The three major schools of thought surrounding the phenomenon of globalisation are Hyperglobalizers, Sceptics and Transformationalists.
Hyperglobalizers argues that Globalisation is here to stay. “Today’s global economy is genuinely borderless. Information, capital and innovation flow all over the world at top speed, enabled by technology and fuelled by consumers’ desires for access to the best and least expensive products”. (K. Ohmae, 1995)
The main arguments put forward by Hyperglobalizers is that it is a new era, it is essentially an economic phenomenon, that the global marketplace rules supreme and that it brings denationalisation of economies through transnational networks of production, trade and finance.
Hyperglobalizers are also of the belief that institutions of global governance are emerging towards the sovereignty of nation state erode and that new global patterns are emerging, the school argues that the North-South/Core-Periphery is being replaced by more complex constellations of economic power.
Sceptics argues that Globalisation does not exist. “We do not have a fully globalized economy, we do have an international economy and national policy responses to it”.(Hirst and Thompson, 1997)
The main arguments put forward by Sceptics include that it is a myth with nothing new happening with there only being heightened levels of interaction between predominantly national economy, that the national governments remain powerful and continue to regulate international activity and that governments are not passive victims but architects of internationalisation.
Sceptics are also of the belief that the international economy is divided into three major blocs which are Europe, North America and Asia Pacific, that the word economy is now less integrated than during the classical Gold Standard era, that international patterns of inequality have changed only marginally and that there has been a rise of aggressive nationalism/fundamentalis.
Transformationalists argue that globalisation does exist but it is much more complex. “Many of us feel in the grip of forces over which we have no control. Can we re-impose our will upon them? I believe we can. The powerlessness we experience is not a sign of personal failings, but reflects the incapacities of our institutions. We need to reconstruct those we have, or create new ones, in ways appropriate to the golden age”. (Giddens, 1999)
The main arguments put forward by Transformationalists is that it a central driving force behind the rapid social, political and economic changes, it is reshaping the world order, it is historically unprecedented and is no longer distinction between domestic and international affairs.
Transformationalists are also of the belief that the future of globalisation remains uncertain, it leads to a new global stratification sovereignty of the state juxtaposed with institutions of international governance, there is new ‘sovereignty regime’ displacing traditional notions of statehood and sovereignty, and that the governments more outward looking and that the power of national governments is not diminished but restructured and reconstituted.
The four dimensions of culture which were identified by Geert Hosfstede in the 1980’s are power distance, Individualism/ Collectivism, Uncertainty avoidance and Masculinity/ Femininity.
The dimensions found by Geert Hofstede can be used to illustrate which values lie deeply embedded in people from different cultures. These values may have consequences for how people in different cultures behave, and how they will potentially behave in a work related context.
Power distance is the extent to which the less powerful members of institutions and organisations within a country expect and accept that power is distributed unequally.
In cultures with low power distance, people are likely to expect that power is distributed rather equally, and are furthermore also likely to...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document