11/12/2016 Globalism Versus Globalization - The Globalist

Rethinking Globalization, Globalist Perspective Previous Next

Globalism Versus Globalization

What are the different spheres of globalism — and how are they affected by globalization?

44

By Joseph Nye, April 15, 2002

Globalism versus globalization? Many people would think the two terms refer to
the same phenomenon. However, there are important differences between the
two.

Globalism, at its core, seeks to describe and explain nothing more than a world
which is characterized by networks of connections that span multi-continental
distances.
It attempts to understand all the inter-connections of the modern world — and to
highlight patterns that underlie (and explain) them.

In contrast, globalization refers to the increase or decline in the degree of

globalism. It focuses on the forces, the dynamism or speed of these changes.
What's the speed of our
globalizing world?
In short, consider globalism as the underlying basic network, while globalization
refers to the dynamic shrinking of distance on a large scale.

Takeaways Globalism is a phenomenon with ancient roots. Thus, the issue is not how old
globalism is, but rather how “thin” or “thick” it is at any given time.

As an example of “thin globalism,” the Silk Road provided an economic and

cultural link between ancient Europe and Asia. Getting from thin to thick
globalism is globalization — and how fast we get there is the rate of globalization.

Of course, the Silk Road was plied by only a small group of hardy traders. Its
direct impact was felt primarily by a small group of consumers along the road.

In contrast, the operations of global financial markets today, for instance, affect
people from Peoria to Penang. Thus, “globalization” is the process by which
globalism becomes increasingly thick/intense.

The general point is that the increasing intensity, or thickness, of globalism — the
density of networks of interdependence — is not just a difference in degree from
the past. An increasing “thickness” changes relationships, because it means that
different relationships of interdependence intersect more deeply at more different
points.

At the same time, it is important to note that globalism does not imply universality.
After all, the connections that make up the networks to define globalism may be

http://www.theglobalist.com/globalism-versus-globalization/ 1/3
11/12/2016 Globalism Versus Globalization - The Globalist

more strongly felt in some parts of the world than in others.

For example, at the turn of the 21st century, a quarter of the U.S. population used
the World Wide Web. At the same time, however, only one-hundredth of one
percent of the population of South Asia had access to this information network.

Since globalism does not imply universality and given that globalization refers to
dynamic changes, it is not surprising that globalization implies neither equity —
nor homogenization. In fact, it is equally likely to amplify differences — or at least
make people more aware of them.

Both globalism and globalization are all too often defined in strictly economic
terms, as if the world economy as such defined globalism. But other forms are
equally important. There are four distinct dimensions of globalism: economic,
military, environmental — and social.

Economic globalism involves long-distance flows of goods, services and capital

and the information and perceptions that accompany market exchange.

These flows, in turn, organize other processes linked to them. One example of
economic globalization is low-wage production in Asia for the United States and
European markets. Economic flows, markets and organization — as in
multinational firms — all go together.

Environmental globalism refers to the long-distance transport of materials in the

atmosphere or oceans or of biological substances such as pathogens or genetic
materials that affect human health and well-being.

In contrast, examples of environmental globalization include the accelerating

depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer as a result of ozone-depleting
chemicals — or the spread of the AIDS virus from central Africa around the world
beginning at the end of the 1970s.

Military globalism refers to long-distance networks in which force, and the threat
or promise of force, are deployed. A well-known example of military globalism is
the “balance of terror” between the United States and the Soviet Union during the
Cold War — a strategic interdependence that was both acute and well-
recognized.

What made this interdependence distinctive was not that it was totally new — but
that the scale and speed of the potential conflict arising from interdependence
were so enormous.

Military globalization manifested itself in recent times in the tragic events of

September 11. Here, geographical distances were shrunk as the lawless
mountains of Afghanistan provided the launching pad for attacks on New York
and Washington — some 4,000 miles away.

The fourth dimension is social and cultural globalism. It involves movements of

ideas, information, images and of people, who of course carry ideas and
information with them.

Examples include the movement of religions — or the diffusion of scientific

knowledge. In the past, social globalism has often followed military and economic
globalism.

However, in the current era, social and cultural globalization is driven by the
Internet, which reduces costs and globalizes communications, making the flow of
http://www.theglobalist.com/globalism-versus-globalization/ 2/3
11/12/2016 Globalism Versus Globalization - The Globalist

ideas increasingly independent of other forms of globalization.

The division of globalism into separate dimensions, as presented above, is

inevitably somewhat arbitrary. Nonetheless, it is useful for analysis, because
changes in the various dimensions of globalism do not necessarily go together.
For example, economic globalism rose between 1850 and 1914 — and fell
between 1914 and 1945.

However, at the same time as economic globalism was declining during the two
World Wars, military globalism rose to new heights — as did many aspects of
social globalism.

Take, for example, the worldwide influenza epidemic of 1918-19, which took 21
million lives. It was propagated by the flows of soldiers around the world.

Does this suggest that globalism declined or rose between 1914 and 1945? It
depends on the dimension, or sphere, of globalism one is referring to.

Without a specifying adjective, general statements about globalism are often

meaningless — or misleading. The same applies when talking about
globalization or globalism today.

Based on the historic evidence, we should expect that globalism will be

accompanied by continuing uncertainty.

There will be a continual competition between increased complexity and

uncertainty on the one hand — and efforts by governments, market participants
and others to comprehend and manage these systems on the other.

In conclusion, we should not expect — or fear — that globalism will lead to

homogenization. Instead, it will expose us more frequently and in more variations
to the differences that surround us.

More on this topic

Let’s Be Practical About Building a Better World

Who Is a Globalist?
Regionalism Vs. Globalism?

44

Tags: globalism, globalization, Joseph Nye

About Joseph Nye

Full bio → | View all posts by Joseph Nye →

http://www.theglobalist.com/globalism-versus-globalization/ 3/3