political globalization essay brainly

Political Globalization – Pros and Cons (with Examples)

Political globalization is one of 8 types of globalization . This type of globalization focuses on how the leaders of nations have integrated their laws and built alliances for their mutual benefit.

Some features of political globalization include:

• The rise of International Bodies like the WMF and WTO.
• The rise of Free Trade.
• The rise of Multinational Agreements to develop Shared Norms.
• The emergence of the Concept of the Global Citizen.

Aspects of political globalization has been around in some form or another for a long time (e.g. the complex political relationships in the Roman Empire). But generally when talking about political globalization, we’re referring to the increasing political integration of nation-states since the 2 nd World War.

The most widespread definition of political globalization comes from William R. Thompson who defined it as:

“The expansion of a global political system, and its institutions, in which inter-regional transactions (including, but certainly not limited to trade) are managed.”

Primarily, it has involved the blurring of the boundaries between nation-states to decrease friction between nations. This can reach all areas of political and social life, including:

• Lowering barriers to migration.
• Lowering barriers to the movement of goods and services.
• Agreeing on common standards for labor, intellectual property and environmental protection.

Some have argued that it has also led to a declining role of nation-states, which have ceded some power and responsibility to international bodies. For example, many nations agree to accept the rulings of the international court of arbitration even if they disagree with them.

Read Also: The 5 Scapes of Globalization

Examples of Political Globalization

1. European Union

The European Union is a trade and treaty bloc comprising of 27 nation-states on the continent of Europe. It is the successor of several other political agreements established after World War 2 to help integrate the European continent after the war.

Supporters of the EU say that the union has made Europe a safer and more harmonious place. Each nation’s economic success is more dependent on others in the bloc than ever before. This interdependence makes resorting to wars to solve disputes less likely.

The bloc also has the goal of spreading freedom and human rights across the continent. Here, you can see that there are both economic and political goals built into this union.

The North American Treaty Organization is another multi-national political treaty established after World War 2.

NATO’s primary goal is to contain Russian aggression by creating a military pact. If one NATO nation is attacked, then the rest will (supposedly) come to their defence. This deters potential Russian aggression.

3. Belt and Road Initiative

The Belt and Road Initiative is a trade initiative established by China designed to spread China’s sphere of influence across Asia and the Middle East.

The initiative creates trade routes through over 70 nations and is the centerpiece of China’s foreign policy. Critics say China’s foreign affairs strategy often puts small nations in debt to China so China can leverage political power and favors in the future.

4. War Games

Many allied nations engage in yearly war games in a bid to strengthen military ties and protect their interests.

The United States and South Korea do this regularly, for example, as a sign of strength against potential North Korean aggression. This sort of political diplomacy is designed to strengthen allied blocs of nations and deter foreign attacks.

NAFTA was a flashpoint of anti-globalization sentiment in the 1990s because it was seen to decrease labor standards and would lead to the exodus of blue-collar jobs from the United States.

The trade deal between the United States, Canada and Mexico was eventually replaced by protectionist-leaning president Donald Trump and replaced by the USMCA agreement which had reinstated some provisions to strengthen the power of nation-states to protect their industries.

Read Also:  Political Socialization Examples

Advantages of Political Globalization

1. Establishment of International Norms

When nation-states sign treaties with international bodies, it’s an agreement to operate within a set of norms and standards that all signatories will adhere to.

This rule-based order can help prevent a race to the bottom in regards to labor standards, intellectual property theft, and environmental standards.

An example of this is the establishment of war crimes standards that are policed by the international criminal court in Brussels.

2. Ease of Movement

Often, political agreements between nations lead to relaxing of the movement of labor across boundaries. This can lead to immigration and emigration opportunities for millions of people.

The most dramatic example of this is the freedom of movement of people around the 27 European Union nation-states, leading to the development of a transnational European identity .

However, in many other cases, this ease of movement is often limited to highly educated professionals and locks out working-class people from the benefits of globalization .

3. Ease of Trade

One of the key goals of political globalization is to create better trade routes around the world (in effect, to support and promote economic globalization ).

The premise here is that free trade creates more efficient economies of scale.

In a free trade situation, nations that are excellent at producing a certain product or service will become global ‘hubs’, producing their product of expertise with great efficiency and at scale. This can free up other nations to produce other products more efficiently also because they will be able to re-allocate resources to industries they’re more efficient at working within.

Political agreements that create free trade agreements can help increase participatory nations’ prosperity significantly, although this often comes at the cost of jobs in vulnerable sectors.

4. Establishment of Blocs of Influence

Multinational political agreements are often designed to create a bloc of allies that are stronger than the sum of their parts. One example of this is when small African and Pacific nations gather together to vote as blocs in the United Nations.

Similarly, the West spent the 2 nd half of the 20 th Century holding significant leverage over multinational organizations such as the United Nations and World Trade Organizations because they effectively created a strong trans-Atlantic alliance.

5. Solve Global Problems like Climate Change

As the 21 st Century progresses, the problem of climate change becomes more and more pressing to solve.

Many nations claim that they alone can do very little to solve climate change. They will often cite that they’re only responsible for a tiny percentage of global carbon emissions (this is very common to hear in Australian politics).

In this context, an effective way to solve climate change is to create a global pact where all nations (which each account for only a small amount of carbon emissions) come together and agree to targets and standards for reducing emissions.

Attempts have been made to address this – such as in the Copenhagen and Paris climate accords, although it’s widely believed that these accords fall far too short and will not prevent catastrophic climate change.

Nonetheless, if this problem will be solved, it’s likely to only occur at a global multinational level.

Disadvantages of Political Globalization

1. Loss of Power at the Nation-State Level

When nation-states make multinational agreements, they often make concessions in order to reach a middle ground that’s satisfactory to all parties. They also sign-off on certain norms and standards that restrict their abilities to unilaterally take action.

One of the many reasons Britain chose to leave the European Union was that they were unhappy that they were tied to European rules around – among other things – fishing quotas in UK waters. While within the trade block, the UK had to stick to requirements that they felt restricted their fishing industry.

Nevertheless, most European nations make the calculation that this loss of power is outweighed by the great rewards that come from being in an enormous free trade bloc.

Related Concept: McDonaldization Examples

2. Levels of Bureaucracy

Multinational political agreements can add extra layers of bureaucracy to everyday activities of businesses and citizens. For example, many global political agreements put in place standards that you need to ‘tick off’ before sending a product to market.

Another way they increase bureaucracy is through the very fact the running and administration of multinational agreements is a burden. For example, the European Union’s budget is €157.9 billion, which needs to be paid into by each nation-state.

While I don’t support many of the claims made in this documentary, it covers many compelling arguments about the problems with unelected bureaucrats:

3. Decreased Political Accountability

One of the biggest critiques of bodies like the WTO, the EU and United Nations is that they are full of unelected bureaucrats.

The administrators who make decisions and recommendations, and administer programs, are not directly accountable to the people who their decisions impact.

Similarly, the decisions made in multinational agreements are (by their very nature) made not only by citizens of your nation but also leaders of competitor nations. These foreign leaders are in no way accountable to you or your fellow citizens.

Related: Cultural Globalization Examples

Political globalization describes the ways political decisions are increasingly made at a global rather than national level. While it has enabled some significant advancements in human rights and growing prosperity thanks to free trade, many people have been displaced and harmed by multinational agreements, also.

There will always be a pull-and-push as political globalization displaces and upsets people and causes backlash. There are legitimate and genuine arguments on both sides of the advantages and disadvantages of political globalization arguments.

Cuterela, S. (2012). Globalization: Definition, processes and concepts.  Romanian Statistical Review .

Lechner, F. J., & Boli, J. (Eds.). (2020).  The globalization reader . New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Luard, E. (2016) .  The globalization of politics: the changed focus of political action in the modern world . London: Springer.

Chris Drew (PhD)

Dr. Chris Drew is the founder of the Helpful Professor. He holds a PhD in education and has published over 20 articles in scholarly journals. He is the former editor of the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education. [Image Descriptor: Photo of Chris]

• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 15 Animism Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 10 Magical Thinking Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ Social-Emotional Learning (Definition, Examples, Pros & Cons)
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ What is Educational Psychology?

2 thoughts on “Political Globalization – Pros and Cons (with Examples)”

It was very Good but it needs other types of globalization

Political globalization in one of 8 types of globalization. To see the others, visit this article: https://helpfulprofessor.com/types-of-globalization/

Thanks! Chris

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Advertisement

The impact of economic, social, and political globalization and democracy on life expectancy in low-income countries: are sustainable development goals contradictory?

• Published: 18 January 2021
• Volume 23 , pages 13508–13525, ( 2021 )

Cite this article

• Arif Eser Guzel   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5072-9527 1 ,
• Unal Arslan 1 &
• Ali Acaravci 1  

109k Accesses

42 Citations

10 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

The 17 Sustainable Development Goals announced by the United Nations are important guides for the development processes of developing countries. However, achieving all of these goals is only possible if the goals are consistent with each other. It has been observed in the literature that possible contradictions between these goals are ignored. Therefore, the main purpose of this study is to investigate whether two sustainable development goals (SDGs) of the UN are contradictory or supporting each other in low-income countries. These SDGs are “Good Health and Well-Being” (SDG3) and “Partnerships for the Goals” (SDG17). For this purpose, the role of globalization and democracy in life expectancy is empirically investigated in 16 low-income countries over the period 1970–2017. While globalization has been used as an indicator of the partnership between countries, democracy has been used as an indicator of accountability and cooperation between governments and societies. According to estimations of the continuous-updated fully modified (CUP-FM) and bias-adjusted ordinary least squares (BA-OLS), globalization and its subcomponents such as economic, social, and political globalization affect life expectancy positively. Democracy also increases life expectancy in those countries. The GDP per capita is also used as a control variable. Our results show that a higher level of per capita income is positively associated with higher levels of life expectancy. In conclusion, no contradiction was found between SDG3 and SDG17 in those countries. Achieving a healthier society requires economic, social, and political integration between governments and societies.

Similar content being viewed by others

The Human Development Index as the Key Indicator for Measuring the Quality of Life of the Population in Altai Krai

Human Development Index

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

The main problem of economics is to increase economic development and social welfare. Increasing the social welfare level is a complex process that depends on economic and non-economic factors. Achieving economic development or increasing the level of welfare depends on achieving and sustaining the main objectives in political, economic, and social areas. Today, development is no longer a process that can be realized through policies implemented by governments alone. It requires cooperation between governments and societies. While cooperation between different countries requires globalization in the economic, social, and political fields, democracy is the way to ensure cooperation between governments and societies.

Health is one of the most important indicators of social welfare. Besides being one of the indicators of development, it is one of the determinants of human capital formation which is necessary for economic development. Individuals living in developed countries live a healthier life compared to those living in less developed countries. While the differences between the levels of development of countries determine the health conditions, at the same time, improvement of public health paves the way for economic development. Healthy people have higher opportunities to earn a higher income than unhealthy people. Individuals with higher incomes can benefit from better nutrition and access to health services. Therefore, economic development and improvement of health conditions represent a two-way process. In this context, the determination of the variables that will enable the achievement of the goal of a healthier society is especially important in explaining the economic differences between developing countries and developed countries. Because of its importance, health-related goals have an important place both among the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) announced by the United Nations.

The world leaders with the support of international funding organizations announced the Millennium Declaration in September 2000 at the United Nations Headquarters in New York. They committed their nations to a new international partnership to achieve some development targets having with the final deadline of 2015. The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) consist of 8 goals, 21 targets, and 60 related indicators covering a wide spectrum of development areas such as “End Poverty and Hunger (MDG 1),” “Universal Education (MDG 2),” “Gender Equality (MDG 3),” “Child Health (MDG 4),” “Maternal Health (MDG 5),” “Combat HIV/AIDS (MDG 6),” “Environmental Sustainability (MDG 7),” and “Global Partnership (MDG 8).” As we see, three of the goals are directly associated with the health status of the people. In the deadline of 2015, according to “Health in 2015: From MDGs to SDGs” report of the World Health Organization (WHO), there are improvements in health-related targets such as child health, maternal health, and combat with HIV/AIDS. Globally, HIV, tuberculosis, and malaria targets have been met. Also, the child mortality rate was reduced by 53% and maternal mortality by 43% (WHO 2016 ). On a global view, although health-related problems are largely resolved, the situation is not as good for low-income countries. As shown in Fig.  1 , significant differences exist between developing countries and developed countries in achieving health-related goals.

Source Halisçelik and Soytas (2015)

World Bank Income Groups’ MDGs Index Values in 2015.

According to MDGs, indexes in the context of health status show that the goals desired in terms of health are not attained in low-income countries compared to other income groups. After the deadline of MDGs, the United Nations has announced 17 SDGs, and “Good Health and Well-Being” takes its place as the third goal. Since achieving these goals requires the cooperation of countries and societies, “Partnership for the Goals” is determined as the seventeenth SDG. According to the United Nations ( 2019 ), the main indicators of global partnerships are trade, foreign direct investments, remittances, financial integration technology transfers, data monitoring and accountability, internet usage, and political integration among countries. In our study, while globalization is used as a proxy indicator of global cooperation, democracy is an indicator of cooperation between societies and governments. Democracy also refers to accountability levels of governments.

Globalization can simply be defined as the process of international integration which has economic, social, and political dimensions (Dreher 2006 ). Many countries have adapted to this process and have enjoyed the welfare effects of globalization by implementing necessary economic and institutional transformation. However, some countries still suffer from poor adaption to global markets. According to the KOF Globalization Index published by the Swiss Economic Institute ( 2020 ), low-income countries have the lowest globalization level compared to other income groups. They also suffer from bad health conditions such as low life expectancy, communicable diseases, and high mortality rates according to MDG indexes given above. At this point, the literature is divided into two parts. The first one blames globalization and argues that poverty and as a result of this, low life expectancy derives from the inequality created by globalization itself (Buss 2002 ). The second group mostly focuses on the benefits of free trade, capital mobility, and technology transfers (Rao and Vadlamannati 2011 ). The low-income countries also suffer from low institutional quality in the context of democracy and political rights. According to Freedom House’s list of electoral democracies, the countries without electoral democracy are mostly the low-income countries in the Middle East, North Africa, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Southeast Asia (Freedom House 2019 ).

The main question of our study is to determine whether the problem of low life expectancy in low-income countries is due to the low levels of globalization and weak political institutions in these countries. To answer this question, the role of economic, social, and political globalization and democracy in life expectancy in those countries is empirically investigated. This study provides several contributions to previous literature. First, we provide a new perspective in the context of sustainable development goals. Previous studies mostly focused on how to achieve SDGs, while possible conflicts between the goals were mostly ignored especially in the context of health. Such conflicts between sustainable development goals in the literature have mostly focused on the impact of economic growth and globalization on the sustainable environment (Ulucak and Bilgili 2018 ; Zafar et al. 2019a ). Those studies are mostly addressed the relationship between SDG7, SDG8, SDG13, and SDG17 (Zafar et al. 2019b ). To the best of our knowledge, it is the first study that investigates the relationship between SDG3 and SDG17. It is also important to examine this relationship in low-income countries since they still suffer from low levels of life expectancy, less adaptation to globalization, and poor democratic institutions compared to other income groups. Previous works mostly provide global evidence, while only a few studies focus on less developed countries. Achieving these 17 goals put forward by the United Nations at the same time is possible only if these goals do not conflict with each other. Second, empirical works in previous literature consist of traditional estimation methods called first-generation tests. In the analysis of panel data, the estimators considering cross-sectional dependence are called the second-generation estimators. Cross-sectional dependency simply refers to the situation when the shock that occurs in one country affects other countries as well. The source of this problem encountered in panel data analysis is the economic, financial, and political integration among countries (Menyah et al. 2014 ). The ignorance of cross-sectional dependence results in biased and inconsistent estimates and wrong inferences (De Hoyos and Sarafidis 2006 ; Chudik and Pesaran 2013 ). Low-income countries are mostly African countries where there is a rising trend in terms of integration to global markets and institutions (Beck et al. 2011 ). Using estimation techniques that consider cross-sectional dependence in those countries prevents misleading results. As the literature is divided into two parts about the effects of globalization on human well-being, fresh evidence via robust estimation methods is required in order to provide proper policy implications. To fill this gap, our work provides second-generation estimations.

2 Literature review

To improve the health conditions of a country, the welfare of the poor should be improved as well. Poverty is detrimental to access to health services. Therefore, the positive impact of globalization on health first emerged with its positive effects on economic growth (Labonté et al. 2009 : 10). The effects of globalization on growth were mostly driven by free trade, international specialization, technology transfers, knowledge spillovers, and competitive markets. It also offers broader opportunities for entrepreneurs and paves the way for innovation (Grossman and Helpman 2015 : 101). As expected, poverty rates significantly reduced in the last two decades because of the integration of developing economies to global markets (Harrison 2006 ). When trade liberalization and income increases are considered together, people's access to treatments and medications can be easier and life expectancy may be prolonged. However, we should consider other possibilities in the context of spreading communicable diseases. As Deaton ( 2004 ) mentioned before, access to cheap and easy travel can increase the rate of spread of communicable diseases. Migration is also another fact to take into account. Particularly rising sexual tourism and migrant sex workers increase the spread of sexually transmitted diseases such as HIV/AIDS. But today there are improved treatment methods to solve these problems. Even HIV-infected people can survive with antiretroviral therapy, and it also reduces sexual transmission of the infection (Dollar 2001 ; Cohen et al. 2011 ). Due to the high cost of advanced drugs as in the case of antiretroviral therapy, it should be accepted that people in low-income countries will have trouble accessing the drugs (Buss 2002 ). There are approaches known as the unequal exchange that globalization increases inequality among countries and that developed countries are more profitable from the globalization process (Love, 1980 ). It may also increase domestic income inequality. There are a few studies that came with the conclusion that globalization rises inequality (Dreher and Gaston 2008 ; Ha 2012 ), but Bergh and Nilsson ( 2010 ) suggested a different perspective. Due to extensive R&D investments and scientific activities, developed countries can find new treatment methods and supply advanced drugs. The only way to access that knowledge and these drugs are trade and integration between developed and underdeveloped countries. Globalization can play an important role in improving the health conditions of low-income countries to the extent that it can provide these linkages. One should also notice that wider markets and higher returns are important factors that motivate entrepreneurs. Buss ( 2002 ) claimed that the intellectual property rights of advanced drugs belong to private firms in developed countries, and because of the strong protection of property rights, less developed countries have trouble accessing them. However, rising global human rights became an important step to advance public health issues against economic concerns in the trade of pharmaceutical products.

The human rights approach focuses on how globalization affected disadvantaged people worldwide (Chapman 2009 ). It is an important instrument in the suppression of the inequality created by economic globalization. Because of the pressure on the government about human rights, disadvantaged people are becoming able to meet their basic human needs. The role of political globalization on this point is forcing governments to adopt global institutions. It increases the number of international organizations in which a country is a member. This makes governments more accountable in the global area and forcing them to pay attention to protect human rights. Gelleny and McCoy ( 2001 ) also claimed that integration among countries leads to political stability. Therefore, governments' tendency to violate human rights in order to maintain their power becomes lesser. Moreover, as social dimensions of globalization expand and communication opportunities among people in different countries increase, the possibility of human rights violations being discovered by other people increases (Dreher et al. 2012 ). Governments that know the international sanctions required by these violations have to be more cautious against human rights violations. Social globalization also provides cultural integration among the world’s people, and it changes lifestyles and consumption patterns worldwide. The consequences of this change can have positive and negative effects. First, increased urban population and sedentary lifestyles may enhance prepared food consumption and reduce daily movements which result in rising obesity and diabetes (Hu 2011 ). Second, although rapidly increasing consumption options and diversity are known as welfare indicators, they also can cause stress which is known as an important determinant of many diseases both psychological and physical (Cutler et al. 2006 ). Third, due to knowledge spillovers and communication technology, people can learn about healthy nutrition and protection from communicable diseases. Thus, unhealthy but traditional consumption patterns and lifestyles may change. These days we experience the coronavirus epidemic and we see once again the importance of globalization. Countries are aware of infectious diseases in different parts of the world in a very short time and can take measures to stop the spread of the virus. The changes created by social and political globalization play a major role in this emergence. Social globalization enables people in very remote areas of the world to communicate with each other, while political globalization forces governments to be transparent about infectious diseases.

With economic globalization, increased economic activity may lead to urbanization. One may think about unhealthy conditions of an urban area such as environmental degradation, air and water pollution, higher crime rates, and stress which reduce life expectancy. However, according to Kabir ( 2008 ), people living in an urban area can benefit from improved medical care, easy access to pharmacy, and to the hospitals that use higher technology. They can also get a better education and can enjoy better socioeconomic conditions.

Democracy can be considered as another determinant of life expectancy. In order to solve the health problems of the poor, people should draw the attention of the government. Sen ( 1999 ) claimed that the instrumental role of democracy in solving problems is enabling people to express and support their claims. Thus, the attention of politicians can be attracted to the problems of the poor. Politicians who have never tasted poverty do not have the urge to take action against the problems of the poor at the right time. Another linkage can be established through accountability (Besley and Kudamatsu 2006 ). In democracies, governments have an obligation to account to citizens for what purposes the resources were used. Thus, resources can be allocated to solve important public issues such as quality of life, communicable diseases, and mortality.

Compared to theoretical discussions, previous literature provides a lack of empirical evidence. Barlow and Vissandjee ( 1999 ) examined the determinants of life expectancy with cross-sectional data available in 1990 for 77 developed and developing countries. According to regression results, per capita income, literacy rate, and lower fertility are important determinants of life expectancy while living in a tropical area decreasing it. Another finding in this study shows that health expenditures in those countries failed to increase life expectancy. Following this study, Or ( 2000 ) analyzed the determinants of health outcomes in 21 industrialized OECD countries covering the period 1970–1992. This study presents gender-specific estimates separately for men and women. Fixed effects estimation results reveal a significant negative relationship between public health expenditure and women's premature death. The relationship also occurs for men, while GDP per capita dropped from the regression model due to high collinearity. Furthermore, GDP per capita and the proportion of white-collar workers reduce premature death for both men and women, while alcohol consumption increases it.

Franco et al. ( 2004 ) analyzed the impact of democracy on health utilizing political rights data of 170 countries. Empirical results show that people living in democracies enjoy better health conditions such as longer life expectancy, better maternal health, and lower child mortality. Following this, Besley and Kudamatsu ( 2006 ) investigated the nexus between democracy and health outcomes utilizing panel data from the 1960s to the 2000s. In their study, they used life expectancy at birth and child mortality variables for 146 countries as indicators of health outcomes. According to results, democracy has a positive and significant effect on life expectancy at birth and it also reduces child mortality. Safaei ( 2006 ) also investigated the impact of democracy on life expectancy and adult and child mortality rates with the data of 32 autocratic, 13 incoherent, and 72 democratic countries. According to the OLS estimation results, improving democratic institutions increases life expectancy and reduces child and adult mortality rates. Another finding of the study is that socioeconomic factors such as income, education, and access to health care services are important determinants of health status.

Owen and Wu ( 2007 ) found a positive relationship between trade openness and health outcomes using a panel of 219 countries. Health outcome measures of this study are infant mortality and life expectancy. Trade openness is one of the most important dimensions of globalization.

Kabir ( 2008 ) analyzed the determinants of life expectancy in 91 developing countries. Empirical results obtained are the opposite of the expected. According to results, per capita income, literacy rate, per capita health expenditure, and urbanization have no significant impact on life expectancy. On the other hand, the number of physicians has a positive and significant impact on life expectancy, while malnutrition reduces it. As a dummy variable, living in Sub-Saharan Africa is another factor that reduces life expectancy due to communicable diseases like HIV, malaria, etc.

Bergh and Nilsson ( 2010 ) used a panel of 92 countries in the period 1970–2005 to investigate the relationship between globalization and life expectancy. They used social, political, and economic globalization data separately, and the results show a significant positive effect of economic globalization on life expectancy at birth. But no significant relationship was found between social globalization, political globalization, and life expectancy. They also used average years of education, urban population, the number of physicians, and nutrition as control variables and the effect of economic globalization was still positive and significant.

Welander et al. ( 2015 ) examined the effects of globalization and democracy on child health in their panel data analysis for 70 developing countries covering the period 1970–2009. According to the results, globalization significantly reduces child mortality. In addition, democracy improves child health and it also increases the beneficial effects of globalization on child health. Following this study, Tausch ( 2015 ) analyzed the role of globalization in life expectancy in 99 countries. The results of OLS estimates show that globalization leads to inequality, and therefore, it reduces health performance in terms of life expectancy and infant mortality. These results are contradictory to positive views on the role of globalization in public health. However, in 19 of 99 countries, globalization increases public health performance. Ali and Audi ( 2016 ) also analyzed the role of globalization in life expectancy in Pakistan. According to ARDL estimation results, life expectancy is positively associated with higher levels of globalization. Another study on the Pakistan case proposed by Alam et al. ( 2016 ) concluded that foreign direct investment and trade openness which are important indicators of economic globalization affects life expectancy positively.

Patterson and Veenstra ( 2016 ) concluded that electoral democracies provide better health conditions compared to other countries. Their analysis includes annual data from 168 countries covering the period 1960–2010. Empirical results show democracy has a significant positive impact on life expectancy and it reduces infant mortality.

In their recent study, Shahbaz et al. ( 2019 ) investigated the impact of globalization, financial development, and economic growth on life expectancy. The authors used nonlinear time series analysis methods utilizing the data of 16 Sub-Saharan African countries over the period 1970–2012. Their results show that globalization, financial development, and economic growth affect life expectancy positively in 14 of 16 Sub-Saharan African countries.

The previous literature provides a lack of evidence in the context of globalization, democracy, and life expectancy relationship. There are also methodological weaknesses in previous empirical studies. First, it can be observed that previous studies are mostly based on traditional estimation methods. Second, the panel data analyses are based on the first-generation estimators that assume cross-sectional independence. This assumption is hard to satisfy due to integration among countries. In addition, ignoring the cross-sectional dependence results in inconsistent estimations. Particularly in empirical work in the context of globalization which refers to economic, political, and cultural integration among countries, considering the cross-sectional dependence becomes more important. Therefore, in order to make a methodological contribution to previous literature, we used second-generation panel time series methods considering cross-sectional dependence.

3 Methodology and data

According to the United Nations, achieving sustainable development goals requires global cooperation and partnership. Therefore, “partnerships for goals” has taken its place as the 17th sustainable development target. However, it was emphasized that some sub-goals should be realized in order to reach this goal. These include improving international resource mobility, helping developing countries to attain debt sustainability, promoting the transfer of information and technology between developed and developing countries, an open and rule-based free trade system, encouraging public–private and civil society partnerships, increasing transparency and accountability, and high quality and reliable data (United Nations 2019 ). In our empirical work, economic, social, and political globalization and democracy variables were used as proxies of the subcomponents of SDG17. In addition, the life expectancy at birth variable that mostly used in related literature as a proxy of health status and well-being, it is used in our study as a proxy of SDG3. In this study, we investigated the role of globalization and democracy in life expectancy in 16 low-income countries. Footnote 1 Following Barlow and Vissandjee ( 1999 ) and ( 2000 ), GDP per capita is used as a control variable in order to mitigate omitted variable bias. Our dataset is covering the period 1970–2017. Following the related literature, we present our model as follows:

where lex is life expectancy at birth which refers to the average number of years a newborn is expected to live. Life expectancy at birth data is provided by World Bank ( 2019 ) World Development Indicators. Life expectancy at birth indicates the number of years a newborn infant would live if prevailing patterns of mortality at the time of its birth were to stay the same throughout its life. The dataset is consisting of a weighted average of collected data from several co-founders. In Eq.  1 , X refers to the KOF Globalization Index developed by Dreher ( 2006 ). This index has been used in previous literature as a proxy of SDG17 (Saint Akadiri et al. 2020 ). The current version of the data published by the Swiss Economic Institute is revised by Gygli et al. ( 2019 ). The globalization variables are between 0–100, and 100 refers to the highest globalization level. In our analysis, we used subcomponents of globalization index such as economic (EC), social (SOS), and political (POL) globalization in addition to overall globalization (GLB). Due to high collinearity, the effects of different types of globalization are analyzed separately. Models 1, 2, 3, and 4 represent the estimations with overall, economic, social, and political globalization indexes, respectively. The democracy variable ( dem ) is provided from the Polity IV project dataset (Marshall and Jaggers 2002 ). While the increases in this indicator represent a more democratic regime, the decreases represent a more autocratic regime. Finally, gdp is real GDP per capita (constant 2010 $) and it is provided from World Bank World Development Indicators. All variables transformed to the logarithmic form except democracy due to negative values. In the estimation of the model, the panel data analysis methods are used.

3.1 Cross-sectional dependence

Traditional panel data methods are based on the assumption that no cross-sectional dependence exists among cross section units. However, this assumption is hard to satisfy due to rising economic, social, and political integration between countries. The estimations do not take this process into account may cause inconsistent results. Such results may also lead to incorrect inferences (Chudik and Pesaran, 2013 ). The existence of cross-sectional dependence in variables and the error term is obtained from the model analyzed with Pesaran ( 2004 ) \({\text{CD}}_{{{\text{LM}}}}\) and Pesaran et al. ( 2008 ) bias-adjusted LM test. These techniques are robust whether N > T and T > N. Therefore, \({CD}_{LM}\) and bias-adjusted LM ( \({LM}_{adj})\) tests are found to be appropriate and their test statistics can be calculated as follows:

Equation  2 shows the calculation of Pesaran ( 2004 ) \({CD}_{LM},\) and Eq.  3 is Pesaran et al. ( 2008 ) bias-adjusted LM test statistic. \({V}_{Tij}\) , \({\mu }_{Tij}\) , and \({\widehat{\rho }}_{ij},\) respectively, represent variance, mean, and the correlation between cross section units. The null and alternative hypothesis for both test statistics; \({H}_{0}\) : No cross-sectional dependence exist; \({H}_{1}\) : Cross-sectional dependence exist.

In the selection of stationarity tests and long-run estimators, the existence of cross-sectional dependence will be decisive. If the null of no cross-sectional dependence is rejected, second-generation methods that assume cross-sectional dependence should be used in order to provide unbiased and consistent estimation results.

3.2 Slope homogeneity

Pesaran and Yamagata ( 2008 ) proposed a method to examine slope heterogeneity in panel data analysis based on the Swamy ( 1970 )’s random coefficient model.

The calculation of the test statistic of Swamy’s model is given in Eq.  4 .

In Eq.  4 , \({\stackrel{\sim }{\beta }}_{i}\) and \({\overbrace{\beta }}_{WFE},\) respectively, indicate the parameters obtained from pooled OLS and weighted fixed effects estimation, while \({M}_{T}\) is the identity matrix. The test statistic obtained from Swamy’s model is improved by Pesaran et al. ( 2008 ) as follows:

where \(\stackrel{\sim }{S}\) is the Swamy test statistic and k is a number of explanatory variables. \({\stackrel{\sim }{\Delta }}_{adj}\) is a bias-adjusted version of \(\stackrel{\sim }{\Delta }\) . \({\stackrel{\sim }{Z}}_{it}\) =k and \(Var\left({\stackrel{\sim }{Z}}_{it}\right)=2k(T-k-1)/T+1\) . The null and alternative hypothesis for both test statistics is given below.

The rejection of the null hypothesis shows that slope coefficients of Eq. 1 are heterogeneous. In the selection of panel data estimation methods, the results of those preliminary analysis are taken into account.

3.3 Unit root test

Pesaran ( 2006 ) suggested a factor modeling approach to solve the cross-sectional dependency problem. This approach is simply based on adding cross-sectional averages to the models as proxies of unobserved common factors. The Cross-sectionally Augmented Dickey–Fuller (CADF) unit root test developed by Pesaran ( 2007 ) is based on that factor modelling approach. This method is an augmented form of Augmented Dickey–Fuller (ADF) regression with lagged cross-sectional average and its first difference to deal with cross-sectional dependence (Baltagi, 2008 : 249). This method considers the cross-sectional dependence and can be used, while N > T and T > N. The CADF regression is:

\({\stackrel{-}{y}}_{t}\) is the average of all N observations. To prevent serial correlation, the regression must be augmented with lagged first differences of both \({y}_{it}\) and \({\stackrel{-}{y}}_{t}\) as follows:

After the calculation of CADF statistics for each cross section ( \({CADF}_{i}\) ), Pesaran ( 2007 ) calculates the CIPS statistic as average of CADF statistics.

If the calculated CIPS statistic exceeds the critical value, it means that the unit root hypothesis is rejected. After the preliminary analysis of unit root, the existence of a long-run relationship between the variables in our model will be investigated via Westerlund and Edgerton ( 2007 ) cointegration test. After this, the long-run coefficients will be estimated using the continuous-updated fully modified (CUP-FM) estimator developed by Bai and Kao ( 2006 ) and Bias-adjusted OLS estimator developed by Westerlund ( 2007 ).

3.4 Cointegration test and long-run relationship

In this study, the cointegration relationship was investigated by Westerlund and Edgerton ( 2007 ) LM bootstrap test. This method considers cross-sectional dependence and provides robust results in small samples (Westerlund and Edgerton, 2007 ). This method is based on the following equation

where \({n}_{ij}\) is an independent and identically distributed process with zero mean and var( \({n}_{ij})\) = \({{\sigma }_{i}}^{2}\) . Westerlund and Edgerton ( 2007 ) suggested following LM test in order to test the null of cointegration

where \({S}_{it}\) is partial sum process of the fully modified estimate of \({z}_{it}\) and \({\widehat{w}}_{i}^{-2}\) is the estimated long-run variance of \({u}_{it}\) conditional on \(\Delta {x}_{it}^{^{\prime}}\) . If the calculated LM statistic is below the critical value, the null of cointegration will be accepted. The critical values will be provided using the bootstrap method in order to prevent cross-sectional dependence.

In the estimation of long-run coefficients, the CUP-FM estimator was used and this method is based on the following regression

where \({\widehat{\lambda }}_{i}^{^{\prime}}\) refers to the estimated factor loadings and \(\hat{y}_{{i,t}}^{ + } = y_{{i,t}} - \left( {\lambda _{i} ^{\prime } \hat{\Omega }_{{F \in i}} + \hat{\Omega }_{{\mu \in i}} } \right)\hat{\Omega }_{{ \in i}}^{{ - 1}} {{\Delta }}x_{{i,t}}\) indicates the transformation of the dependent variable for endogeneity correction. According to Bai and Kao ( 2006 ), CUP-FM estimator is robust under cross-sectional dependence. However, the assumption that the number of common factors (k) is known cannot be satisfied in practice (Westerlund, 2007 ). Therefore, Westerlund ( 2007 ) suggested a bias-adjusted estimator (BA-OLS) following the methodology of Bai and Kao ( 2006 ) except in the context of determining the number of common factors. The author suggested the estimation of k using an information criterion as

where \(IC\left(k\right)\) is the information criterion. In this study, we determined the number of common factors via the Bayesian information criterion (BIC) as follows.

In the equation above, V(k) is the estimated variance of \({\widehat{u}}_{it}\) based on k factors. By minimizing the BIC, we obtain \(\widehat{k}\) . Westerlund ( 2007 ) showed that the estimation of k provides better results compared to CUP-FM estimator assuming k is known. Both of the estimators require cointegrated variables in the long run.

3.5 Empirical results and discussion

The results of Pesaran ( 2004 ) \({CD}_{LM}\) and Pesaran et al. ( 2008 ) bias-adjusted LM tests are given in Table 1 .

The results given in Table 1 show that the null of no cross-sectional dependence is rejected at 1% according to both \({CD}_{LM}\) and \({LM}_{adj}\) test statistics in all variables. In addition, in the error terms obtained from models 1, 2, 3, and 4 the null of no cross-sectional dependence is rejected at 1%. These results show that the methods to be used in the analysis of the stationarity of the variables and the determination of the long-run relationship should consider the cross-sectional dependence.

The results of homogeneity tests developed by Pesaran and Yamagata ( 2008 ) are given in Table 2 . According to the results, the null of homogeneity is accepted at %1 in all models. Therefore, estimators assume parameter homogeneity are used in our analysis.

After the preliminary analysis of cross-sectional dependence, the CADF unit root test developed by Pesaran ( 2007 ) is found to be appropriate for our model because of its robustness under cross-sectional dependence. The results of the CADF unit root test are given in Table 3 .

In the analysis of unit root, constant and trend terms are both considered at level, while only constant term is added at first difference. Maximum lag level is determined as 3, while optimum lag level is determined by F joint test from general to particular. According to results, the null of unit root is accepted for all variables, while calculated CIPS statistics of first-differenced variables exceed 1% critical value. All variables have a unit root, and their first differences are stationary ( \({I}_{1})\) . Therefore, in order to determine the existence of a long-run relationship, we applied Westerlund and Edgerton ( 2007 ) panel cointegration test. This method considers cross-sectional dependence and can be used, while the series are integrated in the same order. The results are shown in Table 4 .

Constant and trend are both considered in the analysis of cointegration, and critical values are obtained from 5000 bootstrap replications. The results show that the null of cointegration is accepted for all models. There is a long-run relationship between life expectancy, globalization, democracy, and GDP per capita. After determining the cointegration relationship, we estimated long-run coefficients utilizing CUP-FM and BA-OLS estimators proposed by Bai and Kao ( 2006 ) and Westerlund ( 2007 ), respectively.

The long-run estimation results given in Table 5 show that overall, economic, social, and political globalization are positively associated with life expectancy at 1% significance level according to both CUP-FM and BA-OLS estimators. The results show that a 1% increase in globalization index increases life expectancy %0.014 and %0.015 according to CUP-FM and BA-OLS estimators, respectively. The impact of economic, social and political globalization indexes is 0.013%, 0.011%, and 0.015% according to CUP-FM estimation results while 0.014%, 0.012%, and 0.017% according to both estimators, respectively.

Our results confirms the findings of Owen and Wu ( 2007 ), Ali and Audi ( 2016 ), and Shahbaz et al. ( 2019 ) who found a positive relationship between globalization and life expectancy. Our empirical work also supports the evidence of Bergh and Nilsson ( 2010 ) in terms of positive effect of economic globalization on life expectancy. While the authors found no significant impact of social and political globalization on life expectancy, our results show that life expectancy is positively associated with both social and political globalization. The results we found contradict Tausch ( 2015 )’s evidences in 80 of 99 countries. However, according to his results, in 19 of 99 countries, globalization affects health positively. When these countries are examined, it is seen that 14 of them are countries in the low and lower-middle income groups. In this sense, it can be said that the evidence we found for low-income countries is in line with the author's evidence. As Dreher ( 2006 ) mentioned, despite its possible inequality effects, the net effect of globalization on development is mostly positive and our empirical work supports that idea. The effect of democracy on life expectancy is also positive and significant at 1% which confirms the findings of Franco et al. ( 2004 ) and Besley and Kudamatsu ( 2006 ). In electoral democracies, people living in poverty and suffering from health problems can easily attract the attention of policymakers compared to autocracies. This leads to the reallocation of resources to solve the primary problems of the society. In the context of sustainable development goals, our results show that there is no conflict between SDG3 (good health and well-being) and SDG17 (partnerships for the goals). The improvement of the health conditions of the poor countries depends on global partnership and economic, social, and political integration among countries. In addition, democracy is an important tool in achieving the goal of a healthy society, as it fosters accountability, transparency, and partnership between governments and the societies they rule. As stated in the introduction section, low-income countries show low performance in terms of health-related sustainable development goals, and their connections with global markets are weak compared to other countries. At the same time, democratic institutions are not developed. Our work supports the idea that in order to achieve SDG3, global partnership and democracy are required.

The GDP per capita that used as a control variable has a positive impact on life expectancy at a 1% level. These results support the evidence of Barlow and Vissandjee ( 1999 ), Or ( 2000 ), and Shahbaz et al. ( 2019 ). Individuals living in countries with high per capita income are expected to have higher welfare and have a longer life expectancy (Judge, 1995 ). In low-income countries where people still suffer from having difficulty in meeting basic human needs, increasing per capita income may lead to better nutritional status, easier access to advanced treatment methods and technology.

4 Conclusion

In this study, the effects of globalization and democracy on life expectancy are empirically investigated in low-income countries. While globalization and democracy indexes are used as proxy indicators of “Partnerships for the Goals (SDG 17),” life expectancy used a proxy of “Good Health and Well-Being (SDG 3).” With this, it is aimed to examine the existence of contradiction between those SDGs. In the estimation of the long-run relationship between the variables, second-generation panel data analysis methods that consider cross-sectional dependency are used. According to the results, the globalization index and its subcomponents such as economic, social, and political globalization are important instruments to achieve a healthier society. In addition, higher levels of democracy lead to higher levels of life expectancy. Finally, GDP per capita growth improves health status of countries.

The findings obtained from our study show that economic, social, and political integration of countries and democracy accelerate the process of achieving a healthier society. Therefore, it is seen that SDG3 and SDG17 targets are compatible with each other. In order to achieve SDG3, economic, social, and political integration between countries should be encouraged and democratic institutions should be improved. Policy makers should remove the barriers on globalization, and they should promote participation on international organizations and public–private and civil society partnerships.

Those countries are Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of Congo, The Gambia, Haiti, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Nepal, Niger, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, and Togo.

Alam, M. S., Raza, S. A., Shahbaz, M., & Abbas, Q. (2016). Accounting for contribution of trade openness and foreign direct investment in life expectancy: The long-run and short-run analysis in Pakistan. Social Indicators Research, 129 (3), 1155–1170.

Article   Google Scholar  

Ali A, & Audi M (2016). The impact of income inequality, environmental degradation and globalization on life expectancy in Pakistan: An empirical analysis. MPRA Working Paper, No. 71112.

Bai, J., & Kao, C. (2006). On the estimation and inference of a panel cointegration model with cross-sectional dependence In panel data econometrics theoretical contributions and empirical applications . Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Google Scholar  

Baltagi, B. (2008). Econometric analysis of panel data . New York: Wiley.

Barlow, R., & Vissandjee, B. (1999). Determinants of national life expectancy. Canadian Journal of Development Studies/Revue canadienne d’études du développement, 20 (1), 9–29.

Beck, T., Maimbo, S. M., Faye, I., & Triki, T. (2011). Financing Through the crisis and beyond . Africa: The World Bank.

Book   Google Scholar  

Bergh, A., & Nilsson, T. (2010). Good for living? On the relationship between globalization and life expectancy. World Development, 38 (9), 1191–1203.

Besley, T., & Kudamatsu, M. (2006). Health and democracy. American Economic Review, 96 (2), 313–318.

Buss, P. M. (2002). Globalization and disease: In an unequal world, unequal health! Cadernos de Saúde Pública, 18, 1783–1788.

Chapman, A. R. (2009). Globalization, human rights, and the social determinants of health. Bioethics, 23 (2), 97–111.

Chudik A, & Pesaran, MH (2013) Large panel data models with cross-sectional dependence: a survey. CAFE Research Paper , (13.15).

Cohen, M. S., Chen, Y. Q., McCauley, M., Gamble, T., Hosseinipour, M. C., Kumarasamy, N., & Godbole, S. V. (2011). Prevention of HIV-1 infection with early antiretroviral therapy. New England journal of medicine, 365 (6), 493–505.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Cutler, D., Deaton, A., & Lleras-Muney, A. (2006). The determinants of mortality. Journal of economic perspectives, 20 (3), 97–120.

De Hoyos, R. E., & Sarafidis, V. (2006). Testing for cross-sectional dependence in panel-data models. The stata journal, 6 (4), 482–496.

Deaton, A. (2004). Health in an age of globalization (No. w10669) . Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research.

Dollar, D. (2001). Is globalization good for your health? Bulletin of the world Health Organization, 79, 827–833.

CAS   Google Scholar  

Dreher, A. (2006). Does globalization affect growth? Evidence from a new index of globalization. Applied economics, 38 (10), 1091–1110.

Dreher, A., & Gaston, N. (2008). Has globalization increased inequality? Review of International Economics , 16 (3), 516–536.

Dreher, A., Gassebner, M., & Siemers, L. H. (2012). Globalization, economic freedom, and human rights. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 56 (3), 516–546.

Franco, Á., Álvarez-Dardet, C., & Ruiz, M. T. (2004). Effect of democracy on health: Ecological study. BMJ, 329 (7480), 1421–1423.

Freedom House (2019). List of Electoral Democracies in 2019. https://freedomhouse.org/report-types/freedom-world (Access Date: 11.13.2019).

Gelleny, R. D., & McCoy, M. (2001). Globalization and government policy independence: The issue of taxation. Political Research Quarterly, 54 (3), 509–529.

Grossman, G. M., & Helpman, E. (2015). Globalization and growth. American Economic Review, 105 (5), 100–104.

Gygli, S., Haelg, F., Potrafke, N., & Sturm, J. E. (2019). The KOF globalisation index–revisited. The Review of International Organizations , 14 , 543–574.

Ha, E. (2012). Globalization, government ideology, and income inequality in developing countries. The journal of Politics, 74 (2), 541–557.

Halisçelik, E., & Soytas, M. A. (2019). Sustainable development from millennium 2015 to Sustainable Development Goals 2030. Sustainable Development, 27 (4), 545–572.

Harrison, A. (2006). Globalization and poverty (No. w12347) . Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research.

Hu, F. B. (2011). Globalization of diabetes: the role of diet, lifestyle, and genes. Diabetes Care, 34 (6), 1249–1257.

Judge, K. (1995). Income distribution and life expectancy: A critical appraisal. BMJ, 311 (7015), 1282–1285.

Kabir, M. (2008). Determinants of life expectancy in developing countries. The journal of Developing areas, 41, 185–204.

Labonté, R., Schrecker, T., Packer, C., & Runnels, V. (Eds.). (2009). Globalization and health: Pathways, evidence and policy . Abingdon: Routledge.

Love, J. L. (1980). Raul Prebisch and the origins of the doctrine of unequal exchange. Latin American Research Review, 15 (3), 45–72.

Marshall, M. G., & Jaggers, K. (2002). Polity IV Project: Political regime characteristics and transitions, 1800–2002: Dataset users’ manual . Maryland: University of Maryland.

Menyah, K., Nazlioglu, S., & Wolde-Rufael, Y. (2014). Financial development, trade openness and economic growth in African countries: New insights from a panel causality approach. Economic Modelling, 37, 386–394.

Or, Z. (2000). Determinants of health outcomes in industrialized countries: A pooled, cross-country, time-series analysis. OECD Economic Studies, 1, 53–78.

Owen, A. L., & Wu, S. (2007). Is trade good for your health? Review of International Economics, 15 (4), 660–682.

Patterson, A. C., & Veenstra, G. (2016). Politics and population health: Testing the impact of electoral democracy. Health & place, 40, 66–75.

Pesaran MH (2004) General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels. CESifo Working Paper (No. 1229).

Pesaran, M. H. (2006). Estimation and inference in large heterogeneous panels with a multifactor error structure. Econometrica , 74 (4), 967–1012.

Pesaran, M. H. (2007). A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross-section dependence. Journal of applied econometrics, 22 (2), 265–312.

Pesaran, M. H., & Yamagata, T. (2008). Testing slope homogeneity in large panels. Journal of Econometrics, 142 (1), 50–93.

Pesaran, M. H., Ullah, A., & Yamagata, T. (2008). A bias-adjusted LM test of error cross-section independence. The Econometrics Journal, 11 (1), 105–127.

Rao, B. B., & Vadlamannati, K. C. (2011). Globalization and growth in the low income African countries with the extreme bounds analysis. Economic Modelling, 28 (3), 795–805.

Safaei, J. (2006). Is democracy good for health? International Journal of Health Services, 36 (4), 767–786.

Saint Akadiri, S., Alola, A. A., Olasehinde-Williams, G., & Etokakpan, M. U. (2020). The role of electricity consumption, globalization and economic growth in carbon dioxide emissions and its implications for environmental sustainability targets. Science of The Total Environment, 708, 134653.

Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom . New York: Knopf.

Shahbaz, M., Shafiullah, M., & Mahalik, M. K. (2019). The dynamics of financial development, globalisation, economic growth and life expectancy in sub-Saharan Africa. Australian Economic Papers, 58 (4), 444–479.

Swamy, P. A. (1970). Efficient inference in a random coefficient regression model. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 38, 311–323.

Swiss Economic Institute. (2020). KOF Globalization Index. https://kof.ethz.ch/en/forecasts-and-indicators/indicators/kof-globalisation-index.html (Access Date: December, 2019).

Tausch, A. (2015). Is globalization really good for public health? The International journal of health planning and management, 31 (4), 511–536.

The United Nations (2019). Sustainable Development Goal Indicators. https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/Global%20Indicator%20Framework%20after%202019%20refinement_Eng.pdf (Access Date: 25.12.2019).

Ulucak, R., & Bilgili, F. (2018). A reinvestigation of EKC model by ecological footprint measurement for high, middle and low income countries. Journal of cleaner production, 188, 144–157.

Welander, A., Lyttkens, C. H., & Nilsson, T. (2015). Globalization, democracy, and child health in developing countries. Social Science and Medicine, 136, 52–63.

Westerlund, J. (2007). Estimating cointegrated panels with common factors and the forward rate unbiasedness hypothesis. Journal of Financial Econometrics, 5 (3), 491–522.

Westerlund, J., & Edgerton, D. L. (2007). A panel bootstrap cointegration test. Economics Letters, 97 (3), 185–190.

World Bank (2019). World Development Indicators. https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators (Access Date: December, 2019).

World Health Organization. (2016). Health in 2015: from MDGs to SDGs 2015 . Geneva: World Health Organization.

Zafar, M. W., Saud, S., & Hou, F. (2019a). The impact of globalization and financial development on environmental quality: Evidence from selected countries in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Environmental science and pollution research, 26 (13), 13246–13262.

Zafar, M. W., Shahbaz, M., Hou, F., & Sinha, A. (2019b). From nonrenewable to renewable energy and its impact on economic growth: The role of research & development expenditures in Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation countries. Journal of cleaner production, 212, 1166–1178.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Economics, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Hatay Mustafa Kemal University, Hatay, Turkey

Arif Eser Guzel, Unal Arslan & Ali Acaravci

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Arif Eser Guzel .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Guzel, A.E., Arslan, U. & Acaravci, A. The impact of economic, social, and political globalization and democracy on life expectancy in low-income countries: are sustainable development goals contradictory?. Environ Dev Sustain 23 , 13508–13525 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01225-2

Download citation

Received : 30 April 2020

Accepted : 04 January 2021

Published : 18 January 2021

Issue Date : September 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01225-2

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Life expectancy
• Globalization
• Low-income countries
• Sustainable development
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Table of Contents
• Random Entry
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Advanced Tools
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

Globalization

Covering a wide range of distinct political, economic, and cultural trends, the term “globalization” remains crucial to contemporary political and academic debate. In contemporary popular discourse, globalization often functions as little more than a synonym for one or more of the following phenomena: the pursuit of classical liberal (or “free market”) policies in the world economy (“economic liberalization”), the growing dominance of western (or even American) forms of political, economic, and cultural life (“westernization” or “Americanization”), a global political order built on liberal notions of international law (the “global liberal order”), an ominous network of top-down rule by global elites (“globalism” or “global technocracy”), the proliferation of new information technologies (the “Internet Revolution”), as well as the notion that humanity stands at the threshold of realizing one single unified community in which major sources of social conflict have vanished (“global integration”). Globalization is a politically-contested phenomenon about which there are significant disagreements and struggles, with many nationalist and populist movements and leaders worldwide (including Turkey’s Recep Erdoğan, Hungary’s Viktor Orbán, and former US President Donald Trump) pushing back against what they view as its unappealing features.

Fortunately, recent social theory has formulated a more precise concept of globalization than those typically offered by politicians and pundits. Although sharp differences continue to separate participants in the ongoing debate about the term, most contemporary social theorists endorse the view that globalization refers to fundamental changes in the spatial and temporal contours of social existence, according to which the significance of space or territory undergoes shifts in the face of a no less dramatic acceleration in the temporal structure of crucial forms of human activity. Geographical distance is typically measured in time. As the time necessary to connect distinct geographical locations is reduced, distance or space undergoes compression or “annihilation.” The human experience of space is intimately connected to the temporal structure of those activities by means of which we experience space. Changes in the temporality of human activity inevitably generate altered experiences of space or territory. Theorists of globalization disagree about the precise sources of recent shifts in the spatial and temporal contours of human life. Nonetheless, they generally agree that alterations in humanity’s experiences of space and time are working to undermine the importance of local and even national boundaries in many arenas of human endeavor. Since globalization contains far-reaching implications for virtually every facet of human life, it necessarily suggests the need to rethink key questions of normative political theory.

1. Globalization in the History of Ideas

2. globalization in contemporary social theory, 3. the normative challenges of globalization, other internet resources, related entries.

The term globalization has only become commonplace in the last three decades, and academic commentators who employed the term as late as the 1970s accurately recognized the novelty of doing so (Modelski 1972). At least since the advent of industrial capitalism, however, intellectual discourse has been replete with allusions to phenomena strikingly akin to those that have garnered the attention of recent theorists of globalization. Nineteenth and twentieth-century philosophy, literature, and social commentary include numerous references to an inchoate yet widely shared awareness that experiences of distance and space are inevitably transformed by the emergence of high-speed forms of transportation (for example, rail and air travel) and communication (the telegraph or telephone) that dramatically heighten possibilities for human interaction across existing geographical and political divides (Harvey 1989; Kern 1983). Long before the introduction of the term globalization into recent popular and scholarly debate, the appearance of novel high-speed forms of social activity generated extensive commentary about the compression of space.

Writing in 1839, an English journalist commented on the implications of rail travel by anxiously postulating that as distance was “annihilated, the surface of our country would, as it were, shrivel in size until it became not much bigger than one immense city” (Harvey 1996, 242). A few years later, Heinrich Heine, the émigré German-Jewish poet, captured this same experience when he noted: “space is killed by the railways. I feel as if the mountains and forests of all countries were advancing on Paris. Even now, I can smell the German linden trees; the North Sea’s breakers are rolling against my door” (Schivelbusch 1978, 34). Another young German émigré, the socialist theorist Karl Marx, in 1848 formulated the first theoretical explanation of the sense of territorial compression that so fascinated his contemporaries. In Marx’s account, the imperatives of capitalist production inevitably drove the bourgeoisie to “nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, and establish connections everywhere.” The juggernaut of industrial capitalism constituted the most basic source of technologies resulting in the annihilation of space, helping to pave the way for “intercourse in every direction, universal interdependence of nations,” in contrast to a narrow-minded provincialism that had plagued humanity for untold eons (Marx 1848, 476). Despite their ills as instruments of capitalist exploitation, Marx argued, new technologies that increased possibilities for human interaction across borders ultimately represented a progressive force in history. They provided the necessary infrastructure for a cosmopolitan future socialist civilization, while simultaneously functioning in the present as indispensable organizational tools for a working class destined to undertake a revolution no less oblivious to traditional territorial divisions than the system of capitalist exploitation it hoped to dismantle.

European intellectuals have hardly been alone in their fascination with the experience of territorial compression, as evinced by the key role played by the same theme in early twentieth-century American thought. In 1904, the literary figure Henry Adams diagnosed the existence of a “law of acceleration,” fundamental to the workings of social development, in order to make sense of the rapidly changing spatial and temporal contours of human activity. Modern society could only be properly understood if the seemingly irrepressible acceleration of basic technological and social processes was given a central place in social and historical analysis (Adams 1931 [1904]). John Dewey argued in 1927 that recent economic and technological trends implied the emergence of a “new world” no less noteworthy than the opening up of America to European exploration and conquest in 1492. For Dewey, the invention of steam, electricity, and the telephone offered formidable challenges to relatively static and homogeneous forms of local community life that had long represented the main theatre for most human activity. Economic activity increasingly exploded the confines of local communities to a degree that would have stunned our historical predecessors, for example, while the steamship, railroad, automobile, and air travel considerably intensified rates of geographical mobility. Dewey went beyond previous discussions of the changing temporal and spatial contours of human activity, however, by suggesting that the compression of space posed fundamental questions for democracy. Dewey observed that small-scale political communities (for example, the New England township), a crucial site for the exercise of effective democratic participation, seemed ever more peripheral to the great issues of an interconnected world. Increasingly dense networks of social ties across borders rendered local forms of self-government ineffective. Dewey wondered, “How can a public be organized, we may ask, when literally it does not stay in place?” (Dewey 1927, 140). To the extent that democratic citizenship minimally presupposes the possibility of action in concert with others, how might citizenship be sustained in a social world subject to ever more astonishing possibilities for movement and mobility? New high-speed technologies attributed a shifting and unstable character to social life, as demonstrated by increased rates of change and turnover in many arenas of activity (most important perhaps, the economy) directly affected by them, and the relative fluidity and inconstancy of social relations there. If citizenship requires some modicum of constancy and stability in social life, however, did not recent changes in the temporal and spatial conditions of human activity bode poorly for political participation? How might citizens come together and act in concert when contemporary society’s “mania for motion and speed” made it difficult for them even to get acquainted with one another, let alone identify objects of common concern? (Dewey 1927, 140).

The unabated proliferation of high-speed technologies is probably the main source of the numerous references in intellectual life since 1950 to the annihilation of distance. The Canadian cultural critic Marshall McLuhan made the theme of a technologically based “global village,” generated by social “acceleration at all levels of human organization,” the centerpiece of an anxiety-ridden analysis of new media technologies in the 1960s (McLuhan 1964, 103). Arguing in the 1970s and 1980s that recent shifts in the spatial and temporal contours of social life exacerbated authoritarian political trends, the French social critic Paul Virilio seemed to confirm many of Dewey’s darkest worries about the decay of democracy. According to his analysis, the high-speed imperatives of modern warfare and weapons systems strengthened the executive and debilitated representative legislatures. The compression of territory thereby paved the way for executive-centered emergency government (Virilio 1977). But it was probably the German philosopher Martin Heidegger who most clearly anticipated contemporary debates about globalization. Heidegger not only described the “abolition of distance” as a constitutive feature of our contemporary condition, but he linked recent shifts in spatial experience to no less fundamental alterations in the temporality of human activity: “All distances in time and space are shrinking. Man now reaches overnight, by places, places which formerly took weeks and months of travel” (Heidegger 1950, 165). Heidegger also accurately prophesied that new communication and information technologies would soon spawn novel possibilities for dramatically extending the scope of virtual reality : “Distant sites of the most ancient cultures are shown on film as if they stood this very moment amidst today’s street traffic…The peak of this abolition of every possibility of remoteness is reached by television, which will soon pervade and dominate the whole machinery of communication” (Heidegger 1950, 165). Heidegger’s description of growing possibilities for simultaneity and instantaneousness in human experience ultimately proved no less apprehensive than the views of many of his predecessors. In his analysis, the compression of space increasingly meant that from the perspective of human experience “everything is equally far and equally near.” Instead of opening up new possibilities for rich and multi-faceted interaction with events once distant from the purview of most individuals, the abolition of distance tended to generate a “uniform distanceless” in which fundamentally distinct objects became part of a bland homogeneous experiential mass (Heidegger 1950, 166). The loss of any meaningful distinction between “nearness” and “distance” contributed to a leveling down of human experience, which in turn spawned an indifference that rendered human experience monotonous and one-dimensional.

Since the mid-1980s, social theorists have moved beyond the relatively underdeveloped character of previous reflections on the compression or annihilation of space to offer a rigorous conception of globalization. To be sure, major disagreements remain about the precise nature of the causal forces behind globalization, with David Harvey (1989 1996) building directly on Marx’s pioneering explanation of globalization, while others (Giddens 19990; Held, McGrew, Goldblatt & Perraton 1999) question the exclusive focus on economic factors characteristic of the Marxist approach. Nonetheless, a consensus about the basic rudiments of the concept of globalization appears to be emerging.

First, recent analysts associate globalization with deterritorialization , according to which a growing variety of social activities takes place irrespective of the geographical location of participants. As Jan Aart Scholte observes, “global events can – via telecommunication, digital computers, audiovisual media, rocketry and the like – occur almost simultaneously anywhere and everywhere in the world” (Scholte 1996, 45). Globalization refers to increased possibilities for action between and among people in situations where latitudinal and longitudinal location seems immaterial to the social activity at hand. Even though geographical location remains crucial for many undertakings (for example, farming to satisfy the needs of a local market), deterritorialization manifests itself in many social spheres. Business people on different continents now engage in electronic commerce; academics make use of the latest Internet conferencing equipment to organize seminars in which participants are located at disparate geographical locations; the Internet allows people to communicate instantaneously with each other notwithstanding vast geographical distances separating them. Territory in the sense of a traditional sense of a geographically identifiable location no longer constitutes the whole of “social space” in which human activity takes places. In this initial sense of the term, globalization refers to the spread of new forms of non-territorial social activity (Ruggie 1993; Scholte 2000).

Second, theorists conceive of globalization as linked to the growth of social interconnectedness across existing geographical and political boundaries. In this view, deterritorialization is a crucial facet of globalization. Yet an exclusive focus on it would be misleading. Since the vast majority of human activities is still tied to a concrete geographical location, the more decisive facet of globalization concerns the manner in which distant events and forces impact on local and regional endeavors (Tomlinson 1999, 9). For example, this encyclopedia might be seen as an example of a deterritorialized social space since it allows for the exchange of ideas in cyberspace. The only prerequisite for its use is access to the Internet. Although substantial inequalities in Internet access still exist, use of the encyclopedia is in principle unrelated to any specific geographical location. However, the reader may very well be making use of the encyclopedia as a supplement to course work undertaken at a school or university. That institution is not only located at a specific geographical juncture, but its location is probably essential for understanding many of its key attributes: the level of funding may vary according to the state or region where the university is located, or the same academic major might require different courses and readings at a university in China, for example, than in Argentina or Norway. Globalization refers to those processes whereby geographically distant events and decisions impact to a growing degree on “local” university life. For example, the insistence by powerful political leaders in wealthy countries that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) or World Bank recommend to Latin and South American countries that they commit themselves to a particular set of economic policies might result in poorly paid teachers and researchers as well as large, understaffed lecture classes in São Paolo or Lima; the latest innovations in information technology from a computer research laboratory in India could quickly change the classroom experience of students in British Columbia or Tokyo. Globalization refers “to processes of change which underpin a transformation in the organization of human affairs by linking together and expanding human activity across regions and continents” (Held, McGrew, Goldblatt & Perraton 1999, 15). Globalization in this sense is a matter of degree since any given social activity might influence events more or less faraway: even though a growing number of activities seems intermeshed with events in distant continents, certain human activities remain primarily local or regional in scope. Also, the magnitude and impact of the activity might vary: geographically removed events could have a relatively minimal or a far more extensive influence on events at a particular locality. Finally, we might consider the degree to which interconnectedness across frontiers is no longer merely haphazard but instead predictable and regularized (Held, McGrew, Goldblatt & Perraton 1999).

Third, globalization must also include reference to the speed or velocity of social activity. Deterritorialization and interconnectedness initially seem chiefly spatial in nature. Yet it is easy to see how these spatial shifts are directly tied to the acceleration of crucial forms of social activity. As we observed above in our discussion of the conceptual forerunners to the present-day debate on globalization, the proliferation of high-speed transportation, communication, and information technologies constitutes the most immediate source for the blurring of geographical and territorial boundaries that prescient observers have diagnosed at least since the mid-nineteenth century. The compression of space presupposes rapid-fire forms of technology; shifts in our experiences of territory depend on concomitant changes in the temporality of human action. High-speed technology only represents the tip of the iceberg, however. The linking together and expanding of social activities across borders is predicated on the possibility of relatively fast flows and movements of people, information, capital, and goods. Without these fast flows, it is difficult to see how distant events could possibly posses the influence they now enjoy. High-speed technology plays a pivotal role in the velocity of human affairs. But many other factors contribute to the overall pace and speed of social activity. The organizational structure of the modern capitalist factory offers one example; certain contemporary habits and inclinations, including the “mania for motion and speed” described by Dewey, represent another. Deterritorialization and the expansion of interconnectedness are intimately tied to the acceleration of social life, while social acceleration itself takes many different forms (Eriksen 2001; Rosa 2013). Here as well, we can easily see why globalization is always a matter of degree. The velocity or speed of flows, movements, and interchanges across borders can vary no less than their magnitude, impact, or regularity.

Fourth, even though analysts disagree about the causal forces that generate globalization, most agree that globalization should be conceived as a relatively long-term process . The triad of deterritorialization, interconnectedness, and social acceleration hardly represents a sudden or recent event in contemporary social life. Globalization is a constitutive feature of the modern world, and modern history includes many examples of globalization (Giddens 1990). As we saw above, nineteenth-century thinkers captured at least some of its core features; the compression of territoriality composed an important element of their lived experience. Nonetheless, some contemporary theorists believe that globalization has taken a particularly intense form in recent decades, as innovations in communication, transportation, and information technologies (for example, computerization) have generated stunning new possibilities for simultaneity and instantaneousness (Harvey 1989). In this view, present-day intellectual interest in the problem of globalization can be linked directly to the emergence of new high-speed technologies that tend to minimize the significance of distance and heighten possibilities for deterritorialization and social interconnectedness. Although the intense sense of territorial compression experienced by so many of our contemporaries is surely reminiscent of the experiences of earlier generations, some contemporary writers nonetheless argue that it would be mistaken to obscure the countless ways in which ongoing transformations of the spatial and temporal contours of human experience are especially far-reaching. While our nineteenth-century predecessors understandably marveled at the railroad or the telegraph, a comparatively vast array of social activities is now being transformed by innovations that accelerate social activity and considerably deepen longstanding trends towards deterritorialization and social interconnectedness. To be sure, the impact of deterritorialization, social interconnectedness, and social acceleration are by no means universal or uniform: migrant workers engaging in traditional forms of low-wage agricultural labor in the fields of southern California, for example, probably operate in a different spatial and temporal context than the Internet entrepreneurs of San Francisco or Seattle. Distinct assumptions about space and time often coexist uneasily during a specific historical juncture (Gurvitch 1964). Nonetheless, the impact of recent technological innovations is profound, and even those who do not have a job directly affected by the new technology are shaped by it in innumerable ways as citizens and consumers (Eriksen 2001, 16).

Fifth, globalization should be understood as a multi-pronged process, since deterritorialization, social interconnectedness, and acceleration manifest themselves in many different (economic, political, and cultural) arenas of social activity. Although each facet of globalization is linked to the core components of globalization described above, each consists of a complex and relatively autonomous series of empirical developments, requiring careful examination in order to disclose the causal mechanisms specific to it (Held, McGrew, Goldblatt & Perraton 1999). Each manifestation of globalization also generates distinct conflicts and dislocations. For example, there is substantial empirical evidence that cross-border flows and exchanges (of goods, people, information, etc.), as well as the emergence of directly transnational forms of production by means of which a single commodity is manufactured simultaneously in distant corners of the globe, are gaining in prominence (Castells 1996). High-speed technologies and organizational approaches are employed by transnationally operating firms, the so-called “global players,” with great effectiveness. The emergence of “around-the-world, around-the-clock” financial markets, where major cross-border financial transactions are made in cyberspace at the blink of an eye, represents a familiar example of the economic face of globalization. Global financial markets also challenge traditional attempts by liberal democratic nation-states to rein in the activities of bankers, spawning understandable anxieties about the growing power and influence of financial markets over democratically elected representative institutions. In political life, globalization takes a distinct form, though the general trends towards deterritorialization, interconnectedness across borders, and the acceleration of social activity are fundamental here as well. Transnational movements, in which activists employ rapid-fire communication technologies to join forces across borders in combating ills that seem correspondingly transnational in scope (for example, the depletion of the ozone layer), offer an example of political globalization (Tarrow 2005). Another would be the tendency towards ambitious supranational forms of social and economic lawmaking and regulation, where individual nation-states cooperate to pursue regulation whose jurisdiction transcends national borders no less than the cross-border economic processes that undermine traditional modes of nation state-based regulation. Political scientists typically describe such supranational organizations (the European Union, for example, or United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, or USMCA) as important manifestations of political and legal globalization. The proliferation of supranational organizations has been no less conflict-laden than economic globalization, however. Critics insist that local, regional, and national forms of self-government are being supplanted by insufficiently democratic forms of global governance remote from the needs of ordinary citizens (Maus 2006; Streeck 2016). In contrast, defenders describe new forms of supranational legal and political decision as indispensable forerunners to more inclusive and advanced forms of self-government, even as they worry about existing democratic deficits and technocratic traits (Habermas 2015).

The wide-ranging impact of globalization on human existence means that it necessarily touches on many basic philosophical and political-theoretical questions. At a minimum, globalization suggests that academic philosophers in the rich countries of the West should pay closer attention to the neglected voices and intellectual traditions of peoples with whom our fate is intertwined in ever more intimate ways (Dallmayr 1998). In this section, however, we focus exclusively on the immediate challenges posed by globalization to normative political theory.

Western political theory has traditionally presupposed the existence of territorially bound communities, whose borders can be more or less neatly delineated from those of other communities. In this vein, the influential liberal political philosopher John Rawls described bounded communities whose fundamental structure consisted of “self-sufficient schemes of cooperation for all the essential purposes of human life” (Rawls 1993, 301). Although political and legal thinkers historically have exerted substantial energy in formulating defensible normative models of relations between states (Nardin and Mapel 1992), like Rawls they typically have relied on a clear delineation of “domestic” from “foreign” affairs. In addition, they have often argued that the domestic arena represents a normatively privileged site, since fundamental normative ideals and principles (for example, liberty or justice) are more likely to be successfully realized in the domestic arena than in relations among states. According to one influential strand within international relations theory, relations between states are more-or-less lawless. Since the achievement of justice or democracy, for example, presupposes an effective political sovereign, the lacuna of sovereignty at the global level means that justice and democracy are necessarily incomplete and probably unattainable there. In this conventional realist view of international politics, core features of the modern system of sovereign states relegate the pursuit of western political thought’s most noble normative goals primarily to the domestic arena (Mearsheimer 2003.) Significantly, some prominent mid-century proponents of international realism rejected this position’s deep hostility to international law and supranational political organization, in part because they presciently confronted challenges that we now typically associate with intensified globalization (Scheuerman 2011).

Globalization poses a fundamental challenge to each of these traditional assumptions. It is no longer self-evident that nation-states can be described as “self-sufficient schemes of cooperation for all the essential purposes of human life” in the context of intense deterritorialization and the spread and intensification of social relations across borders. The idea of a bounded community seems suspect given recent shifts in the spatio-temporal contours of human life. Even the most powerful and privileged political units are now subject to increasingly deterritorialized activities (for example, global financial markets or digitalized mass communication) over which they have limited control, and they find themselves nested in webs of social relations whose scope explodes the confines of national borders. Of course, in much of human history social relations have transcended existing political divides. However, globalization implies a profound quantitative increase in and intensification of social relations of this type. While attempts to offer a clear delineation of the “domestic” from the “foreign” probably made sense at an earlier juncture in history, this distinction no longer accords with core developmental trends in many arenas of social activity. As the possibility of a clear division between domestic and foreign affairs dissipates, the traditional tendency to picture the domestic arena as a privileged site for the realization of normative ideals and principles becomes problematic as well. As an empirical matter, the decay of the domestic-foreign frontier seems highly ambivalent, since it might easily pave the way for the decay of the more attractive attributes of domestic political life: as “foreign” affairs collapse inward onto “domestic” political life, the insufficiently lawful contours of the former make disturbing inroads onto the latter (Scheuerman 2004). As a normative matter, however, the disintegration of the domestic-foreign divide probably calls for us to consider, to a greater extent than ever before, how our fundamental normative commitments about political life can be effectively achieved on a global scale. If we take the principles of justice or democracy seriously, for example, it is no longer self-evident that the domestic arena is the exclusive or perhaps even main site for their pursuit, since domestic and foreign affairs are now deeply and irrevocably intermeshed. In a globalizing world, the lack of democracy or justice in the global setting necessarily impacts deeply on the pursuit of justice or democracy at home. Indeed, it may no longer be possible to achieve our normative ideals at home without undertaking to do so transnationally as well.

To claim, for example, that questions of distributive justice have no standing in the making of foreign affairs represents at best empirical naivete about economic globalization. At worst, it constitutes a disingenuous refusal to grapple with the fact that the material existence of those fortunate enough to live in the rich countries is inextricably tied to the material status of the vast majority of humanity residing in poor and underdeveloped regions. Growing material inequality spawned by economic globalization is linked to growing domestic material inequality in the rich democracies (Falk 1999; Pogge 2002). Similarly, in the context of global warming and the destruction of the ozone layer, a dogmatic insistence on the sanctity of national sovereignty risks constituting a cynical fig leaf for irresponsible activities whose impact extends well beyond the borders of those countries most directly responsible. Global warming and ozone-depletion cry out for ambitious forms of transnational cooperation and regulation, and the refusal by the rich democracies to accept this necessity implies a failure to take the process of globalization seriously when doing so conflicts with their immediate material interests. Although it might initially seem to be illustrative of clever Realpolitik on the part of the culpable nations to ward off strict cross-border environmental regulation, their stubbornness is probably short-sighted: global warming and ozone depletion will affect the children of Americans who drive gas-guzzling SUVs or use environmentally unsound air-conditioning as well as the future generations of South Africa or Afghanistan (Cerutti 2007). If we keep in mind that environmental degradation probably impacts negatively on democratic politics (for example, by undermining its legitimacy and stability), the failure to pursue effective transnational environmental regulation potentially undermines democracy at home as well as abroad.

Philosophers and political theorists have eagerly addressed the normative and political implications of our globalizing world. A lively debate about the possibility of achieving justice at the global level pits representatives of cosmopolitanism against myriad communitarians, nationalists, realists, and others who privilege the nation-state and moral, political, and social ties resting on it (Lieven 2020; Tamir 2019). In contrast, cosmopolitans tend to underscore our universal obligations to those who reside faraway and with whom we may share little in the way of language, custom, or culture, oftentimes arguing that claims to “justice at home” can and should be applied elsewhere as well (Beardsworth 2011; Beitz 1999; Caney 2006; Wallace-Brown & Held 2010). In this way, cosmopolitanism builds directly on the universalistic impulses of modern moral and political thought. Cosmopolitanism’s critics dispute the view that our obligations to foreigners possess the same status as those to members of particular local and national communities of which we remain very much a part. They by no means deny the need to redress global inequality, for example, but they often express skepticism in the face of cosmopolitanism’s tendency to defend significant legal and political reforms as necessary to address the inequities of a planet where millions of people a year die of starvation or curable diseases (Miller 2007; 2013; Nagel 2005). Nor do cosmopolitanism’s critics necessarily deny that the process of globalization is real, though some of them suggest that its impact has been grossly exaggerated (Kymlicka 1999; Nussbaum et al . 1996; Streeck 2016). Nonetheless, they doubt that humanity has achieved a rich or sufficiently articulated sense of a common fate such that far-reaching attempts to achieve greater global justice (for example, substantial redistribution from the rich to poor) could prove successful. Cosmopolitans not only counter with a flurry of universalist and egalitarian moral arguments, but they also accuse their opponents of obscuring the threat posed by globalization to the particular forms of national community whose ethical primacy communitarians, nationalists, and others endorse. From the cosmopolitan perspective, the tendency to favor moral and political obligations to fellow members of the nation-state represents a misguided and increasingly reactionary nostalgia for a rapidly decaying constellation of political practices and institutions.

A similar divide characterizes the ongoing debate about the prospects of democratic institutions at the global level. In a cosmopolitan mode, Daniele Archibugi (2008) and the late David Held (1995) have argued that globalization requires the extension of liberal democratic institutions (including the rule of law and elected representative institutions) to the transnational level. Nation state-based liberal democracy is poorly equipped to deal with deleterious side effects of present-day globalization such as ozone depletion or burgeoning material inequality. In addition, a growing array of genuinely transnational forms of activity calls out for correspondingly transnational modes of liberal democratic decision-making. According to this model, “local” or “national” matters should remain under the auspices of existing liberal democratic institutions. But in those areas where deterritorialization and social interconnectedness across national borders are especially striking, new transnational institutions (for example, cross-border referenda), along with a dramatic strengthening and further democratization of existing forms of supranational authority (in particular, the United Nations), are necessary if we are to assure that popular sovereignty remains an effective principle. In the same spirit, cosmopolitans debate whether a loose system of global “governance” suffices, or instead cosmopolitan ideals require something along the lines of a global “government” or state (Cabrera 2011; Scheuerman 2014). Jürgen Habermas, a prominent cosmopolitan-minded theorist, has tried to formulate a defense of the European Union that conceives of it as a key stepping stone towards supranational democracy. If the EU is to help succeed in salvaging the principle of popular sovereignty in a world where the decay of nation state-based democracy makes democracy vulnerable, the EU will need to strengthen its elected representative organs and better guarantee the civil, political, and social and economic rights of all Europeans (Habermas 2001, 58–113; 2009). Representing a novel form of postnational constitutionalism, it potentially offers some broader lessons for those hoping to save democratic constitutionalism under novel global conditions. Despite dire threats to the EU posed by nationalist and populist movements, Habermas and other cosmopolitan-minded intellectuals believe that it can be effectively reformed and preserved (Habermas 2012).

In opposition to Archibugi, Held, Habermas, and other cosmopolitans, skeptics underscore the purportedly utopian character of such proposals, arguing that democratic politics presupposes deep feelings of trust, commitment, and belonging that remain uncommon at the postnational and global levels. Largely non-voluntary commonalities of belief, history, and custom compose necessary preconditions of any viable democracy, and since these commonalities are missing beyond the sphere of the nation-state, global or cosmopolitan democracy is doomed to fail (Archibugi, Held, and Koehler 1998; Lieven 2020). Critics inspired by realist international theory argue that cosmopolitanism obscures the fundamentally pluralistic, dynamic, and conflictual nature of political life on our divided planet. Notwithstanding its pacific self-understanding, cosmopolitan democracy inadvertently opens the door to new and even more horrible forms of political violence. Cosmpolitanism’s universalistic normative discourse not only ignores the harsh and unavoidably agonistic character of political life, but it also tends to serve as a convenient ideological cloak for terrible wars waged by political blocs no less self-interested than the traditional nation state (Zolo 1997, 24).

Ongoing political developments suggest that such debates are of more than narrow scholarly interest. Until recently, some of globalization’s key prongs seemed destined to transform human affairs in seemingly permanent ways: economic globalization, as well as the growth of a panoply of international and global political and legal institutions, continued to transpire at a rapid rate. Such institutional developments, it should be noted, were interpreted by some cosmopolitan theorists as broadly corroborating their overall normative aspirations. With the resurgence of nationalist and populist political movements, many of which diffusely (and sometimes misleadingly) target elements of globalization, globalization’s future prospects seem increasingly uncertain. For example, with powerful political leaders regularly making disdainful remarks about the UN and EU, it seems unclear whether one of globalization’s most striking features, i.e., enhanced political and legal decision-making “beyond the nation state,” will continue unabated. Tragically perhaps, the failure to manage economic globalization so as to minimize avoidable inequalities and injustices has opened the door to a nationalist and populist backlash, with many people now ready to embrace politicians and movements promising to push back against “free trade,” relatively porous borders (for migrants and refugees), and other manifestations of globalization (Stiglitz 2018). Even if it seems unlikely that nationalists or populists can succeed in fully halting, let alone reversing, structural trends towards deterritorialization, intensified interconnectedness, and social acceleration, they may manage to reshape them in ways that cosmopolitans are likely to find alarming. Whether or not nationalists and populists can successfully respond to many fundamental global challenges (e.g., climate change or nuclear proliferation), however, remains far less likely.

• Adams, Henry, 1931, The Education of Henry Adams , New York: Modern Library.
• Appadurai, A., 1996, Modernity At Large: Cultural Dimensions Of Globalization , Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
• Archibugi, Daniele, 2008, The Global Commonwealth of Citizens: Toward Cosmopolitan Democracy , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Archibugi, Daniele, Held, David, and Koehler, Martin (eds.), 1998, Re-imagining Political Community: Studies in Cosmopolitan Democracy , Stanford: Stanford University Press.
• Beardsworth, Richard, 2011, Cosmopolitanism and International Relations Theory , Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Beitz, Charles, 1999, Political Theory and International Relations , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Brown, Garrett W., and Held, David, 2010, The Cosmopolitanism Reader , Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Cabrera, Luis (ed.), 2011, Global Governance, Global Government : Institutional Visions for an Evolving World System , Albany: SUNY Press.
• Caney, Simon, 2005, Justice Beyond Borders , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Castells, Manuel, 1996, The Rise of Network Society , Oxford: Blackwell.
• Cerutti, Furio, 2007, Global Challenges for Leviathan: A Political Philosophy of Nuclear Weapons and Global Warming , Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
• Dallmayr, Fred, 1998, Alternative Visions: Paths in the Global Village , Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
• Dewey, John, 1927, The Public and Its Problems , Athens, OH: Swallow Press, 1954.
• Giddens, Anthony, 1990, The Consequences of Modernity , Stanford: Stanford University Press.
• Eriksen, Thomas Hylland, 2001, Tyranny of the Moment: Fast and Slow Time in the Information Age , London: Pluto Press.
• Falk, Richard, 1999, Predatory Globalization , Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Gurvitch, Georges, 1965, The Spectrum of Social Time , Dordrecht: Reidel.
• Habermas, Jürgen, 2001, The Postnational Constellation: Political Essays , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• –––, 2009, Europe: The Faltering Project , Cambridge: Polity Press.
• –––, 2012, The Crisis of the European Union , Cambridge: Polity Press.
• –––, 2015, The Lure of Technocracy , Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Harvey, David, 1989, The Condition of Postmodernity , Oxford: Blackwell.
• –––, 1996, Justice, Nature, & the Geography of Difference , Oxford: Blackwell.
• Heidegger, Martin, 1950, “The Thing,” in Poetry, Language, Thought , New York: Harper & Row, 1971.
• Held, David, 1995, Democracy and the Global Order: From the Modern State to Cosmopolitan Governance , Stanford: Stanford University Press.
• Held, David, McGrew, Anthony, Goldblatt, David, and Perraton, Jonathan, 1999, Global Transformations: Politics, Economics and Culture , Stanford: Stanford University Press.
• Kymlicka, Will, 1999, “Citizenship in an Era of Globalization: A Response to Held,” in Ian Shapiro and Casiano Hacker-Cordon (eds.), Democracy’s Edges , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Kern, Stephen, 1983, The Culture of Time and Space, 1880–1918 , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Lieven, Anatol, 2020, Climate Change and the Nation State: The Case for Nationalism in a Warming World , Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020.
• Marx, Karl, 1848, “Communist Manifesto,” in Robert Tucker (ed.), The Marx-Engels Reader , New York: Norton, 1979.
• Maus, Ingeborg, 2006, “From Nation-State to Global State or the Decline of Democracy,” Constellations , 13: 465–84.
• McLuhan, Marshall, 1964, Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man , New York: McGraw Hill.
• Mearsheimer, John J., 2003, The Tragedy of Great Politics , New York: Norton.
• Miller, David, 2007, National Responsibility and Global Justice , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2013, Justice for Earthlings: Essays in Political Philosophy , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Modelski, George, 1972, Principles of World Politics , New York: Free Press.
• Nagel, Thomas, 2005, “The Problem of Global Justice,” Philosophy and Public Affairs , 33: 113–47.
• Nardin, Terry and Mapel, David (eds.), 1992, Traditions of International Ethics , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Nussbaum, Martha C., et al. , 1996, For Love of Country: Debating the Limits of Patriotism , Boston: Beacon Press.
• Pogge, Thomas, 2002, World Poverty and Human Rights: Cosmopolitan Responsibilities and Reforms , Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Rawls, John, 1993, Political Liberalism , New York: Columbia University Press.
• Robertson, R., 1992, Globalization: Social Theory and Global Culture , London: Sage.
• Rosa, Hartmut, 2013, Social Acceleration: A New Theory of Modernity , New York: Columbia University Press.
• Ruggie, John Gerard, 1993, “Territoriality and Beyond: Problematizing Modernity in International Relations,” International Organization , 47: 139–74.
• Scheuerman, William E., 2004, Liberal Democracy and the Social Acceleration of Time , Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.
• –––, 2011, The Realist Case for Global Reform , Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Scheuerman, William E., 2014, “Cosmopolitanism and the World State,” Review of International Studies , 40: 419–41.
• Schivelbusch, Wolfgang, 1978, “Railroad Space and Railroad Time,” New German Critique , 14: 31–40.
• Scholte, Jan Aart, 1996, “Beyond the Buzzword: Towards a Critical Theory of Globalization,” in Eleonore Kofman and Gillians Young (eds.), Globalization: Theory and Practice , London: Pinter.
• –––, 2000, Globalization: A Critical Introduction , New York: St. Martin’s.
• Stiglitz, Joseph E., 2018, Globalization and Its Discontents Revisited: Anti-Globalization in the Era of Trump , New York: Norton & Co.
• Streeck, Wolfgang, 2016, How Will Capitalism End? New York: Verso Press.
• Tamir, Yael, 2019, Why Nationalism? Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Tarrow, Sydney, 2005, The New Transnational Activism , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Tomlinson, John, 1999, Globalization and Culture , Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Virilio, Paul, 1977, Speed and Politics , New York: Semiotext[e], 1986.
• Wallace-Brown, Garrett and Held, David (ed.), 2010, The Cosmopolitanism Reader , Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Zolo, Danilo, 1997, Cosmopolis: Prospects for World Government , Cambridge: Polity Press.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

• Global Transformations: Politics, Economics and Culture , by Held, McGrew, Goldblatt, and Perraton. This is the Student Companion Site at wiley.com

communitarianism | cosmopolitanism | democracy | democracy: global | feminist philosophy, topics: perspectives on globalization | justice: climate | justice: global | nationalism | political realism: in international relations | world government

Copyright © 2023 by William Scheuerman < wscheuer @ indiana . edu >

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2023 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

The Globalization of Politics: American Foreign Policy for a New Century

Subscribe to this week in foreign policy, ivo h. daalder and ivo h. daalder former brookings expert, president - chicago council on global affairs, former u.s. ambassador to nato @ivohdaalder james m. lindsay jml james m. lindsay.

January 1, 2003

• 19 min read

September 11 signaled the end of the age of geopolitics and the advent of a new age—the era of global politics. The challenge U.S. policymakers face today is to recognize that fundamental change in world politics and to use America’s unrivaled military, economic, and political power to fashion an international environment conducive to its interests and values.

For much of the 20th century, geopolitics drove American foreign policy. Successive presidents sought to prevent any single country from dominating the centers of strategic power in Europe and Asia. To that end the United States fought two world wars and carried on its four-decade-long Cold War with the Soviet Union. The collapse of the Soviet empire ended the last serious challenge for territorial dominion over Eurasia. The primary goal of American foreign policy was achieved.

During the 1990s, American foreign policy focused on consolidating its success. Together with its European allies, the United States set out to create, for the first time in history, a peaceful, undivided, and democratic Europe. That effort is now all but complete. The European Union—which will encompass most of Europe with the expected accession of 10 new members in 2004—has become the focal point for European policy on a wide range of issues. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization has evolved from a collective defense alliance into Europe’s main security institution. A new relationship with Russia is being forged.

Progress has been slower, though still significant, in Asia. U.S. relations with its two key regional partners, Japan and South Korea, remain the foundation of regional stability. Democracy is taking root in South Korea, the Philippines, Indonesia, and Taiwan. U.S. engagement with China is slowly tying an economically surging Beijing into the global economy.

The success of American policy over the past decade means that no power—not Russia, not Germany, not a united Europe, and not China or Japan—today poses a hegemonic threat to Eurasia. In this new era, American foreign policy will no longer pivot on geography. Instead, it will be defined by the combination of America’s unrivaled power in world affairs and the extensive and growing globalization of world politics.

The Sole Global Power

The United States is today the only truly global power. Its military reach—whether on land, at sea, or in the air—extends to every point on the globe. Its economic prowess fuels world trade and industry. Its political and cultural appeal—what Joseph Nye has called soft power—is so extensive that most international institutions reflect American interests. America’s position in the world is unique—no other country in history has ever come close.

But is America’s exalted position sustainable? Militarily, the vast gap between the United States and everyone else is growing. Whereas defense spending in most other countries is falling, U.S. defense spending is rising rapidly. This year’s requested increase in defense spending is greater than the entire Chinese defense budget. Most remarkably, America can afford to spend more. Defense spending takes a smaller share of the U.S. gross domestic product than it did a decade ago—and even the Bush administration’s projected increases will produce an overall budget equal to only about 3.5 percent of GDP, about half of Cold War highs. 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.S. economy has proven itself at least as adept as its major competitors in realizing the productivity gains made possible by information technology. 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. Unless employed deftly, America’s military and economic superiority can breed resentment, even among its friends. 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.S. and European attitudes. 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. Europe has also begun to exercise diplomatic muscle in international institutions and other arenas, seeking to create new international regimes designed to limit America’s recourse to its hard power.

The sustainability of American power ultimately depends on the extent to which others believe it is employed not just in U.S. interests but in their interests as well. 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

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 1990s 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.S.-based multinationals, India’s powerful electronic sector successfully pressed New Delhi in mid-2002 to deescalate its conflict with Pakistan.

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. As Richard Betts has argued, America’s power “animates both the terrorists’ purposes and their choice of tactics…. 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. 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.” Worse still, other weak countries might decide to buy their security by turning a blind eye to terrorist activities on their soil, thereby increasing the risk to the United States.

Americanists vs. Globalists: The Utility of 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.S. solutions and instead requires international cooperation. They warn against thinking that America can go it alone.

Americanists see two great virtues in America’s primacy. First, it enables the United States to set its own foreign policy objectives and to achieve them without relying on others. The result is a preference for unilateral action, unbound by international agreements or institutions that would otherwise constrain America’s ability to act. As Charles Krauthammer puts it, “An unprecedentedly dominant United States…is in the unique position of being able to fashion its own foreign policy. After a decade of Prometheus playing pygmy, the first task of the new [Bush] administration is precisely to reassert American freedom of action.” The views, preferences, and interests of allies, friends, or anyone else should therefore have no influence on American 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. As President Bush told graduating West Point cadets last June, “America has, and intends to keep, military strength beyond challenge, thereby making the destabilizing arms races of other eras pointless, and limiting rivalries to trade and other pursuits of peace.” In other words, the United States can achieve its policy objectives best if it can prevent others from acquiring the power necessary to oppose it effectively when interests clash. It is as good a definition of what would constitute an American empire as one can get.

In contrast, Globalists stress how globalization both limits and transforms America’s capacity to use its power to influence events overseas. 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. As British Prime Minister Tony Blair put it succinctly following the September 11 attacks, “we are all internationalists now.”

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 . As Nye explains, “power today is distributed among countries in a pattern that resembles a complex three-dimensional chess game.” One dimension is military power, where the United States enjoys an unrivaled advantage, and the power distribution is therefore unipolar. 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. “Those who recommend a hegemonic [or power-based] American foreign policy,” Nye concludes, “are relying on woefully inadequate analysis. 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.”

Who Is Right?

Both Americanists and Globalists are right in important ways. Take the Americanists first. Despite globalization, power remains the coin of the realm in international politics. Five decades of concerted U.S. and allied efforts may have transformed Europe into a Kantian zone of perpetual peace where the rule of law has triumphed, but in much of the rest of the world military might continues to hold sway. True, no country, not even China, poses the geostrategic threat to the United States that first Germany and then the Soviet Union did in the previous century. Still, lesser- order threats abound, from Pyongyang to Teheran to Baghdad, and U.S. military and economic power will be needed to contain, if not extinguish, them. More broadly, the rule of law demands more than simply codifying rules of behavior. It also requires the willingness and ability to enforce them. But that requirement, as Mancur Olson demonstrated years ago, runs into a fundamental collective-action problem—if the potential costs of action are great and the benefits widely shared, few will be willing to incur the costs. That is where overwhelming power, and the concomitant willingness and ability to provide for global public goods, makes a crucial difference. So, without American primacy—or something like it—it is doubtful that the rule of law can be sustained.

The wise application of American primacy can further U.S. values and interests. The use (or threat) of American military might evicted Iraqi troops from Kuwait, convinced Haiti’s military junta to relinquish power, ended Serbian atrocities in Kosovo, and broke al- Qaida’s hold over Afghanistan. Nor does American primacy advance only U.S. interests and values. As the one country willing and able to break deadlocks and stalemates preventing progress on issues from promoting peace in the Balkans, Northern Ireland, and the Middle East to preserving financial stability around the world, the United States frequently advances the interests of most other democratic states as well. Often, the United States is exactly what Madeleine Albright said it was—the indispensable nation that makes it possible to mobilize the world into effective action.

And the United States does differ from other countries. Unique among past hegemons in not seeking to expand its power through territorial gains, it is also unique among its contemporaries. Its primacy and global interests prompt others both to seek its assistance in addressing their problems and to resent it for meddling in their affairs. The ambivalence the world feels about American engagement—as well as the unique nature of that engagement—makes it imperative that the United States not mistake the conduct of foreign policy for a popularity contest. Doing the right thing may not always be popular—but it is vitally important nevertheless.

But Globalists are right that while America is powerful, it is not omnipotent. Far more able than most countries to protect itself against the pernicious consequences of globalization, it is by no means invulnerable. Some crucial problems do defy unilateral solutions. Global warming is perhaps the most obvious case, but others include stopping the spread of weapons of mass destruction and fighting global terrorism. In other cases, such as protecting the American homeland from terrorist attack, unilateral action can reduce but not eliminate risks.

Similarly, unilateral American power may not be enough to sustain the benefits of globalization. Globalization is not irreversible. World War I, the Russian Revolution, and the Great Depression combined to strangle the economic and social interactions that emerged early in the 20th century. Economic globalization today rests on an intricate web of international trade and financial institutions. Extending, developing, and improving these institutions requires the cooperation of others. Without it, the benefits of globalization, which help to underwrite American power, could erode.

Globalization has greatly broadened America’s foreign policy agenda. Infectious diseases, poverty, and poor governance not only offend our moral sensibilities but also represent potential new security threats. Failed and failing states endanger not just their own citizens but Americans as well. If the United States cannot find ways to encourage prosperity and good governance, it runs the risk of seeing threats to its security multiply. It could eventually find itself harmed not by bears in the woods but by swarms of tiny pests.

Finally, cooperation can extend the life of American primacy. Working with others can spread the costs of action over a wider array of actors, enabling the United States to do more with less. By creating international regimes and organizations Washington can imbed its interests and values in institutions that will shape and constrain countries for decades, regardless of the vicissitudes of American power. And cooperation can build bonds with other countries, lessening the chances of cultural and political tactics that can over the years sap U.S. power.

Implications for American Foreign Policy

Both Americanists and Globalists understand essential truths about the world today. Power continues to matter, but power alone will often not be enough to achieve our goals. A pragmatic American internationalism would recognize that we do not need to pick between these two truths. Both should guide American foreign policy.

But what should America seek to accomplish abroad? The indisputable first objective must be to safeguard and enhance our liberty, security, and prosperity. The question is how. In the new age of global politics, the best way to accomplish these goals is to promote an international order based on democracy, human rights, and free enterprise—to extend the zone of peace and prosperity that the United States helped establish in Europe to every other region of the world. Put differently, the United States needs to integrate the world’s have-nots into the globalized West. Pursuing that goal is not charity. Creating an international order in which more people are free and prosperous is profoundly in America’s self-interest. In a world of market democracies, America and Americans are likely to be both more prosperous and more secure. In such a world we are most likely to realize the promise of globalization while minimizing its dangers.

Ensuring that a commitment to democracy and open markets triumphs on a global scale entails four broad strategies. First, it is necessary to sustain and strengthen the bases of American power. This, most of all, requires ensuring that the fundamentals of the nation’s economy remain sound. It is important not to spend today what the country may need tomorrow. It also requires maintaining America’s military edge, both technologically and in terms of the overall capacity to bring force to bear at a time and place of America’s own choosing. And it requires persistent diplomatic engagement on Washington’s part to demonstrate awareness that what happens abroad and matters to others can also have a profound impact on security and prosperity at home.

Second, U.S. policy should seek to extend and adapt proven international institutions and arrangements. NATO’s recent transformation is a prime example. During the 1990s, the collective defense organization that had safeguarded the territorial integrity of its members against the Soviet Union for four decades gradually took on a new role: providing security for every state and its citizens in an ever enlarging north Atlantic area. By taking the lead in stabilizing conflict-ridden regions like the Balkans, as well as by opening its doors to new members, NATO began to do for Europe’s east what it had done for Europe’s west. The world trading system is also ripe for change. Barriers to the free flow of goods, capital, and services have steadily fallen over the years, and more and more countries have joined the free trading regime. Now it is time to lower the most pernicious barriers, especially those for agricultural goods, and bring poor countries into the global economic system.

Third, U.S. policy should enforce compliance with existing international agreements and strengthen the ability of institutions to monitor and compel compliance. Too many favor the negotiation of new sets of rules or new institutions for their own sake, and too few pay attention to making sure new rules are upheld and new institutions function effectively. Iraq is a case in point. Even if one believes that Iraq can be contained and deterred and that therefore forcible regime change is neither necessary nor advisable, Baghdad’s refusal to comply with UN Security Council resolutions (including the critical terms of the Gulf War cease-fire resolution) means that the threat and possible use of force must be in play. A willingness to use force is no doubt necessary (though by no means sufficient) to persuade Saddam Hussein to allow UN inspectors to reenter Iraq and permit them to carry out the mandate of the international community. If he refuses, the United States must be prepared to use force, preferably with others but alone if necessary, to compel compliance. Bad behavior that produces no consequences gets emulated.

Finally, U.S. policy must take the lead in creating effective international institutions and arrangements to handle new challenges, especially those arising from the downside of globalization. The United States must lead not only because it alone can help the international community overcome its collective-action problems, but because it is most likely to be hurt by inaction. Just as one example, an international system for reporting and monitoring research in dangerous pathogens could provide early warning if biotechnologists create such pathogens either deliberately or inadvertently.

As these strategies make clear, promoting an international order based on market democracies will require the United States to lead as well as listen, to give as well as take. Arguing that American foreign policy should be either unilateral or multilateral is to posit a false choice as well as to confuse means with ends. Unilateralism can be put to good or bad uses. The flaw in the Bush administration’s decision to withdraw the United States from the Kyoto Treaty was not so much that Washington went its own way—though the peremptory manner of the withdrawal maximized bad feelings—but that it has failed to propose a better strategy for dealing with a rise in global temperatures that its own EPA scientists acknowledge. In this case, what is needed is not more multilateralism, but more unilateral action on the part of the United States to curtail its greenhouse gas emissions. Likewise, multilateralism can produce a modern day Kellogg-Briand Treaty just as easily as it produces a Gulf War coalition or a World Trade Organization.

Can U.S. foreign policy promote a liberal world order in the new age of global politics? In many ways it has no other choice. The pernicious effects of globalization, which empower tiny groups of people to inflict grievous harm, make it essential to create a world community that shares American values. But there is also good reason to believe that the United States can succeed in integrating the rest of the world into the western world order. Immediately after World War II, the United States forged a series of bold political, economic, and military arrangements that made allies of former enemies and set the stage for victory in the age of geopolitics. U.S. policymakers at the time took a broad view of American interests and understood that their efforts would be for naught if America’s partners did not see them as being in the interest of all. U.S. policymakers in the age of global politics must do likewise.

Foreign Policy

Tara Varma, Sophie Roehse

May 17, 2024

Natan Sachs

Angela Stent

If you're seeing this message, it means we're having trouble loading external resources on our website.

If you're behind a web filter, please make sure that the domains *.kastatic.org and *.kasandbox.org are unblocked.

To log in and use all the features of Khan Academy, please enable JavaScript in your browser.

World History Project - Origins to the Present

Course: world history project - origins to the present   >   unit 7, read: introduction to globalization.

• READ: International Institutions
• READ: Rise of China
• BEFORE YOU WATCH: Eradicating Smallpox
• WATCH: Eradicating Smallpox
• BEFORE YOU WATCH: Global China into the 21st Century
• WATCH: Global China into the 21st Century
• READ: Goods Across the World
• BEFORE YOU WATCH: Globalization I - The Upside
• WATCH: Globalization I - The Upside
• BEFORE YOU WATCH: Nonviolence and Peace Movements
• WATCH: Nonviolence and Peace Movements
• READ: Population and Environmental Trends, 1880 to the Present
• READ: Is the World Flat or Spiky?
• Global Interactions and Institutions

First read: preview and skimming for gist

Second read: key ideas and understanding content.

• What late twentieth-century trends, according to the author, led people to create the term “globalization”?
• What are some historical trends that accelerated globalization before the late twentieth century?
• What are some impacts of globalization in terms of migration and economics?
• What are some positive impacts of globalization, according to the author?
• What are some negative impacts of globalization, according to the author?

Third read: evaluating and corroborating

• What does globalization look like from your perspective? How does it affect your family and community? Do you think it has been a good thing for you? Why or why not?
• Globalization looks very differently studied through each of the three course frames. Pick one of the three course frames and describe the effects of globalization on your home town or neighborhood using only that frame narrative. How would your results have been different if you had chosen a different frame?

Introduction to Globalization

What is globalization, globalization’s effect on communities and economies, the pros and cons of globalization, want to join the conversation.

• Upvote Button navigates to signup page
• Downvote Button navigates to signup page
• Flag Button navigates to signup page

Effects of Economic Globalization

Globalization has led to increases in standards of living around the world, but not all of its effects are positive for everyone.

Social Studies, Economics, World History

Bangladesh Garment Workers

The garment industry in Bangladesh makes clothes that are then shipped out across the world. It employs as many as four million people, but the average worker earns less in a month than a U.S. worker earns in a day.

Photograph by Mushfiqul Alam

Put simply, globalization is the connection of different parts of the world. In economics, globalization can be defined as the process in which businesses, organizations, and countries begin operating on an international scale. Globalization is most often used in an economic context, but it also affects and is affected by politics and culture. In general, globalization has been shown to increase the standard of living in developing countries, but some analysts warn that globalization can have a negative effect on local or emerging economies and individual workers. A Historical View Globalization is not new. Since the start of civilization, people have traded goods with their neighbors. As cultures advanced, they were able to travel farther afield to trade their own goods for desirable products found elsewhere. The Silk Road, an ancient network of trade routes used between Europe, North Africa, East Africa, Central Asia, South Asia, and the Far East, is an example of early globalization. For more than 1,500 years, Europeans traded glass and manufactured goods for Chinese silk and spices, contributing to a global economy in which both Europe and Asia became accustomed to goods from far away. Following the European exploration of the New World, globalization occurred on a grand scale; the widespread transfer of plants, animals, foods, cultures, and ideas became known as the Columbian Exchange. The Triangular Trade network in which ships carried manufactured goods from Europe to Africa, enslaved Africans to the Americas, and raw materials back to Europe is another example of globalization. The resulting spread of slavery demonstrates that globalization can hurt people just as easily as it can connect people. The rate of globalization has increased in recent years, a result of rapid advancements in communication and transportation. Advances in communication enable businesses to identify opportunities for investment. At the same time, innovations in information technology enable immediate communication and the rapid transfer of financial assets across national borders. Improved fiscal policies within countries and international trade agreements between them also facilitate globalization. Political and economic stability facilitate globalization as well. The relative instability of many African nations is cited by experts as one of the reasons why Africa has not benefited from globalization as much as countries in Asia and Latin America. Benefits of Globalization Globalization provides businesses with a competitive advantage by allowing them to source raw materials where they are inexpensive. Globalization also gives organizations the opportunity to take advantage of lower labor costs in developing countries, while leveraging the technical expertise and experience of more developed economies. With globalization, different parts of a product may be made in different regions of the world. Globalization has long been used by the automotive industry , for instance, where different parts of a car may be manufactured in different countries. Businesses in several different countries may be involved in producing even seemingly simple products such as cotton T-shirts. Globalization affects services, too. Many businesses located in the United States have outsourced their call centers or information technology services to companies in India. As part of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), U.S. automobile companies relocated their operations to Mexico, where labor costs are lower. The result is more jobs in countries where jobs are needed, which can have a positive effect on the national economy and result in a higher standard of living. China is a prime example of a country that has benefited immensely from globalization. Another example is Vietnam, where globalization has contributed to an increase in the prices for rice, lifting many poor rice farmers out of poverty. As the standard of living increased, more children of poor families left work and attended school. Consumers benefit also. In general, globalization decreases the cost of manufacturing . This means that companies can offer goods at a lower price to consumers. The average cost of goods is a key aspect that contributes to increases in the standard of living. Consumers also have access to a wider variety of goods. In some cases, this may contribute to improved health by enabling a more varied and healthier diet; in others, it is blamed for increases in unhealthy food consumption and diabetes. Downsides Not everything about globalization is beneficial. Any change has winners and losers, and the people living in communities that had been dependent on jobs outsourced elsewhere often suffer. Effectively, this means that workers in the developed world must compete with lower-cost markets for jobs; unions and workers may be unable to defend against the threat of corporations that offer the alternative between lower pay or losing jobs to a supplier in a less expensive labor market. The situation is more complex in the developing world, where economies are undergoing rapid change. Indeed, the working conditions of people at some points in the supply chain are deplorable. The garment industry in Bangladesh, for instance, employs an estimated four million people, but the average worker earns less in a month than a U.S. worker earns in a day. In 2013, a textile factory building collapsed, killing more than 1,100 workers. Critics also suggest that employment opportunities for children in poor countries may increase negative impacts of child labor and lure children of poor families away from school. In general, critics blame the pressures of globalization for encouraging an environment that exploits workers in countries that do not offer sufficient protections. Studies also suggest that globalization may contribute to income disparity and inequality between the more educated and less educated members of a society. This means that unskilled workers may be affected by declining wages, which are under constant pressure from globalization. Into the Future Regardless of the downsides, globalization is here to stay. The result is a smaller, more connected world. Socially, globalization has facilitated the exchange of ideas and cultures, contributing to a world view in which people are more open and tolerant of one another.

Articles & Profiles

Media credits.

The audio, illustrations, photos, and videos are credited beneath the media asset, except for promotional images, which generally link to another page that contains the media credit. The Rights Holder for media is the person or group credited.

Production Managers

Program specialists, last updated.

February 20, 2024

User Permissions

For information on user permissions, please read our Terms of Service. If you have questions about how to cite anything on our website in your project or classroom presentation, please contact your teacher. They will best know the preferred format. When you reach out to them, you will need the page title, URL, and the date you accessed the resource.

If a media asset is downloadable, a download button appears in the corner of the media viewer. If no button appears, you cannot download or save the media.

Text on this page is printable and can be used according to our Terms of Service .

Interactives

Any interactives on this page can only be played while you are visiting our website. You cannot download interactives.

Related Resources

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Elsevier Sponsored Documents

The impact of economic, political and social globalization on overweight and obesity in the 56 low and middle income countries

Yevgeniy goryakin.

a Health Economics Group, Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK

b UKCRC Centre for Diet and Activity Research (CEDAR), Institute of Public Health, Cambridge, UK

Tim Lobstein

c World Obesity Federation, London, UK

W. Philip T. James

d London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK

Marc Suhrcke

e Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK

Associated Data

Anecdotal and descriptive evidence has led to the claim that globalization plays a major role in inducing overweight and obesity in developing countries, but robust quantitative evidence is scarce. We undertook extensive econometric analyses of several datasets, using a series of new proxies for different dimensions of globalization potentially affecting overweight in up to 887,000 women aged 15–49 living in 56 countries between 1991 and 2009. After controlling for relevant individual and country level factors, globalization as a whole is substantially and significantly associated with an increase in the individual propensity to be overweight among women. Surprisingly, political and social globalization dominate the influence of the economic dimension. Hence, more consideration needs to be given to the forms of governance required to shape a more health-oriented globalization process.

• • Globalization as a whole is significantly associated with individual overweight risk among women.
• • Social and political globalization have strong positive association with overweight probability among women.
• • Women in the most economically globalized countries are less likely to be overweight.

1. Introduction

Globalization has often been blamed for the rapid rise in obesity in much of the developing world ( Hawkes, 2006; Popkin, 2006; Zimmet, 2000 ). The existing evidence for this claim does, however, rest primarily on case studies and simple ecological comparisons of national conditions. A notable exception is a recent study by De Vogli et al. (2013) who explored the influence of economic globalization (e.g. foreign direct investment or trade) on obesity world-wide. Arguably, the scarcity of quantitative data amenable to statistical analysis relates to the difficulty in quantifying the complex, multi-faceted nature of globalization. Economists were among the first to try to quantify the different components of globalization in their attempt to assess its impact on economic growth ( Dollar and Kraay, 2004; Dreher, 2006 ). Indeed, the measures of globalization commonly employed have been exclusively economic, commonly proxied by e.g. total imports and exports or foreign direct investment, expressed as a share in GDP. Yet, globalization is not solely an economic process, and even if it were, there is more to economic globalization than the mere flow of goods and capital.

More recent efforts at measuring globalization were built on the conceptualisation by Keohane and Nye (2000) of three different relevant dimensions of globalization: (1) economic: long distance flows of goods, capital and services as well as information and perceptions that accompany market exchanges, (2) political: the diffusion of government policies internationally, and (3) social: the spread of ideas, information, images, and people ( Dreher, 2006 ). Dreher et al. (2008a) have developed the so-called KOF index of globalization to capture each of these dimensions (as well as additional sub-dimensions). For all dimensions, this index was created using comprehensive data collected annually, from 1970 to 2013. In this paper we make use of this new measure and its various components, to arrive at a more detailed and nuanced assessment of the impact of different dimensions of globalization on overweight in low- and middle-income countries.

All three of these components of globalization might have contributed to obesity in low- and middle-income countries, and because they capture different dimensions and – as will be shown further below – are at best imperfectly correlated with each other, it is important to examine the influence of each sub-dimension separately. Taken together, globalization may be contributing to obesity by stimulating increased calorie consumption, and/or smaller energy expenditure. While there exists a considerable literature which considers the role of technological change in affecting energy expenditure and consumption (e.g. ( Finkelstein et al., 2005; Huffman and Rizov, 2007; Lakdawalla and Philipson, 2009 ; Tomas Philipson, 2001 ; TJ Philipson and Posner, 2003b; Swinburn et al., 2011 ), the literature that considers the potential globalization & overweight/obesity nexus from the point of view of how globalization affects energy imbalance is quite limited. Nevertheless, as globalization may be both a product and a driver of technological change, they may have similar causal links with overweight through a set of factors collectively known as the “nutritional transition” ( Popkin, 2001; Popkin et al., 2012 ). Specifically, both globalization and technological change may be associated with urbanisation (with living in the cities offering a greater choice of food at lower prices), increasing use of cars and of mechanical aids (resulting in a decline in physical activity), and with a general increase in fat and sugar intake both of which, probably through their effects on energy density, contribute to weight gain ( Amine et al., 2002; Hooper et al., 2012; Te Morenga et al., 2013 ). Thus both technological change and globalization may lead to a lower cost of calorie intake, as well as to the higher opportunity cost of expending calories, resulting in the higher probability of obesity/overweight (TJ Philipson and Posner, 2003a ). In the case of globalization, the nutritional transition may also be facilitated by the importation of cheaper, higher energy density foods from the industrialized world, rather than from the countries' internal production.

The most readily recognized manifestation of economic globalization is the opening of markets to foreign trade and investment in the second half of the last century, which entailed a substantial increase in agribusiness-related foreign direct investment (FDI) ( Hawkes, 2006 ). Much of this investment went into food processing ( Popkin et al., 2012; Thow, 2009 ), thus potentially accelerating the nutritional transition and leading to a greater obesity burden ( Popkin, 2001, 2006; Popkin et al., 2012 ).

Political factors relating to the formation of regional trade blocks, or participation in various international treaties, may also have played a role, by acting as a precursor to greater economic integration via the opening of food markets to free trade and consequent nutritional change associated with overweight. On the one hand, greater political integration on a regional level is likely to lead to deeper regional cooperation (e.g. in the form of trade blocks), while on the other hand it may also create mechanisms, for instance, trade barriers, designed to protect participating countries from outside economic competition ( Dreher, 2006 ). While the precise impact of such manifestations of political integration on overweight in developing countries is hard to predict, it may at least be conceivable that political globalization acts independently of (or as a facilitator of) purely economic forces. Differential effects of political vs. economic globalization have, for instance, been found in recent research examining the impact of globalization on economic growth ( Dreher, 2006 ).

Social and cultural globalization, involving cross-border movement of cultures and openness of media, may also have increased a population's perception of the supposed benefits of foreign lifestyles (e.g. in the form of greater car use, decreasing calorie expenditures) as well as of foreign diets (e.g. which may lead to greater calorie consumption through intake of fast food rich in fats and sugars). The effect of social globalization on overweight may therefore be akin to the effect of urbanization on various technologies potentially associated either with the reduction in energy expenditure over time ( Monda et al., 2007; Popkin, 1999; Rivera et al., 2002; Swinburn et al., 2011 ), or with more abundant supply and consumption of cheaper, higher calorie foods ( Drewnowski and Popkin, 1997, 1999; Popkin and Gordon-Larsen, 2004 ).

In addition to examining the importance of these different components of globalization, a further unique feature of our analysis consists of the integration of the various indicators of globalization into a world-wide dataset containing individual-level information up to 887,000 individuals. This allows us to a) utilise information on the (objectively measured) overweight status of each individual and b) to control for relevant individual-level covariates (e.g. education, age, residence, household size) – a feature that should increase analytical precision, compared to the analysis of country-level data alone (which was used by De Vogli et al. (2013) ). To better isolate the effect of the various manifestations of globalization, it is important to control for a range of country-level factors that may simultaneously affect individual overweight risk and the country-level indicators of globalization, including the total GDP as a proxy of the size of the market, the Human Development Index, as well as the Index of Economic Freedom from the Heritage Foundation, which measures the quality of economic and legal institutions. Through this analysis we aim to find out whether overall globalization indeed increases the individual likelihood of overweight, and whether the different dimensions of globalization – economic, political and social – play a greater or lesser part in raising the risk of overweight.

2. Methods and their rationale

2.1. definition and measurement of the component variables of globalization.

Globalization is our independent variable of primary interest. We seek to capture both the influence of globalization as a whole as well as its relevant sub-components: economic, social and political globalization dimensions.

• 1) Total globalization is measured using the KOF total globalization indicator ( Dreher, 2006 ), which is an aggregation of three sub-components, described below.
• 2) Economic globalization: Our primary measure of economic globalization is the relevant KOF sub-index, which is a composite measure comprising the following variables: trade (in percent of GDP); foreign direct investment (FDI) stocks (in percent of GDP), portfolio investment (in percent of GDP), income payments to foreign nationals (in percent of GDP), hidden import barriers, mean tariff rate, taxes on international trade (in percent of current revenue) and capital account restrictions.
• 3) Political globalization: We take advantage of the political KOF index mentioned above, which is a composite measure including information on the following four components: number of foreign embassies in a given country; membership in International Organizations; participation in U.N. Security Council missions; number of signed international treaties ( Dreher et al., 2008a ). This component is designed to measure the degree of a country's international political engagement ( Dreher, 2006 ). It was used, for instance, in studies examining the influence of globalization on partisan politics ( Potrafke, 2009 ) and government expenditure patterns ( Dreher et al., 2008b ).
• 4) Social globalization: Our main measure of this type of globalization is the social KOF globalization index, which is based on the following variables: telephone traffic transfers (percent of GDP); international tourism foreign population (in percent of total population); international letters (per capita); internet users (per 1000 people); TVs (per 1000 people); trade in newspapers (percent of GDP); number of McDonald's restaurants (per capita); number of Ikea (per capita); trade in books (percent of GDP).

2.2. Econometric specifications

Starting with the most parsimonious model, we are primarily interested in how individual risk of overweight is affected by various manifestations of globalization:

where Y cit is a dummy for being above normal weight (i.e. either overweight or obese), for individual i living in country c at time t ; X ct is a vector of country-level covariates measuring various dimensions of globalization with the corresponding parameter vector β ; C cit captures individual-level control variables with the corresponding parameter vector γ ; D t is a time effect allowing us to control for potential time dependence or for any world-wide factors (e.g., global economic crises) that could affect our associations of interest, and e cit is an error term assumed to be uncorrelated with X (i)ct . To account for potential spatial correlation of the error term, all our standard errors are clustered according to cluster IDs provided in the dataset. In the rest of the paper we shall refer to “overweight” when we mean ‘being above normal weight’, i.e. either overweight or obese.

Our data came from several sources. Outcome and individual control variables were obtained from the Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) collected in a total of 56 countries over the period 1991–2009 (variable definitions, as well as the full list of countries and survey years used is provided in the online Annex Supplementary material ). The DHS surveys have been extensively described elsewhere (S. Subramanian et al., 2011 ). Country level control variables came from World Development Indicators collated by the World Bank. Globalization indices were taken from the KOF globalization index of globalization prepared at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology ( Dreher, 2006 ). Finally, Economic Freedom Index from the Heritage Foundation was used as an additional control variable.

The outcome variable of interest (i.e. being overweight) was defined as having a body mass index (BMI) greater or equal to 25 kg/m 2 . The BMI was calculated by dividing each person's weight in kilograms by height squared in meters. In order to trim outliers, observations for women whose BMI was above 50 kg/m 2 , or whose weight was either greater than or equal to 220 kg, were excluded. In addition, observations for women whose height was recorded as either greater than or equal to 2.2 m, were also excluded. Overall, in the pooled sample, data on BMI were available for about 72% of the full sample of 1,225,816 women. We restricted the sample for the analysis to non-pregnant women only, aged 15–49 years. Although the original sample contained women who were older than 49, for the vast majority of observations the anthropometric data was collected only in the 15–49 group. The actual sample size used in the regression analysis varied between 756,000 and 887,000.

As an alternative to using overweight as a dependent variable, some studies have employed the continuous variable BMI ( De Vogli et al., 2013 ; S. Subramanian et al., 2011 ). We decided not to follow this approach, since increases in BMI associated with various independent variables may have very different implications, depending on the initial BMI value. For example, a change in BMI from 18 to 19 (i.e. from being malnourished to having normal weight – i.e. a desirable outcome) can hardly be compared to an increase in BMI from 24 to 25 (i.e. from having normal weight to being overweight – i.e. an undesirable outcome). Measuring the association between covariates and BMI does not capture this difference, while measuring the effect of covariates on overweight (treated as a dummy variable) does.

Globalization-related indicators contained in vector X (i)ct were defined for one overall proxy of globalization as well as three sub-dimensions: economic, political and social ( Dreher, 2006 ), as discussed above. For each index, and for each year, we split the values for each country into four quartiles to enable a more intuitive interpretation of the resulting parameters on the relationship between overweight and globalization, rather than using the un-transformed or log-transformed KOF-scores. For example, a positive parameter on the second dummy (assuming the first dummy serves as a reference) would suggest an increase in the risk of overweight for people living in a country that is located in the second globalization quartile, relative to other 55 countries in any given year. Using quartiles also allows us to capture potential non-linearities in the relationship between globalization and overweight.

As countries compete for more investment by becoming more open relative to others in a given year ( Asiedu, 2002 ), we have chosen a year-specific categorization for globalization categories. Alternatively, we could have categorized countries based on their position relative to all other countries in all years combined, but that would answer a different question: how becoming more globalized not only relative to each other – but also relative to some long-term average globalization level – is related to overweight risk.

In addition, vector C cit contains individual-level covariates expected to improve precision in estimating the main vector of parameters, β . The vector includes indicators for various levels of education, for different age groups, for living in a city, for occupational status, as well as for family size. Education was defined using DHS dummies for six levels, i.e. for people with no, incomplete primary, complete primary, incomplete secondary, complete secondary and higher education. The occupational status for a woman depended on self-reporting her current employment status, and separate dummies were defined for being unemployed, working in the services sector (professional and managerial; clerical; sales; household and domestic; services), in agriculture (agriculture employed and self-employed) and in a manual (skilled manual; unskilled manual) occupation.

The main requirement for consistent parameter estimation in model (1) is that the error term is uncorrelated with the covariates. This is unlikely to be a reasonable assumption, as both overweight and globalization may be driven by some other unobserved factors not included in model (1). In principle, our dataset allows us to include country fixed effects (CFE), which should control for any time-invariant unobservable drivers of globalization and overweight. However, with country fixed effects included, only across time variation (i.e. “within-variation”) in country-level indicators will be used. For 19 out 56 countries (including the largest country-India), only one year of data was collected, so with the addition of country fixed effects, these countries would drop out of the analysis. Moreover, even in countries that had more than one year of data (n = 37), only a few had any variation in the globalization quartiles across years. In the specifications that include both individual and country controls, only 9–10 countries (out of 56) per globalization dimension had any variation in the globalization quartiles, resulting in a big drop-out of countries from the analysis (including some very large ones, e.g. Brazil, Turkey, Egypt, India, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Ethiopia and the Philippines). As this reduction in the sample is attributable to our transformation of the globalization indices into dummy variables (which we adopted for ease of interpretability of the resulting coefficients), this can be remedied by avoiding the transformation of the globalization indicators and using them as un-transformed variables. Hence, when it comes to the (important) comparison between the OLS- and FE-based results, we will revert to the use of the untransformed variables.

As a first step, we deal with the confounding problem by including a set of country-level covariates contained in vector C 2 ct , as in specification (2) below.

The choice of the country-level confounders was informed by the existing literature on the factors which facilitate movement of trade and investment between countries, and therefore are drivers of globalization. In addition, these variables are expected to be related to overweight risk. They include the size of the market ( Asiedu, 2006; Bevan and Estrin, 2004 ), measured here as total GDP (taken from WDI). The size of a country's GDP is also likely to be related to the level of economic development, and thus, in turn, may affect the obesity risk ( Goryakin and Suhrcke, 2014 ). In addition, foreign investors may consider it more worthwhile to invest in countries with higher overall levels of education and socioeconomic development ( Asiedu, 2006; Walsh and Yu, 2010 ). The Human Development Index (HDI) developed by UNDP is a well-known metric which takes into account not only living standards as measured by GDP per capita, but also two other important components: life expectancy at birth and the literacy rate. Globerman and Shapiro (2002) , for example, found that HDI and FDI were significantly correlated in specifications which did not control for governance institutions and infrastructure indicators. Likewise, it was found in several studies (e.g. Dinsa et al., 2012; Goryakin and Suhrcke, 2014; C. Monteiro et al., 2004b ) that socioeconomic status and development may be related to overweight and obesity, and therefore controlling for Human Development Index appears to be important in this case.

In addition, another important determinant of globalization (and potentially of economic and social development, which in turn may affect overweight prevalence independently of globalization) is the quality of economic and legal institutions ( Asiedu, 2006; Obwona, 2001; Walsh and Yu, 2010 ). In this paper, we utilize the Index of Economic Freedom from the Heritage Foundation. It takes into account a number of factors potentially important in the decision-making by foreign investors to engage in economic relationships with countries, such as: a quantitative measure of the ability to start, operate, and close a business; absence of tariff and non-tariff barriers; measure of the tax burden imposed by government; security of property rights; freedom from corruption; flexibility of the labour markets. Therefore this indicator is likely to be particularly valuable in our search for relevant proxies for drivers of country-level globalization.

As we mentioned above, although the above approach is designed to control for a range of potentially important confounders, not taking advantage of the within-country variation, when such option is in principle available, would be too costly. Therefore, as a final check, we also conduct country fixed effects estimations on the untransformed globalization scores. Although parameter interpretation is more difficult in this case, there is much more within-variation when untransformed scores are used, and this allows us to test whether findings from the OLS estimation will also hold when controlling for potential time invariant, unobserved country-level confounding.

The authors of the study did not have to obtain ethical approval, as they only analysed secondary, fully anonymized individual-level data from the publicly available Demographic and Health Surveys, as well as some country-level data.

3.1. Description of main variables

In the annex Table S1 , we present overweight prevalence by country and year ( Supplementary material ). In most countries where there were at least two years worth of observations, overweight prevalence tended to increase over the years, although at different rates. Overweight prevalence was generally considerably higher in Eastern Mediterranean countries, and was the lowest in Africa and South East Asia.

Table S2 shows how the total globalization score varied in each country by year ( Supplementary material ). In almost all countries, the value of the score increased, although again, the rate of change did differ. In Table S3 , the relative ranking of the countries by year is set out, according to the same score ( Supplementary material ). It is evident that the most globalized countries (e.g. Turkey, Brazil, Egypt, Jordan) tended to remain the most globalized in most years, while the same consistency was true for the least globalized countries (e.g., Central African Republic, Congo Democratic Republic, Chad). There appeared to be more variation in relative ranking for countries that were in between these two extremes, although in most cases the rate of change in the score was modest.

Finally, Figs. 1–4 show local regression graphs plotting non-parametric relationships between each globalization score and overweight prevalence in each country. These figures reveal that the relationship appears positive, quite pronounced and mostly linear for the social globalization score. On the other hand, it appears considerably weaker for the economic score. For total and political scores, the relationship seems quite strong, but mostly non-linear. In the former case, it seems that the association is flat for the least globalized countries, before becoming strongly positive. For the political dimension, it appears that there is no relationship to overweight for the majority of countries, except for the most globalized ones, for which we observe a strongly positive association.

Lowess, unconditional association between overweight and total globalization index, 1991–2009. Source: DHS dataset; KOF index. Bandwidth = 0.8.

Lowess, unconditional association between overweight and economic globalization index, 1991–2009. Source: DHS dataset; KOF index. Bandwidth = 0.8.

Lowess, unconditional association between overweight and social globalization index, 1991–2009. Source: DHS dataset; KOF index. Bandwidth = 0.8.

Lowess, unconditional association between overweight and political globalization index, 1991–2009. Source: DHS dataset; KOF index. Bandwidth = 0.8.

3.2. Overall globalization

Table 1 sets out the association between overweight and the overall globalization index, split into 4 quartiles. In the first column, not controlling for any covariates except for time dummies and the Sub-Saharan Africa dummy, we find that living in the countries which are in the top quartile for this metric is related to a 29.2 percentage points (p.p.) greater risk of being overweight, compared to the reference category of living in countries with the lowest quartile of the total globalization index. There is also a visible gradient: each higher total globalization quartile is associated with a greater overweight risk, with the shape suggesting a convex pattern. However, as this association may in part be driven by country-level confounding, it is also important to consider its robustness by including relevant controls. In column 2, the adding of individual control variables improves the precision of the estimates, while also somewhat reducing the magnitude of the association. What matters more, however, is the addition of the country level controls: results in column 3 demonstrate that their addition further reduces the magnitude of the association, although the parameters for the globalization dummies remain significant and positive.

Table 1

The relationships between the index of total globalization and overweight in women aged 15–49, Ordinary least squares (OLS) regression results.

Cluster-robust standard errors in parentheses. Sample restricted to women aged 15–49. No controls (except time dummies and Saharan African dummy) are included in the baseline specification. Reference categories for each of the sets of dummy variables: living in the least globalized quartile of countries, women with higher education, aged 35–49, having 6 or more children, being unemployed, and living in a rural location. All specifications contain time dummies. ***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, *p < 0.1.

Looking at the effect of the main control variables ( Table 1 , column 3), women with no education are significantly less likely to be overweight than women with the most education; the risk of being overweight increases with age; women that are unemployed or in service occupations and reside in urban areas are more likely to be overweight. Women with no children are less likely to be overweight than women with 6 or more children, whereas women with 1–5 children were more overweight than those with 6 or more children. Moreover, an increase in the size of the market (i.e. total GDP) by 1 billion dollars is associated with an about 0.02 p.p smaller risk of overweight. With HDI ranging from 0 to 1, an increase by 0.1, for example, is associated with about an 8 p.p. greater risk of being overweight. Interestingly, better economic and legal institutions have an opposite effect: an increase of the score by 1 is related to an about 0.5 p.p. smaller overweight risk, suggesting that our proxies for economic and social development on the one hand, and for the quality of economic and legal institutions the other hand, are controlling for two distinct sources of potential confounding.

3.3. Sub-components of globalization

Prior to entering into the regression results, we determined whether each of the sub-components of globalization indeed captured distinct phenomena. As shown by the cross-correlation matrix, the sub-components are not too closely correlated with each other ( Table 2 ), except for economic and social components. The correlation is particularly weak between political and economic globalization (r = 0.15), underlining the need to “unpack” the overarching concept of globalization into its constituent parts.

Table 2

Correlation matrix of each dimension of globalization, 1991–2009.

3.3.1. Economic globalization

The first three columns in Table 3 assess the influence of economic globalization on overweight. The results in column 1 without controls for any factors except time dummies and a sub-Saharan African dummy, indicate that greater economic globalization is associated with a greater risk of being overweight. Adjusting for individual covariates, however, reduces the magnitude of the association. The biggest impact on parameter sign, however, occurs after adding country controls: now the relationship becomes concave, with people living in the most economically globalized countries having lower probability of being overweight, although this finding needs to be seen in the light of the very small magnitude of this association (i.e. only about 1p.p. lower probability).

Table 3

The relationship between economic, political and social globalization and overweight in women aged 15–49 years, OLS regression results.

Cluster-robust standard errors in parentheses. Sample restricted to women aged 15–49. No controls (except time dummies and sub Saharan African dummy) are included in the baseline specification (columns 1, 4, and 7). In columns 2, 5 and 8, controls also include education, age, number of children, occupation and urban residence dummies. In columns 3, 6, 9, 10, the following controls are also added: total GDP (constant 2000 dollars); Human Development Index, Economic Freedom score.

***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, *p < 0.1.

3.3.2. Political globalization

Columns 4–6 in Table 3 provide the results on the role of political globalization in affecting individual chances of being overweight. In the basic specification, (column 4), the relationship appears convex, with a fall in the probability of being overweight in the second and third quartile, before an increase for the most politically globalized countries (column 4). However, the addition of individual, and especially country level controls, leads to a more pronounced association: column 6 shows that people living in the most politically globalized countries have a 13.5p.p. greater risk of being overweight, compared to people living in the least globalized countries. This is also true for people living in the third quartile, although the increase in the probability of overweight is considerably smaller.

3.3.3. Social globalization

In columns 7–9 of Table 3 we consider the association between social globalization and overweight. It appears that this dimension has the most stable and pronounced association with overweight across dimensions, as adding different sets of control variables changes the magnitude of the association only slightly. People living in the most socially globalized quartile have an about 18 p.p. greater risk of being overweight, compared to the least globalized group.

3.4. All globalization indices combined

Next, we consider the association between overweight and all globalization indices taken together. One potential disadvantage of this approach is some collinearity between different sub-components (especially between social and economic dimensions, as shown in Table 2 ). On the other hand, putting these scores together in the same model may help ensure an additional degree of control for residual confounding. As the results in column 10 of Table 3 reveal, this approach turns the negative association between economic globalization and overweight into a more pronounced one, while making little difference for the political and social components.

3.5. Robustness checks

Some of our findings may be partly driven by the differences in sample size across specifications. For example, the sample size of the basic specifications in Table 3 is up to 887,000, while it is 765,000 in the most adjusted specifications. To check the robustness of the results we estimated the regression parameters for identical samples in Table 4 , for each of the three globalization types. Comparing the estimates from Tables 3 and 4 confirms that there is little difference in the size of the economic and social globalization parameters, implying that changes in parameter size across specifications are not due to the differences in sample size. On the other hand, for political globalization, the relationship with overweight becomes uniformly positively signed in all 3 specifications in the identical samples (columns 4–6 in Table 4 ).

Table 4

Robustness checks: identical sample size across specifications.

Cluster-robust standard errors in parentheses. Sample restricted to women aged 15–49. No controls (except time dummies and sub Saharan African dummy) are included in the baseline specification (columns 1, 4, and 7). In columns 2, 5 and 8, controls also include education, age, number of children, occupation and urban residence dummies. In columns 3, 6 and 9, the following controls are also added: total GDP (constant 2000 dollars); Human Development Index, Economic Freedom score.

Earlier in the paper, the analysis with OLS using globalization scores transformed into quartiles was presented as this allowed a more intuitive interpretation of results. However, we recognize that this approach is costly, as it effectively precludes a country fixed effects analysis (which would allow controlling for an important source of unobserved confounding) due to a very small within-variation. So to complete our analysis, both OLS and FE estimates (with the same set of control variables as in columns 3, 6, 9 in Table 4 ) are presented using the original, untransformed globalization scores. Even though interpretation of our key parameter estimates now becomes less clear, this comparison is useful in that it allows us to examine whether the OLS findings continue to hold when the assumption of no correlation between globalization scores and time-invariant unobservables is relaxed.

From Table 5 , we can see that that when the globalization dimensions are combined in column 5 – arguably the most comprehensive specification – the signs are identical in both OLS and CFE models, and the magnitudes of the effects of economic and political globalization are at least close to each other. We also see that the magnitude of the CFE associations remains substantive. For example, a 50 percentage point (p.p.) increase in overall globalization score entails an about 15 p.p. greater overweight risk. This compares with an about 16.8 p.p. greater overweight risk for the most globalized countries relative to the least globalized ones ( Table 1 , column 3). This change in magnitude is not dramatically different, when comparing the results between Tables 5 and 3 for other dimensions.

Table 5

Robustness checks: estimating the relationship between overweight and globalization using original globalization scores.

Cluster-robust standard errors in parentheses. Sample restricted to women aged 15–49.

The following controls are added in all specifications: age, number of children, occupation and urban residence dummies, Saharan African dummy, total GDP (constant 2000 dollars); Human Development Index, Economic Freedom score.

We also estimate overweight as a quadratic polynomial function of globalization dimensions (results not shown here, but available on request). In order to ensure better interpretability and to mitigate the multicollinearity problem, we centred our estimation on the mean values of the globalization dimension scores. We found the main parameters to be virtually identical for all dimensions. In addition, there appears to be a convex relationship between total and political globalization and overweight, a mostly linear negative relationship between economic globalization and overweight, and a mostly linear positive association between social globalization and overweight.

4. Discussion

While most of the existing literature focussed on the relationship between economic globalization and obesity, specific quantitative measures of the range of potentially very different globalization-related drivers involved have not been examined previously. In this analysis we find that the relationship between overweight and globalization depends on the specific dimension of globalization. Thus, while both political and (especially) social globalization dimensions appear strongly positively related to the greater overweight risk, the same is not apparent for economic globalization.

More concretely, comparing different dimensions of globalization and including suitable adjustments for confounders and covariates we find for the first time that political and social globalization consistently show a positive association with the individual odds of overweight: in our preferred specification (i.e. with country controls), the risk of being overweight among women is about 13.5 p.p. (or 17.8 p.p.) greater in the most politically globalized group (or in the most socially globalized group) compared to the least globalized group. This finding is also confirmed in the models using the untransformed globalization scores, although the magnitude of the association is notably smaller for the social (but not for the political) dimension in the CFE compared to the OLS model. Although arguably the biggest attention has so far been directed at the impact of economic globalization, we have found that living in the most economically globalized quartile of countries predicts a 1 p.p. smaller overweight risk than in the least economically globalized ones. This is a rather surprising finding, given the focus of most of the literature on the potential link between obesity and economic globalization ( Hawkes, 2006 ), and the scant attention paid to other dimensions. This finding is also slightly at odds with recent results by De Vogli et al. (2013) , who found – using aggregate cross-country level data rather than individual level data – that national BMI (as opposed to overweight) was significantly positively related to the KOF index for economic globalization in 127 countries. Having said that, the parameter sign for the economic dimension was quite sensitive to the inclusion of country-level controls. This appears to be consistent with the hypothesis that at least part of the relationship between economic globalization and overweight may be driven by country-specific factors such as economic development and infrastructure, education, attractiveness of economies to investors, as well as the size of the market.

Inevitably, our study suffers from several limitations. Most of them are data-related, and are thus similar to those faced by other studies which also used DHS data to examine correlates of obesity ( Goryakin and Suhrcke, 2014; Monteiro et al., 2004a; Subramanian et al., 2010 ). For example, the sample was necessarily restricted to women only, and mostly of child-bearing age. Therefore, generalizing our findings to women of all age groups, let alone to both genders, is not possible. Nevertheless, since the age group of 15–49 represents the most productive group of women, who also typically have a number of dependants, focussing attention on this demographic segment may be warranted for informing policies to tackle overweight. Most importantly, we are limited in drawing major causal claims about our findings, especially in relation to 19 countries that were only present in the sample for one year (and thus could not provide any within-variation for the fixed effects analysis).

There are a few other intrinsic data-related concerns which call for caution when interpreting the findings. Thus, by the nature of the research frame, most sampled women were mothers with at least one child under 5 years of age ( Monteiro et al., 2004a ). This is potentially problematic in that such women may more likely be overweight, although the reverse may be true in the lowest income countries, where both pregnancy and breastfeeding may lead to large energy needs relative to family resources (and thus potentially to malnourishment). Nevertheless, keeping with Monteiro et al. (2004a) assessment, this should not make a substantial difference in terms of the association between overweight and the extent of globalization, especially given that we are controlling for the number of children in our analysis as well as for the educational level of mothers.

Another problem is that very few countries stayed in the sample for all periods, given the nature of the DHS data collection. Whereas in some countries (e.g. Egypt, Ghana) data was collected every five years or even more frequently, in many others it was collected for no more than two years. In 19 countries, data was only available for one year. There was also very little variation in our categorical globalization variable across years, which prevented us from undertaking country fixed effects analysis using the globalization indicator dummies. Nevertheless, when using untransformed globalization scores as exposure variables, our country fixed effects findings were mostly in line with our earlier OLS estimates presented in Tables 1, 3 and 4 .

It remains possible, however, that some time-varying variables (which country fixed effects cannot control for) may still be a source of bias for our results. For example, availability of infrastructure, wars, economic shocks and famine may affect both the extent of globalization and overweight risk. However, although we are not controlling for these factors explicitly, we nevertheless control for the Human Development Index, as well as the Index of Economic Freedom (which proxies for the quality of economic and legal institutions). Both of these variables, in our view, should to a large extent account for such confounders.

Finally, in this paper, we have only considered the contemporaneous association of globalization with overweight/obesity. It is possible that it may operate with some time lag, but there was little variation across time for globalization indices, and therefore the effect of time lags is unlikely to be estimated with any precision, if the distributed lag model (as seems appropriate) is used.

While these results cannot be given a causal interpretation, they do provide evidence of statistically significant positive association between some dimensions of globalization and overweight. If more robust statistical evidence were found on the causal link between globalization and obesity, what might appropriate policy responses be? It bears emphasising that such evidence would not imply that it would be appropriate to halt or slow down the progress of globalization, but the challenge would be to find ways of limiting and countering the adverse health consequences of globalization while preserving its beneficial effects. Having said that, not all types of globalization appear to affect the risk of obesity equally: the economic dimension, for example, appears to do less harm than previously thought and social and other changes stemming for politically related factors seem of greater importance.

These conclusions have two implications. First, more research is needed to understand the ways in which social and political globalization – as well as economic – influence overweight. The composite elements within the globalization indices could be examined to identify those which are most closely related to overweight risk. For example, it would be useful to know if the increase in McDonald's outlets, an arguably more direct index of the availability of energy dense diets, is more closely associated with the development of overweight than the increase in IKEA outlets, and if the former retains its association after controlling for the latter. Similarly, what are the key political factors – are they related to market freedoms or to democratic expression or to the adoption of current Western political attitudes – and how do these interact with economic and cultural/social factors? Open societies and cultural globalization go hand in hand with open markets and open media, with rapid penetration of advertising and brand promotion by global corporations, together with the depiction of supposedly desirable Western lifestyles which in turn help create a merging of food environments and food cultures as globalization progresses.

Secondly, with greater clarity about the key aspects of globalization becoming available, the challenge to public health policy becomes better focused. For example, if it is shown that fast food outlets are closely associated with overweight prevalence, then what are the policy implications? Is the fast food chain itself a problem, or does it simply reflect the composite effects of FDI policy and cultural openness to advertising and brand promotion, or a more direct effect of a closely related factor, such as a rise in soft drinks consumption ( Basu et al., 2013 )? Increasing attention is being paid by health promoters to the role of transnational corporations ( Hastings, 2012 ) and accumulating evidence that the rate of increase in consumption of unhealthy food products parallels that of tobacco and alcohol and is fastest in low- and middle-income countries ( Stuckler et al., 2012 ). This has led to public health policy analysts calling for public regulation and market intervention to prevent the harm caused ( Moodie et al., 2013 ), and international agencies have, for example, made recommendations to limit children's exposure to the advertising of unhealthy foods ( PAHO, 2011; World Health Organization, 2010 ). While these policy proposals are widely discussed in the public health arena, they remain marginal to the larger discussions on economic growth and global development. Thus there was no expression of the need to tackle the negative health effects of globalization in the Millennium Development Goals ( UN, 2000 ) which are due to expire in 2015. The High Level Panel steering the post-2015 Sustainable Development programme has yet to specify their target areas for action, but of the 27 international members, 10 have economics, trade and finance backgrounds, three have private sector experience (including one with experience of working for Unilever and Nestlé) but none appears to have public health experience or health qualification ( UN, 2013 ). If globalization in at least some of its dimensions is having a significant impact on the risk of excess weight, then there is indeed a need for stronger governance mechanisms able to take responsibility for protecting health during the globalizing process as recently highlighted by the Oslo/Lancet Commission ( Ottersen et al., 2014 ).

Acknowledgements

The authors were supported by the Centre for Diet and Activity Research (CEDAR), a UKCRC Public Health Research Centre of Excellence. Funding from the British Heart Foundation, Economic and Social Research Council, Medical Research Council, the National Institute for Health Research, and the Wellcome Trust (087636/Z/08/Z ESRC: ES/G007462/1), under the auspices of the UK Clinical Research Collaboration, is gratefully acknowledged.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

The following is the supplementary data related to this article:

Advantages and Disadvantages of Globalization Essay

When discussing the drawbacks and benefits of globalization, essays tend to be on the longer side. The example below is a brief exploration of this complex subject. Learn more in this concise globalization pros and cons essay.

Introduction

• Benefits and Disadvantages of Globalization

Reducing Negative Effects

In today’s world, globalization is a process that affects all aspects of people’s lives. It also has a crucial impact on businesses and governments as it provides opportunities for development while causing significant challenges. This paper discusses the advantages and disadvantages of globalization using evidence from academic sources. The report also suggests how governments and companies may implement to reduce the negative impact of the process.

Benefits and Drawbacks of Globalization

Globalization is a complex concept that can be defined by the process of interaction between organizations, businesses, and people on an international scale, which is driven by international trade. Some people may associate it with uniformity, while others can perceive it as the cause of diversification. The reason for such a difference in public opinion is that globalization has both advantages and disadvantages that should be analyzed.

The most significant positive aspects of globalization include global economic growth, the elimination of barriers between nations, and the establishment of competition between countries, which can potentially lead to a decrease in prices. Globalization supports free trade, creates jobs, and helps societies to become more tolerant towards each other. In addition, this process may increase the speed of financial and commercial operations, as well as reduce the isolation of poor populations (Burlacu, Gutu, & Matei, 2018; Amavilah, Asongu, & Andrés, 2017).

The disadvantages of globalization are that it causes the transfer of jobs from developed to lower-cost countries, a decrease in the national intellectual potential, the exploitation of labor, and a security deficit. Moreover, globalization leads to ecological deficiency (Ramsfield, Bentz, Faccoli, Jactel, & Brockerhoff, 2016). In addition, this process may result in multinational corporations influencing political decisions and offering unfair working conditions to their employees.

Firms and governments can work on eliminating the negative effects of globalization in the following ways. For example, countries should work on microeconomic policies, such as enhancing opportunities for education and career training and establishing less rigid labor markets. In addition, governments can build the necessary institutional infrastructure to initiate economic growth. To solve the problem of poor working conditions, it is vital to establish strict policies regarding minimum wages and the working environment for employees. A decrease in the national intellectual potential may be addressed by offering a broad range of career opportunities with competitive salaries, as well as educating future professionals on how their skills can solve problems on the local level.

Companies, in their turn, may invest in technologies that may lead to more flexible energy infrastructure, lower production costs, and decrease carbon emissions. They can also establish strong corporate cultures to support their workers and provide them with an opportunity to share their ideas and concerns. Such an approach may eliminate employees’ migration to foreign organizations and increase their loyalty to local organizations. It is vital for companies to develop policies aimed at reducing a negative impact on the environment as well by using less destructive manufacturing alternatives and educating their employees on ecology-related issues.

Globalization has a significant impact on companies, governments, and the population. It can be considered beneficial because it helps to eliminate barriers between nations, causes competition between countries, and initiates economic growth. At the same time, globalization may result in a decrease in the national intellectual potential, the exploitation of labor, and ecology deficiency. To address these problems, organizations and governments can develop policies to enhance the population’s education, improve working conditions, and reduce carbon emissions.

Amavilah, V., Asongu, S. A., & Andrés, A. R. (2017). Effects of globalization on peace and stability: Implications for governance and the knowledge economy of African countries. Technological Forecasting and Social Change , 122 (C), 91-103.

Burlacu, S., Gutu, C., & Matei, F. O. (2018). Globalization – Pros and cons. Calitatea , 19 (S1), 122-125.

Ramsfield, T. D., Bentz, B. J., Faccoli, M., Jactel, H., & Brockerhoff, E. G. (2016). Forest health in a changing world: Effects of globalization and climate change on forest insect and pathogen impacts. Forestry , 89 (3), 245-252.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2021, June 9). Advantages and Disadvantages of Globalization Essay. https://ivypanda.com/essays/advantages-and-disadvantages-of-globalization/

"Advantages and Disadvantages of Globalization Essay." IvyPanda , 9 June 2021, ivypanda.com/essays/advantages-and-disadvantages-of-globalization/.

IvyPanda . (2021) 'Advantages and Disadvantages of Globalization Essay'. 9 June.

IvyPanda . 2021. "Advantages and Disadvantages of Globalization Essay." June 9, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/advantages-and-disadvantages-of-globalization/.

1. IvyPanda . "Advantages and Disadvantages of Globalization Essay." June 9, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/advantages-and-disadvantages-of-globalization/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Advantages and Disadvantages of Globalization Essay." June 9, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/advantages-and-disadvantages-of-globalization/.

• Disease Ecology Definition
• Ecology of Commerce: Green Taxes
• The American Black Bear's Ecology
• Managing Multinational Operations
• Multinational Corporations Economic Implications
• Globalisation and Labour Market
• Impact of Globalisation on Labour
• The Origins of the Modern World