Accessories such as CD, codes, toys, may not be included. Bookseller Inventory Ask Seller a Question. About this title Synopsis: Introduction by Ralph Nader """"When you cut through the corporate propaganda about the benefits of globalization and really look at the 5 year track record of the World Trade Organisation, what you find is a slow motion coup d'etat If you are dissatisfied with your purchase due to error on our part or if an item does not arrive within the estimated delivery time frame provided at the time an order is place, please contact our customer service team for immediate resolution.
We will accept items for return if the item is no longer needed for 15 days of the items arrival date.
- Five years of reasons to resist corporate globalization.
- Cali Boys (Boyfriend Season).
- The Globalization of Politics: American Foreign Policy for a New Century.
- The Apportioners Counsel - Saying I Do (or I Dont) with Your Eyes Open.
- 1. The issue!
Visit Seller's Storefront Terms of Sale:. Add to Wants. Whereas defense spending in most other countries is falling, U. Most remarkably, America can afford to spend more. Defense spending takes a smaller share of the U. There is little prospect of any country or group of countries devoting the resources necessary to begin competing with the United States militarily, let alone surpassing it.
Economically, the United States may not widen its edge over its competitors, but neither is it likely to fall behind. The U. Europe and Japan face severe demographic challenges as their populations rapidly age, creating likely labor shortages and severe budgetary pressures. China is modernizing rapidly, and Russia may have turned the corner, but their economies today are comparable in output to those of Italy and Belgium—and they have yet to develop a political infrastructure that can support sustained economic growth.
Which brings us to the issue of how to transform this unquestioned power into influence. A growing perception that Washington cares only about its own interests and is willing to use its muscle to get its way has fueled a worrisome gap between U.
Globalization | lidistaitrocbu.gq
European elites increasingly criticize the United States as being morally, socially, and culturally retrograde—especially in its perceived embrace of the death penalty, predatory capitalism, and fast food and mass entertainment. The sustainability of American power ultimately depends on the extent to which others believe it is employed not just in U. Following its victory in World War II, the United States led the effort to create not only new security institutions, such as the United Nations and NATO, but also new regimes to promote economic recovery, development, and prosperity, such as the Marshall Plan, the Bretton Woods monetary system, and the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs to promote free trade.
These institutions and agreements preserved and extended American power—but in a way that benefited all who participated. The challenge for the United States is to do the same today. Globalization is not just an economic phenomenon, but a political, cultural, military, and environmental one as well. Nor is globalization new; networks of interdependence spanning continents were increasing rapidly in the decades before the First World War as the steam engine and the telegraph reduced the cost of transportation and information.
What distinguishes globalization today is the speed and volume of cross-border contacts.
The prophets of globalization have trumpeted its benefits, particularly how the increased flow of goods, services, and capital across borders can boost economic activity and enhance prosperity. During the s the more globalized economies grew an average of 5 percent a year, while the less globalized economies contracted by an average of 1 percent a year.
The spread of ideas and information across the Internet and other global media has broadened cultural horizons and empowered people around the world to challenge autocratic rulers and advance the cause of human rights and democracy. Globalization can even lessen the chance of war. Fearing that war with Pakistan would disrupt their ties to U. But globalization also brings terrible new perils.
A handful of men from halfway across the globe can hijack four commercial airliners and slam them into key symbols of American power, killing thousands. A computer hacker in the Philippines can shut down the Internet and disrupt e-commerce thousands of miles away. Speculators can produce a run on the Thai currency, plunging Russia and Brazil into recession, robbing American exporters of markets, and costing American jobs. Greenhouse gases accumulating in the atmosphere in newly booming economies can raise global temperatures, possibly flooding coastal plains and turning mountain meadows into deserts.
Worse, for the United States, is that its power makes it a magnet for terrorism. Political and cultural power makes the United States a target for those who blame it for their problems. At the same time, American economic and military power prevents them from resisting or retaliating against the United States on its own terms.
The Wto - Five Years of Reasons to Resist Corporate Globalization (Electronic book text)
To smite the only superpower requires unconventional modes of force and tactics [which] offer hope to the weak that they can work their will despite their overall deficit in power. Much of the foreign policy debate in the United States today revolves around assessments of the fundamental importance of American primacy and globalization. Americanists, so called because they emphasize American primacy, see a world in which the United States can use its predominant power to get its way, regardless of what others want.
They believe the United States must summon the will to go it alone if necessary. Globalists emphasize globalization. They see a world that defies unilateral U. They warn against thinking that America can go it alone. First, it enables the United States to set its own foreign policy objectives and to achieve them without relying on others. After a decade of Prometheus playing pygmy, the first task of the new [Bush] administration is precisely to reassert American freedom of action.
Second, because American power enables the United States to pursue its interests as it pleases, American foreign policy should seek to maintain, extend, and strengthen that relative position of power. It is as good a definition of what would constitute an American empire as one can get.
Bias against developing States within the WTO
At bottom, the challenges and opportunities created by the forces of globalization are not susceptible to America acting on its own. Combating the spread of infectious diseases, preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction, defeating terrorism, securing access to open markets, protecting human rights, promoting democracy, and preserving the environment all require the cooperation of other countries.
But, Globalists argue, it is not simply that the nature of the issues arising from globalization limits the reach of American power and compels international cooperation. Globalization transforms the nature of power itself. No one has grappled with this problem more thoughtfully than Joseph Nye in his latest book, The Paradox of American Power. The second dimension is economic, where power among the United States, Europe, and Japan is distributed more equally.
The third dimension is transnational relations, where power is widely dispersed and essentially beyond government control. This is the realm of nonstate actors—from multinational companies and money managers to terrorist organizations and crime syndicates to nongovernmental organizations and the international media.
When you are in a three-dimensional game, you will lose if you focus on the interstate military board and fail to notice the other boards and the vertical connections among them. Both Americanists and Globalists are right in important ways. The global commercial-media system is radical in that it will respect no tradition or custom, on balance, if it stands in the way of profits. According to researcher George Gerbner, the most successful television programs are no longer made for national consumption but rather for international distribution.
Gerbner further noted that content is affected by the desire to increase the marketability of international television program distribution. In contrast, comedy programs which may be quite successful in the United States do not necessarily do well in other countries.
Comedy is culturally defined, and what is deemed funny by one cultural group may in fact be offensive to another. In comparison, violent material has a very simple story line of good versus evil. It is universally understood and in many ways culturally transparent.
The trends and effects of media globalization will continue to be both observed and debated by communication scholars, sociologists, economist, and politicians alike. With the fall of communism in the USSR in August of , private investment and the proliferation of multinational corporations has continued to march across Europe and the other continents of the world. The trend of continuing media globalization has showed no recent signs of retreat. Both critics and advocates of media globalization agree that there is fierce competition taking place between the first and second tier corporations.
It seems that market forces and shrewd political maneuverings on the part of multinational media corporations will determine the competitive landscape of the future. What follows is a variety of theoretical perspectives from scholars that are addressing these questions.
- The Approach (Wunder #1) (Wunder Series).
- Globalization's effects on world agricultural trade, 1960–2050.
- Zilbrant the Traitor;
The globalisation of media, primarily since the Second World War, has had an unprecedented impact on the structure of power relations within the media sector and the way in which culture is produced, reproduced and disseminated globally. The immense concentration of media ownership as a result of media globalisation through deregulation and privatisation of media markets and the proliferation of new media technologies have centralized power amongst media organisations.
The concentration of media ownership has resulted in the creation of a global media oligopoly; this process has reordered power relations within the global media system almost exclusively toward this group. Due to the creation of this oligopoly the diversity of media content disseminated through global media flows has been diminished, with huge cultural implications.
A dialectic has emerged whereby the global media flows have two, seemingly contradictory, effects on culture. While the global media system disseminates capitalist consumer culture globally and uniformly having a homogenizing effect, it simultaneously has the effect of creating new hybrid cultures as a result of global flows of people and the interpretation of media flows. However, neither homogenisation nor hybridisation attempt the preservation of traditional cultures, homogenisation attempts to suppress them whilst hybridisation may subvert by incorporating them into new hybrid cultures.
It is the future of traditional cultures to which the proliferation of media globalisation poses the greatest threat and how such cultures can be preserved will be an important question for future theory on media globalisation. Although news media increasingly transcend national borders, this does not in itself create a public sphere at a transnational or global level. As a starting point, the following paradox can be observed regarding the relationship between the development of the news media and the public sphere: Due to the growth in transnational and global news media, public opinion formation occasionally transcends national borders and acquires a political momentum of its own at a global level.
However, compared to the globalization of politics, economy and culture, the public sphere and the formation of public opinion are still very much tied to a national level and oriented toward national political institutions. This seemingly contradictory development has provided support for very different interpretations of current media changes.
The idea that the rise of global media has instituted a global public sphere has both been proclaimed and denounced by media scholars, and both sides have actually been able to provide some empirical support for their interpretations. However, the apparent inextricability of these opposing viewpoints may — at least to some extent — be due to a lack of theoretical consideration of how current transformations in the social geography of media may be conceptualized.
In economics, globalization engages in various aspects of crossborder transactions, free international capital flows, foreign direct investment, portfolio investment, and rapid and widespread diffusion of technology. Proponents of globalization argue that it enhances economic prosperity and leads to more efficient allocation of resources, which, in turn will result in higher output, more employment, lower prices and higher standard of living.
However, some critics worry about the resulting outsourcing and off-shoring, which have destroyed the American manufacturing sector. Economic aspects of globalising trends always have an impact on all other subcategories—cultural and technological aspects.