COMPLEXITY, MYTHOLOGY AND OVERGLOBALISATION: AN OVERVIEW OF GLOBAL INTEGRATION

... the world economy has become so awesomely complex that no individual or group of individuals can fully understand how it works. (Alan Greenspan,2008: 529)

I would define globalization as the freedom for my group to invest where and as long as it wishes, to produce what it wishes, by buying and selling wherever it wishes, ... while putting up with as little labour laws and social convention constraints as possible. (Percy Barnevik, head of a transnational company, quoted in Gélinas, 2003: 21)

The above enigmatic statement by Alan Greenspan, former Chairman of the US Federal Reserve and one of the world's most noted supporters of free market globalisation, is instructive. He claimed that this complexity justified economic governance by markets rather than states, that the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) was likely just another 'once-in-a-century' glitch caused by the likes of 'irrational exuberance' or the under-pricing of risk, and that such minor flaws were curable with some tweaking of regulations (Greenspan, 2008: 507 ff.). Yet presumably markets themselves consist of individuals and groups of individuals, so why should we go on supporting, let alone enhancing, a global economy which is too complex for human beings to understand? It is surely not healthy if people cannot comprehend their world, which perhaps indicates that we are now in a state of what I describe in this book as 'over-globalisation', or excessive global integration. And this complexity has doubtless helped create the vast range of opinions which now surrounds the issue.

Certainly globalisation is one of the most complex processes ever devised by humans, being vast in scale, encompassing much of the world, entangling companies, industries and countries in its grip and rapidly becoming one of the most debated concepts in history. There is a wide spectrum of views on the topic ranging from 'hyper-globalists', who believe that supra-national structures are gradually superseding local or national units, to global sceptics who think this movement has been exaggerated, and an equally wide range of opinions on whether it is all good or bad. Some think global integration and the creation of one unified world is a grand historic destiny, while others scorn that it is mainly an American project to reshape the world according to its own values. Some consider it a noble cause which can enrich humanity, while many critics see it as a self-interested drive by business leaders to open world 'markets' (countries) for their own advantage, as reflected in the above quotation from Barnevik. The reality is doubtless more complex, probably varying over time. I see globalisation as an outcome of several forces, outlined below, which together have generated a widespread belief in the virtues of an open, liberal world trading and investing order and thus have created a great enduring myth of the age – the myth of beneficent global integration.

There is a vast list of scholars and activists writing on this topic and I cite many, of varying views, throughout the book. In particular I take issue with the prominent free market journalist Martin Wolf (2004; 2005), the leading Indian/US trade theorist,Jagdish Bhagwati (2004), and the British-based political adviser, Philippe Legrain (2002; 2011), all of whom stoutly defend globalisation, though not dogmatically so. I also often cite work by the likes of the Nobel-winning economists, Joseph Stiglitz, Paul Krugman and Michael Spence, Harvard scholar Dani Rodrik and former World Bank official, Branko Milanovic, all of whom have made constructive criticisms of globalisation, though likewise not dogmatically. I also note many others, ranging from strong champions of globalisation to stern critics, with my own position usually around the middle of the spectrum, depending on the evidence in particular cases. However, I believe I can say that much opinion about globalisation has been tending in the direction of criticisms I have been making for a long time, and publishing since 1997, as explained throughout the book.

Overall, like other moderates (e.g. Dicken, 2011: ch.1) I do not believe that globalisation is evil, that TNCs rule the world, that there is (as yet) a highly integrated world economy, that nation states are collapsing, that there is a dominant Americanised, advertising-fuelled global culture or that there is, somewhere, a sinister conspiracy to impose an all-powerful global government. On the other hand, I fear that some such trends could develop if allowed, that these would be undesirable, that they can be resisted by popular local or international action and that credible alternatives are possible.

Internationalisation versus globalisation

Definitions of globalisation abound, ranging from the mundane to the ultra-sophisticated to the downright confusing. These include the economic, e.g. 'increasing interdependence of national economics in trade, finance and macroeconomic policy' (Gilpin); the sociological, e.g. the 'decoupling' of space and time so that the world becomes a single place (Giddens and others); and the philosophical, e.g. 'the compression of the world and the intensification of consciousness of the world as a whole' (Robertson) – all quoted in Guillén (2010). One multidisciplinary textbook (Held et al., 1999: 16) tags globalisation as 'transformation in the spatial organization of social relations and transactions – assessed in terms of their extensity, intensity, velocity and impact'. This makes a useful, if somewhat jargonistic, distinction between social, temporal and organisational dimensions of the process so, as with the other definitions above, it helps to clarify the nature of globalisation. However, such approaches tend to treat globalisation as anything which happens beyond the border, whereas I believe further distinctions need to be made.

Other definitions, or descriptions, of globalisation centre on its supposed impacts such as the 'end of geography' and the demolition of nations (Wriston); a borderless cyberspace world which one writer (Ohmae) once dubbed 'Cyberia'; and an extended 'brutal in-your-face Schumpeterian capitalism' (Friedman) – all quoted in Dunkley (2004: 4–5). The US journalist Thomas Friedman (1999: 214, 333 and passim) depicts economic globalisation as involving a 'golden straitjacket' of strict but reputedly beneficial free market policies and an...