The concept of globalisation is an ambiguous one. Perhaps the most universal and unbiased definition states that it is "the closer integration of the countries and peoples of the world ... brought about by the enormous reduction of costs of transportation and communication and the breaking down of artificial barriers to the flows of goods, services, capital, knowledge and (to a lesser extent) people across international borders" (Stiglitz, 2002, 9). However, there are those who claim that globalisation is not as new a concept as purported. Eslake goes as far as saying that "Globalization is the logical extension of the tendency towards increased specialization and trade which has been going on more or less continually since humans first appeared on the surface of the earth." (Eslake, 2003, 2) Whether or not globalisation is a new phenomenon, its costs and benefits will here be analysed and this essay will conclude in arguing that the process creates losers and winners and what is important is for those better off to protect and subsidise others. Stiglitz, J. (2002), Globalization and its Discontents, Norton, New York. Eslake, S. (2003), The Gains and Losses from Globalization, Address to the 14th International Farm Management Congress Burswood Resort, Perth. There are four strands of thought to consider when concerning the effects of globalisation. Sceptics, Deregulators, Reversers and Internationalists all have diverse and conflicting opinions on the causes and solutions of the process. Firstly, Sceptics believe that the international integration arising as a product of globalisation has in fact not reduced the reallocative or regulative competence of the states and that there has not been a devolution of state sovereignty to a new global order. The balance of power between different groups within countries is the soul cause of action and thus states are still able to function. Deregulators, on the other hand, contest this argument but perceive the loss of state jurisdiction as a beneficial process that allows the further allocation of resources and limits state interference. Reversers see globalisation as a constraint on public policy making and seek to reverse this effect through a process of 'Renationalisation', restoring national boundaries, protecting sovereignty and preserving democratic governance. Finally, Internationalists advocate the creation of an effective system of global governance aimed at making politics as global as economics. Through the cooperation of states and the formulation of a multifaceted cosmopolitan democracy, the creation of a global regulatory framework that functions at the same level as economic interaction can be achieved. When considering globalisation, a phenomenon with such broad implications in both politics and economics, there is rare occasion for positive statements and often one is left considering the advantages and disadvantages of its effects in order to form a vague normative assertion. In order to ascertain an answer to the question "Is increased globalisation a good thing?" a similar process must be followed. The current effects of globalisation on the world must be considered, and a balanced conclusion must be made as to whether furthering these effects would be beneficial and to whom. Therefore, what follows is an analysis of the positive and negative effects of globalisation. This is not exhaustive, as the full implications of globalisation could never fully be realised, let alone summarised in an essay of this length. One of the optimistic intentions of globalisation is for the increase in the range of goods and services available to the world consumer, the increase in the distance over which such transactions can be executed, the increase in the speed with which they occur, and the decrease in the overall cost of the overall process. This has tended to lead to the evolution of individual and indeed social preferences in favour of increasing diversity in the range and origin of goods and services. Saul Eslake sees this process as "facilitated by improvements in education and in communications technologies ... [and] self- reinforcing" (Eslake, 2003, 1). This transnational flow is not limited to goods; the increased flow in communication between countries and across cultural boundaries can often lead to a mutual appreciation of 'universal' values such as freedom, democracy, human rights and private economic enterprise. Eslake, S. (2003), The Gains and Losses from Globalization, Address to the 14th International Farm Management Congress Burswood Resort, Perth. This can, and should in the eyes of Deregulators, have the affirmative outcome of a further reduction in trade barriers due to reciprocal agreements between nations, or even as a consequence of unilateral liberalisation. The fact that this process is a product of sovereign states exercising their discretion and not of imperial conquest, may suggest that globalisation is a tool by which the self-perpetuating liberal west 'educates' other states and may be paralleled to Gramsci's theory of the Historic Bloc. Indeed, Gramsci recognised this occurrence when writing "Every relationship of 'hegemony' is necessarily an educational relationship and occurs not only within a nation ... but in the international and world-wide field" (Gramsci, 1996, 666). Though Gramsci opposed the process of the Historic Bloc, his theory concurs with Friedman's definition of globalisation as "the spread of free market capitalism to virtually every country in the world" (Friedman, 1999, 8). Friedman has a more positive outlook on the end result and embraces the inevitability of the subsequent manifestation of a true world culture, encompassing cultural products, languages and images that are shaped and understood on a global platform. Gramsci, A. (1996), Prison Notebooks, New York: Columbia University Press. Friedman, T. (1999), The Lexus and the Olive Tree, Harper Collins, London. One of the main problems associated with this effect is the idea of a homogenised world; whether Cultural Hegemony, Westernisation or Americanisation, the idea that we will end up in a global monoculture is a dangerous one. However, despite the certain existence of this global culture, there should not be a necessity for global uniformity. The theory of comparative advantage can work in terms of culture, and as each specific culture is amalgamated into the transnational structure, it will bring with it its own specific advantages in terms of traditions, beliefs and values. It will, in fact be beneficial to be diverse and distinguishing; the new world economy, as opposed to the current set of faintly unified national economies, will profit from an increase in prosperity, choice and range. Though states may benefit from a global culture, they may also profit from the process of specialisation and comparative advantage in an economic sense. Davies states that "[t]here is no principle in the whole of the social sciences the truth of which has been so overwhelmingly proved as the principle of comparative advantage." (Davies, 2000, 3) If countries specialise in what they are best at, the global industry will benefit. This is facilitated namely by low transport costs and allows companies like Mattel to produce Barbie dolls through four specialised countries for less than it would cost to manufacture entirely in the USA. However, Davies argues that specialisation should not be limited to countries and that internal specialisation should be encouraged as much as possible as this leads to further efficiency in the allocation of resources. This is a view shared by the Sceptics, who agree that globalisation should occur between different groups, individuals and firms, not states. Davies, S. (2000), Globalisation is Good! , Libertarian Alliance. It is globalisation that allows not for the trade between specialised countries, but between companies and individuals that gain from comparative advantage and best utilise resources. Many authors believe that this leads to the emergence of large cities and even firms becoming the true units of the new world economy. This emphasis on the individual over the state may have significant consequences if globalisation were to continue; it may undermine the necessity for a nation state and promote decentralisation. The result of this may be a reduction in nationalism and its malign effects, a theory that Cobden raised during the Crimean War (1854-1856). The possible removal of the capacity for states to go to war as a result of a global economy may have caused many state elites to oppose free trade after 1870. Ohmae, K. (1995), The End of the Nation State, Harper/Collins, London; Jacobs, J. (1985), Cities and the Wealth of Nations, Random House, New York. Richard Cobden argued that international trade and integration removed the capacity for states to make war and was completely opposed to the aggressive foreign policy of Lord Palmerston. The principle benefits of increased globalisation are dependant on the adoption and implementation of free trade throughout the world. However, it is this very process that can give rise to some of the most detrimental aspects of globalisation. Though the reduction in protectionist barriers to entry such as tariffs and quotas can further the benefits of comparative advantage, it can also leave industries within developing countries open to unwelcome competition from abroad. Though it may be said that in general, the benefits made available to consumers as a result of globalisation outweigh the hardships imposed on businesses from foreign competition, there is still the problem of the governments inadequacy in providing sufficient recompense, income support or retraining services for those negatively affected in this manner. In order to protect their internal economies, countries such as North Korea, Burma, China and Malaysia maintain many of the trade barriers. However, if a country wishes to fully embrace the global market and utilise thee benefit of comparative advantage to its full extent, it must, as far as Reversers are concerned, sacrifice some of its economic sovereignty. This procedure makes apparent the fact that the democratic state willing to join the global market inevitably finds itself less able to control its own economic sphere when placed in the context of the global economy. Restraints originating from the international markets, as well as the consideration of imports, exports, foreign direct investment and other transnational variables, ensure that there is a continued reduction in the occasion and influence of collective self-governance. This became a major issue for Britain when its membership to the Exchange Rate Mechanism caused the economic catastrophe of Black Wednesday and epitomised the dangers of devolving fiscal sovereignty to a global body. The event also showed the influence of individual investors such as George Soros, who now have the power to challenge governments. When the stability of a nation's economy lies in the hands of millions of investors and borrowers, acting out of self-interest, this may be coined democracy, but their true intentions are often detrimental to the general public. This relationship between economic globalisation and democracy is furthered in works by Held and Archibugi. Held, D. (1995), Democracy and the Global Order, Polity Press, Cambridge; Archibugi, D. (ed.) (2003), Debating Cosmopolitics, London, Verso. The emphasis on private over public influence in the global market can often lead to profit-maximising enterprises causing a "race to the bottom". That is, multinational companies, unlike government, tend to seek the cheapest way of manufacturing products and care little for ethics. This tends to result in outsourcing and subcontracting to sweatshops in developing countries, which are therefore drained of both their natural resources and labour, preventing internal structural improvements. The lack of a global welfare state ensures that there is no redistribution of wealth and there is further polarisation between the developing and the developed countries. This concept coincides with the beliefs of the World System Theory and is a typical Marxist approach to the concept of globalisation, where there is an exploitative but dependant relationship between the 'core' (the elite west) and the 'periphery' (the developing equatorial countries). The problem of a global elite or 'overclass' is a serious threat to the reputation of globalisation. The establishment of world regulatory systems such as the World Trade Organisation (WTO), International Monetary Fund (IMF), and World Bank helps the hegemonic power maintain the aforementioned exploitative relations with the poorest countries, also often most rich in primary resources. The main policy supposedly implemented by these institutions is 'regulated trade' which masquerades as free trade but ensures the Hegemon reserves certain essential controls over the global economy. Perhaps the institution that best illustrates the existence of regulated trade and distortion is the IMF. Vastly over-representative of wealthy countries, the policies it generates often have detrimental effects on poorer developing countries. Its instruction to privatise social security while proscribing counter cyclical policies contrasts completely what developed countries do, whilst its advocacy of economic liberalisation forced financial crises throughout the 1990s. Furthermore, the World Bank suggests that a country's further integration into the global market will unconditionally increase economic performance. However, there are those such as Wade who suggest that "international organisations need to move beyond integration into the world economy as the primary goal of policy." (Wade, 2001, 2) The reduction in inequality is, for Wade, a more important aspiration than a fully integrated economy, and the latter should certainly not be created to the detriment of the former. Wade, R. (2001), Poverty or Prosperity, globalization.about.com/cs/whatisit/a/gzpoverty_2.htm The very process of forming these institutions can be damaging to the Democratic Citizenship of a nation. The idea of a polity is to provide the ability for the exercise of self-governance. Therefore, in order to preserve the structure of the state, the main conditions affecting the social life of its citizens needs to be under their control. Typically, this can be maintained by the control of the economic sphere, which is assumed to depend on the expressed will of the majority as a result of policy debate by representatives of the citizens. The effective devolution of sovereignty from states to international regulatory institutions can challenge the idea of Democratic Citizenship and reduce the influence of the individual citizen on the nature of the nation, placing more emphasis on generic rules and regulations set by many countries that cannot match the bespoke efficacy of democratic decisions reached by individual polities. Held, D. (1995), Democracy and the Global Order, Polity Press, Cambridge. Though the process of denationalisation and global liberalisation can, as Cobden asserts, reduce the ability for states to go to war with one another, it may have disadvantageous effects. It is commonly claimed that no two countries with a McDonalds have ever gone to war with one another. (Daily Telegraph, 21 December 1996). However, the loss of patriotism and the feeling of Alienation that is commonly associated with the loss of state sovereignty and significance can cause other causes of conflict. Though causing a decrease in inter-state wars due to democratisation and decentralisation, the process of globalisation has caused a large increase in the inward application of armed violence in the form of intra-state civil wars. Of the 61 major conflicts from 1989 to 1998, 58 were civil wars. (UNDP, 1999, 5) It seems that humankind is not willing to give up its capacity for war that easily, and the globalisation phenomenon has, whilst amalgamating states, left conflict where there was once unity. UNDP (1999) Human Development Report 1999, New York: Oxford University Press. The common misconception that globalisation is replacing traditional methods of international interaction may cause it to appear threatening and unfamiliar. However, when one realises, as Koenig-Archibugi does, that "[g]lobalization is not supplanting traditional lines of social conflict and cooperation, but is redrawing them" (Koenig-Archibugi, 2003, 2) it becomes less a case of understanding a new phenomenon than making sure that the global market evolves in the right direction. The desired direction can change in the view of different groups with varying interests; the 'overclass', as mentioned, seek to maintain the exploitative link between the 'core' and 'periphery' through the creation of elitist regulatory institutions. The egalitarians, however, state that those benefiting from globalisation should compensate those who do not gain from it, perhaps through the creation of a global welfare state. Koenig-Archibugi, M. in Held, D. and Koenig-Archibugi, M. (2003), Taming Globalization, Polity Press, Cambridge. Stiglitz offers a resolution to the current overclass situation: voting power in institutions such as the IMF and World Bank should be less skewed; there should be an increase in the transparency of decision making and an overall change in the approach to crisis management; a change in the rules on bankruptcy when countries are unable to pay their national debt should be considered and there should be further concern for employment and working conditions. (Stiglitz, 2003, 47-67) However, these conditions are fairly Internationalist and assume that politics should be as flexible as economics in the global sphere. It can also be argued from a Sceptic point of view that globalisation has not undermined nationhood as a primary framework of collective solidarity, but has helped to loosen some links between nations and states for the better. Therefore, the question of whether or not globalisation is a good thing and should therefore be increased is almost entirely dependent on the point of view one takes; whether a Sceptic, Deregulator, Reverser or Internationalist, the problems and solutions of globalisation will vary. However, one theme is clear throughout all stems of thought: globalisation, whether a new phenomenon or not, needs to be treated with great caution and respect, the process may create losers as well as winners and what is important is for those better off to protect and subsidise others in order to maintain equality and preserve the good name of globalisation. Stiglitz, J. in Held, D. and Koenig-Archibugi, M. (2003), Taming Globalization, Polity Press, Cambridge. 