), pp. 193-195.
[11] De la Dehesa, Guillermo (2006) Winners and Losers in Globalization (Blackwell), pp. 1-6, 72.
[12] Gilpin, Robert (1998) Tarptautiniu santykiu politine ekonomija (Vilnius: Algarve), pp. 300-306.
[13] McGrew, A., p. 21 and Shim, Doobo (2006) “Hibridity and the Rise of Korea Popular Culture in Asia”, Media Culture and Society, 28(1), pp. 25-44 and Rao, Shakuntala (2007) “The Globalization of Bollywood: an ethnography of non-elite audiences in India”, The Communication Review, 10, pp. 57-76.
[14] McGrew, A., p. 21, Brown, Cris (2008) “Human rights”, pp. 506-519, and Reus-Smit, Christian (2008) “International Law”, pp. 278-293, in Baylis, John, Smith, S. and Owens, P. (eds.) (2008) The Globalization of World Politics: An introduction to international relations, 4th e. (New York: Oxford University Press).
[15] Vogler, John (2008) “Environmental Issues”, pp. 350-367, Little, Richard (2008) “International Regimes”, pp. 296-309, and Willetts, Peter (2008) “Transnational Actors and International Organizations in Global Politics”, pp. 330-347. in Baylis, John, Smith, S. and Owens, P. (eds.) (2008).
[16] Gilpin, Robert (1998), Morris, Lydia (1997), and Näsström, Sofia (2003) “What Globalization Overshadows”, Political Theory, 31:6 (December), pp. 808-834.
[17] Smith, Steve, Baylis, John, and Owens, Patricia (2008) “Introduction”, pp. 10-12.
[18] The review of Smith, Steve, Baylis, John, and Owens, Patricia (2008), pp. 10-12.
[19] Chortareas, Georgios E. and Peladigis, Theodore (2004) “Trade flows: A Facet of Regionalism or Globalisation?”, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 28:2, pp. 253-271.
[20] Ibid, p. 260.
[21] Hirst, P. and Thompson, G. (1996) Globalization in Question: The International Economy and the Possibilities of Governance (London: Polity Press).
[22] De la Dehesa, Guillermo (2006), and Smith, Steve, Baylis, John, and Owens, Patricia (2008), pp. 10-12.
[23] John Ralston Saul lecture “Democracy and Globalisation” (1999). Available at Internet.
[24] McGrew, A., p. 21, Smith, Steve, Baylis, John, and Owens, Patricia (2008), pp. 10-12, Hirst, P. and Thompson, G. (1998) “Global Myths and National Policies” in Holden, B. (ed.) Global Democracy (London: Routledge), Gilpin, R. (2001) Global Political Economy.
[25] McGrew, A., p. 21.
[26] O’Loughlin, John, Ward, Michael D., Lofdahl, Corey L., Cohen, Jordin S., Brown, David S., Reilly, David, Gleditsch, Kristian S. and Shin, Michael (1998) “The Diffusion of Democracy, 194601994”, Annals of Association of American Geographers, 88:4 (December), p. 547.
[27] “Defining Democracy”, in Morgan, Barbara (ed.) (1998) What is Democracy? Internet book.
[28] Schumpeter, Joseph (1942) Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy (New York: Harper Colophon), pp. 240-270.
[29] Inglehart, Almond and Verba are one of the most leaders here in the explanation of the causal relationships between democracy and civil society and civic culture.
[30] Eichengreen, Barry and Leblang, David (2006) “Democracy and Globalization”, p. 1.
[31] Li, Quan and Reuveny, Rafael (2000) “Economic Globalization and Democracy: Empirical Analysis” (A paper presented at the International Studies Association meeting, Los Angeles, CA, 2000, and the Midwest Political Science Association annual meeting, Chicago, 2000), pp. 15-17.
[32] Almond, Gabriel A. and Verba, Sidney (1989) The Civic Culture Revisited, 2nd e. (California: Sage Publications).
[33] Muller, Edward N. (1998) “Democracy, Economic Development, and Income Inequality”, American Sociological Review, 53:1 (February), pp. 50-68.
[34] About this talks Gilpin, Garret, Keohane and Vernon.
[35] Norris, Pippa (2007) “Wealth and Democracy” (Chapter 4), in Norris, Pippa (2008) Do power-sharing institutions work? (New York/Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 9-13.
[36] CIA World Fact Book 2008, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ks.html
[37] Norris, Pippa (2007), p. 11.
[38] Zhang, Ye (2003) “China’s Emerging Civil Society”, p. 10.
[39] Li, Quan and Reuveny, Rafael (2000) “Economic Globalization and Democracy: Empirical Analysis”, pp. 6-8.
[40] Held, David (1998) “Democracy and Globalization”, in Archibugi, Daniele, et al., Re-imagining Political Community, pp. 11-13.
[41] Held, David (1998), pp. 11-23.
[42] Rudra, Nita (2005) “Globalization and the Strengthening of Democracy in the Developing World”, American Journal of Political Science, 49:4 (October), p. 706.
[43] Ibid, pp. 704-708.
[44] Schwartzman, Kathleen C. (1998) “Globalization and Democracy”, Annual Review of Sociology, 24, p. 162. (The letters at the arrows explain the sequence of processes from A to G. The numbers at G just indicate the number of process at the same time).
[45] Sheth, D. L. (1995) “Democracy and Globalization in India: Post-Cold War Discourse”, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 540, pp. 24-39.
[46] Zhang, Ye (2003), p. 2.
[47] Li, Quan and Reuveny, Rafael (2000), pp. 9-10.
[48] Ibid, pp. 9-10.
[49] Ibid, pp. 37-41
[50] Li, Quan and Reuveny, Rafael (2000), pp. 11-13.
[51] Parenti, Michel (2007) “Globalization and Democracy: Some Basics”, published in Common Dreams.
[52] Dobrişan, Dorin (2006), “Economic Globalization, Financial Crises and Inequality”, Economics, Management, and Financial Markets, 1:1 (August), pp. 12-25.
[53] Gilpin, Robert, (1998).
Pranešimai
