gullien globalization civilizing destructive or feeble

8/12/2019 Gullien Globalization Civilizing Destructive or Feeble

1/27

Is Globalization Civilizing, Destructive or Feeble? A Critique of Five Key Debates in the Social

Science LiteratureAuthor(s): Mauro F. GuillenSource: Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 27 (2001), pp. 235-260Published by: Annual ReviewsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2678621.

Accessed: 27/02/2014 15:50

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Annual Reviewsis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toAnnual Review of

Sociology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 137.56.81.155 on Thu, 27 Feb 2014 15:50:37 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=annrevshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2678621?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2678621?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=annrevs


2/27

Annu.Rev.Sociol. 2001.27:235-60Copyright 2001 byAnnualReviews.Allrights eserved

IsGLOBALIZATIONCIVILIZING, DESTRUCTIVEOR FEEBLE?A CRITIQUEOF FIVE KEY DEBATESIN THE SOCIAL SCIENCE LITERATUREMauroF.GuillenTheWhartonchool ndDepartmentf ociology, niversityfPennsylvania,Philadelphia, ennsylvania9104;e-mail: [email protected] Words convergence,ation-state, odernity,lobalculture* Abstract The sociological, conomic,political, nd anthropologicaliteraturesaredevoting ncreasingttentionoglobalization. his chapter iscussesthevariousconnotationsf the erm ndputs t nhistorical erspective. xisting heoreticalndempirical esearch n globalizations organized round ivekey ssuesor questions:Is itreallyhappening? oes itproduce onvergence?oes it underminehe uthorityof nation-states?s globality ifferentrommodernity?s a globalculturen themak-ing?A plea is madefor comparative ociologyofglobalization hat s sensitive olocalvariations ndto howagency,nterest,ndresistancemediaten therelationshipbetween lobalizationauses and outcomes.

The bulk of the earthmustnotonlybe spherical, ut not arge n comparisonwith he size ofother tars.-Aristotle (384-322 BC), as quoted by Dreyer 1953, p. l 18)

INTRODUCTIONGlobalization s one ofthemostcontested opics n the social sciences. Observersand theorists f globalizationhave variously argued thatthe rapid increase incross-borderconomic, social, technological, nd cultural xchange s civilizing,destructive,rfeeble, o borrowAlbertHirschman's 1982) celebratedmetaphors.Harold Levitt's GlobalizationofMarkets 1983) or Kenichi Ohmae's BorderlessWorld1990) promiseboundlessprosperityndconsumeroy as a result fglobal-ization, .e. theglobal as civilizing. n sharp ontrastothisview, hehistorian aulKennedywarns nPreparingfor heTwenty-Firstentury 1993) againstour ackof structureso deal witha global world,whilepoliticaleconomistDani Rodrikrings similar ellof alarm nHas Globalization GoneTooFar? (1997) concerningthe ncreasingly ree nternational conomic and financialflows see also Gilpin2000, Mittelman2000). As in thecivilizing view,the destructiventerpretation

0360-0572/01/081 -0235$14.00 235

This content downloaded from 137.56.81.155 on Thu, 27 Feb 2014 15:50:37 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/27

236 GUILLENregards lobalizations leading o convergence,lbeit redictingarmfulatherthan eneficialonsequences. nlike he dherentso either he ivilizingr thedestructiveiews fglobalization,thercholars,amely,aulHirst ndGrahameThompsonnGlobalizationnQuestion1996),andRobertWade n Globaliza-tion nd tsLimits 1996), see it as a feeble rocess hat as notyet hallengedthenation-statendother undamentaleaturesfthemodemworld.In this hapter first efine lobalizationnd tstiming. hen, review hemain ontributionsf he arious ocial ciences oresearchnglobalization,ithan emphasis n sociological erspectives.organize hediscussionnd critiquearound ivekeydebates r questions:s globalizationeally appening?oes itproduce onvergence?oes itunderminehe uthorityfnation-states?s globalitydifferentrommodernity?s a global ulturen themaking?

WHAT S GLOBALIZATION?Intuitively,lobalizationsa process ueled y, ndresultingn, ncreasingross-border lowsfgoods, ervices, oney,eople,nformation,nd ultureHeld t l1999,p. 16). Sociologist nthonyiddens1990,p. 64, 1991,p. 21) proposes oregard lobalizations a decouplingr distanciation etween paceandtime,whilegeographeravid Harvey 1989) and political cientist amesMittelman(1996) observe hat lobalizationntails compression f space andtime,shrinkingftheworld. ociologistManuelCastells1996,p. 92) emphasizesheinformationalspects f theglobal conomywhenhe definest as aneconomywith he apacityo work s a unitnrealtime na planetarycale. n a simi-larvein, ociologist aryGereffi1994)writes bout lobal commodityhains,wherebyroductions coordinatednaglobal cale.ManagementcholartephenKobrin1997,pp.147-148)describeslobalizationsdriven ot yforeignradeand nvestmentut y ncreasingechnologicalcaleand nformationlows. olit-ical scientist obert ilpin 1987,p. 389)defineslobalizationsthe increasinginterdependencefnational conomiesntrade, inance,ndmacroeconomicol-icy. ociologist olandRobertson1992,p. 8) argues hat lobalizationrefersboth o he ompressionf heworldnd hentensificationf onsciousnessf heworld s a whole. AlsosociologistMartin lbrow1997,p. 88) defines lobal-izationsthe diffusionfpractices,alues nd echnologyhat ave n nfluenceonpeople's ivesworldwide. propose ocombine he erspectivesfRobertsonandAlbrow,nd odefine lobalizations a process eading ogreaternterdepen-dence ndmutualwarenessreflexivity)mong conomic, olitical,ndsocialunitsn theworld, nd among ctors ngeneralGuillen 001,Held etal 1999,pp. 429-31,Petrella 996,pp. 63-66,Waters 995,p. 63).Globalization,owever,s also an ideologywithmultiplemeaningsnd in-eages.As Cox (1996)hasobserved,ometimestappears oosely ssociatedwithneoliberalismnd with echnocraticolutionsoeconomic evelopmentnd re-formEvans1997,McMichael1996,p. 177). The term lso appears inked ocross-borderdvocacy etworksndorganizationsefendinguman ights,he

This content downloaded from 137.56.81.155 on Thu, 27 Feb 2014 15:50:37 PMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


4/27

GLOBALIZATION 237environment,omen's ights,rworld eace Guidry tal 1999,Keck& Sikkink1998).Theenvironmentalovement,nparticular,as raised hebanner fglob-alism nitsstruggleor clean planet, s in its ThinkGlobal,Act Local slo-gan Held et al 1999,pp. 376-413). Thus,globalizations oftenonstructedsan impersonalnd nevitable orce n order o ustify ertain oliciesorbehav-iors,howeverraiseworthyomeofthemmight e. In a broader istoricalense,Mazlish 1993,pp. 6-7) andRobertson1992,pp. 68-71) cogentlyrgue hat otonly apitalismr dvocacymovementsut lsoChristianity,slam, ndMarxismhavemadeglobal laims nd harbored lobalpretensions.irsch& Fiss (2000)documenthat se of he erm globalizationnthe ress ppears ssociatedwithmultipledeological ramesfreference,ncludingfinancial arket, economicefficiency,negativeffect, nd culture.The start fglobalizationsalsoa contestedssue Held etal 1999).Onecouldargue hat lobalizationeginswith hedawn fhistory.he iterature,owever,has tended odate he tartfglobalization ore ecentlynthe xperienceftheWest.Atoneendof he pectrum,istoriansavenoted hemportancef he irstcircumnavigationfthe arthn1519-1521 Mazlish1993).World-systemheo-ristsmaintainhat he xpansionfEuropean apitalismn the ixteenthenturymarks he tart fglobalizationWallerstein974; ee also Waters995,pp.2-4).Someeconomic istoriansoint othe urn fthe wentiethenturystheheydayof nternationalrade nd nvestmentefore he onvulsionsfWorldWar and heGreat epressionhrewheworld nto piralingrotectionismWilliamson996).Robertson1992,p. 179) argues hat lobalizationtook ff between 875and1925with he time-zoningf heworld nd he stablishmentf henternationaldateline;henear-globaldoption f theGregorianalendar nd the djustableseven-day eek; ndthe stablishmentf nternationalelegraphicndsignalingcodes. Murphy1994)recountshehistoryf nternationalrganizationsofostertransportationndcommunicationince1850.Students f socialmovementsorthe bolitionf lavery,omanuffrage,r he rohibitionffemale ircumcisionargue hat he mergencefcontemporaryransnationaldvocacy etworksanbetraced ack othe econd alf f henineteenthenturyKeck& Sikkink998,pp. 41-72).A thirdroup f cholars tartshe nalysisfglobalizationtthe ndofWorldWar I, with hecoming f thenuclear ge,theemancipationfcolonies, herenewedxpansionf trade nd nvestment,nd the conomic iseof NortheastAsia (Gilpin1987,pp. 341-44, 2000,Guillen 001, Kennedy 993,pp.47, 50,McMichael1996).Theres also ustificationor ellinghe toryfglobalizationbeginningithhe nravelingfpaxamericana inthe arly 970sorwith he iseofneoliberaldeologyn the ate1970sandearly1980s. n a more onceptuallyinformeday,Kobrin1997, pp. 147-148)distinguishesetween he rade ndinvestmentinkages fnineteenth-centurynternationalizationnd thenetworkand nformationiesof atetwentieth-centurylobalizationsee alsoBaldwin&Martin 999,Heldet al 1999). Thus, heres noagreements to whethert waswithMagellan ndMercator,amesWatt ndCaptain ook,Nixon ndKissinger,



5/27

238 GUILLENorThatcherndReagan hat lobalizationtartedr, o be more recise, hat henarrativefglobalizationughtobegin. astly,t hould e noted hat he nglishtermglobalization as firstsed round 960 n tsworld-wideense sopposedto tsmuch ldermeanings f he lobal s somethingpherical,otal, runiversal(Waters 995,p. 2).Definitionsnd imingside, neof he ersistentroblemsfflictinghe tudyofglobalizations that t s far rom uniform,rreversible,nd nexorablerend.Rather, lobalizations a fragmented,ncomplete,iscontinuous,ontingent,ndinmanywayscontradictorynd puzzling rocess Giddens 000, Gilpin 000,p. 294,Guidryt l 1999,Held t l 1999, .43 1). Table1presentsconomic, inan-cial, ocial, olitical,ndbibliographicalndicatorsfglobalization.hemeasuresarepresentedor he1980-1998period otbecauseglobalizationtartedn1980but ather ecauseofdata imitations.oreign irectexcluding ortfolio)nvest-ments apercentagefGDP is 2.5 times reaterodayhanwentyears go-andnearlyour imes reaternthedeveloping orld. radehasalsogrown,lthoughnot s fast sforeignnvestment.inancial lobalizationasgrownastest:oreignexchangeurnoverncreasedenfoldetween979 nd1997relativeoworld DP,andboth ross-borderank reditnd ssetshave ncreasedmore han wofoldsa percentagefworldGDP.Somekey ndicatorsf social exchange crossbordersre also increasingrapidly,ncludingourismnd nternationalelephonealls see Table 1). nterna-tionalmigration,houghn therise,has notreachedmportantevelsrelative oworld opulation. lsobuckingheglobalizationrends thegrowingumberfnation-states-from57UnitedNationsmembersn 1980to 184by1998.Andmore thnic roups han ver eem obereassertingheirdentitiesndyearningTABLE 1 IndicatorsfGlobalization,980-1998Indicators 1980 1985 1990 1995 1998A.EconomicInward oreignirectnvestmenttock, 4.6 6.5 8.0 10.1 11.7h% worldGDPDeveloped ountries, GDP 3.8 4.9 6.6 9.1 10.5hDeveloping ountries, GDP 4.3 8.2 8.5 15.4 16.6hGrossvalue ddedofforeignffiliates, - 5.2 6.4 6.3 7.8h% worldGDPExportsfforeignffiliates, - 31.9 27.5 32.3 35.6%totalworld xportsExports importsfgoods, 72.7 68.1 76.0 87.5 92. h%world on-service DPDeveloped ountries, 76.6 72.1 81.8 90.1 95.1h% non-service DPDeveloping ountries, 60.9 54.6 55.0 77.3 83.2h% non-service DP



6/27

GLOBALIZATION 239TABLE 1 (Continued)Indicators 1980 1985 1990 1995 1998Exports importsfgoods& services, 40.0 38.8 38.9 42.9 45.2h% worldGDPDeveloped ountries, GDP 40.2 39.4 38.3 41.2 43.8 'Developingountries, GDP 39.1 36.6 41.0 49.5 50.6 'B. FinancialDaily currencyxchange urnover, 0.7 1.3 3.8 5.6 6.8% worldGDP'Cross-borderank redittock, 13.9 19.9 34.3 33.1% worldGDPbCross-borderankingssets,% world 13.7 19.9 28.1 28.5GDpb

C. Social & PoliticalInternationalouristrrivals, world 3.5 6.7 8.6 9.9populationStock f nternationaligrants, world 1.5 1.8 2.0 2.2populationcInternationalalls,minutesermillion - 1354 1600 2174worldGDPdInternetosts, umberthousands)e - 5 617 12881 19459hNation-statesithmembershipnthe 157 157 159 184 184UnitedNationsInternationalrganizations,umber 14273g 24180 26656 41722 48350D. BibliographicalLiteraturenglobalizatioh,nnual ntriesf:SociologicalAbstracts 89 142 301 1068 1009Econlit 19 269 608 1044 924PAIS (Politics International 64 101 309 366 698

Relations)Historical bstracts 69 81 103 166 157Anthropologicaliterature 6 2 6 1 34Books nPrint 48 92 328 689 589aData refor 979,1984,1989,1995, nd1998.bData refor 981,1986,1991and1995.CEstimates.dExcludesnternationalallsusing ellular hones rprivateetworks.eData refor 986,1991,1996, nd1997.fArticlesrbookswith hewords global r globalizationn the itle, ubject eadingrabstract.91981.h1997.Sources: World nvestmenteport; nternational rade Statistics earbook;UN Statistical earbook; aldwin andMartin1999:12); Tschoegl 1998); Vernon1998:198); MiguelCenteno, epartmentfSociology, rincetonniver-sity; earbookf nternationalrganizations;ennLibraryatabases.



7/27

240 GUILLENto create heir wnstate-Palestiniansnd Kurds,Basques and Catalans, cotsandWelsh, ibetansndKashmiris,orsicans ndQuebecois Friedman 994,Geertz 998,Robertson992,p. 98-108;for hedissentingiew, ee Rapoport1996). Meanwhile, henumber f nternationalrganizationsas more han re-bled.Among nternationaldvocacy roups, hose oncerned ith uman ights,the nvironment,speranto, omen's ights,ndworld eace havegrown astest(Keck & Sikkink 998,p. 11; see also Meyer t al 1997,Murphy 994). Andthe nternetas acceleratedross-borderxchange uringhe1990s, lthoughessthan wo r hree ercentf he opulation as access o t nmost ountriesxceptthevery ich nes Guillen& Suarez2001).It is perhapsronic oobserve hat hefastestncrease mong he ndicatorsincluded n Table 1 does notrefer oglobalizationtself,ut o the iteraturenglobalization. s shown n Figure ,there as been an explosion n thenumberof articles nglobalizationublishedn the conomic, ociological,ndpoliticalliteratures.he number fbooksonglobalizationas also ncreasedteeply. hehistoricalnd nthropologicaliteratures,y ontrast,ave agged ehind. mongthe ocial sciences, ociologywasthe irstopayattentionoglobalization.oci-ology ournalstartedocarryarge umbersf rticles nglobalizationuringheearly nd mid1970s, rimarilynduced y world-systemheorizingWallerstein1974). Someauthors aveattemptedosummarizehe iteraturee.g.Held et al1999, klair 991,Waters 995), nd everal dited olumes avebeen ompiled(Dunning 997,Featherstone990,Hargittai Centeno 001,Mittelman996,Sakamoto 994,Mander Goldsmith996). Perhaps hemost ewilderingea-ture fthe iteratures not ts sheer izebut heremarkableiversityfauthorsthat ave ontributedo t, angingromostmodernistcholars r ocial heoristswhorarely,f ver, ngagenempiricalesearchonumber-crunchingmpiricists,politicians,ndmanagementonsultants.

FIVEKEYDEBATESThe fivekeydebates hat identifynthis hapterre not nexhaustiveistofissues nthevast nd rich iteraturenglobalization. hey apture, owever,broad pectrumfsocial,political,ndculturalhemes f nterestosociologistsand therocial cientists.able shows owdifferentuthorsositionhemselvesinthe ive eydebates. ne should ot ssume hose n the ame ideof he enceregarding particularuestion ctually greewith ach other n other ssuesorthat hey pproach he ssuefromxactlyhe ameperspective.Is ItReallyHappening?

Most of thebooks ndarticles iscussednthis hapter implyssume hat heworld s becomingmore lobal, hats,more nterrelated.yriad olicymakers,publicists,nd cademicsake t saxiomatichat lobalizations nfact appeningwithoutupportingheir laimwith ata e.g.Ohmae1990,Naisbitt Aburdene



8/27

GLOBALIZATION 2411400

1200-

* Sociological1000- Abstracts

, Econlit

= 800 I

PAIS0600IZ BooksnPrint

400 ,

Historical200 * Abstracts

01960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000Figure1 The literaturefglobalization.



9/27

242 GUJILLENTABLE 2 Fivekeydebates bout lobalization

Answers ntheLiteratureDebate Yes No1. s ItReally NaisbittndAburdene 990 Krugman994:146-148, 56-267Happening? Ohmae1990 Berger 996:7-8,11,19-21Castells 996:66-147 Hirst ndThompson996:1-3,18-98Rodrik 997:9 Wade1996:66-84Held et al 1999 Doremus t al 1998Gilpin 000 Fligstein0012. Does It Bell [1973] Giddens 990:63-64, 991:21-22Produce Meyer ndHannan 979: StopfordndStrange 991:1-2Convergence? 13-15 Robertson992:27, 45Levitt 983 Friedman994:210-211Williamson 996 Berger 996:2-7,19-21Meyer t al 1997:145, 48, Boyer 996:33, 8152-154,161 Cox 1996:28, 0n. 1Albrow 997:86, 44, 149,189Garrett998:1-11, 4-37,51, 74,1999

Held et al 1999:431, 41Guillen 0013.Does It Vernon971:249-258, 998: Vernon971:265-270Underminehe 172-175 Cox 1987:254-259, 992:30-31Authorityf Kennedy 993:53-64, Gilpin 987:389-406, 000:315-319Nation-States? 122-134, 30 StopfordndStrange 991:1-2,Mazlish1994:4 97-136Sakamoto 994:19, 6 Hirst ndThompson996:143-194Waters 995:96-123 Panitch 996:84-86

Cox 1996:26-27 Pierson 994:1-9McMichael 996:197-207 Sassen1996:25-30Mander Goldsmithds. Wade 19961996 Albrow 997:164, 68Strange 996:4-6,189, Meyer t al 1997:153, 57196-198 Garrett998:1-2,11, 107,157-158,Evans1997:82-87 1999Kobrin 997:155-163 Huber ndStephens 999Rodrik 997:1-6,46-67,85 Held et al 1999:440Stryker998:7-8,14-15,17, 0 Riain200032-33 Fligstein001Vernon 998:172-175Mosher 999:25, 5



10/27

GLOBALIZATION 243TABLE 2 (Continued)

Answers n theLiterature:Debate: Yes No4. Is Globality Sklair 991:75-81 Giddens 990:63-64, 991:21-22Differentrom Robertson 992:27,138- Mittelman996Modernity? 145,1995 Meyeretal 1997:150, 64Waters 995Castells 996Albrow 997:4, 3,95-101,144

Kobrin 997:147-154Heldet al 1999:429-4315. Is a Global McLuhan 964 Smith 990Culturen the McLuhan ndFiore1967 Mazlish1993:14, 6Making? Levitt 983 Friedman 994Sklair 991:75-81 Appadurai 996:4,12,32-43Waters 995:124-157 Cox 1996:27Meyer t al 1997:162 Portes 997Geertz 998:107-1 0

Keck andSikkink 998:32-34, 10-211Held etal 1999:374Zelizer1999InglehartndBaker 000

1990).Political conomist ndpolicymakerobertReich 1991), for xample,proclaimshat national conomies re disappearingnd companies o longerhave nationality;nly eopledo. There re,however, any keptics.Perhapshe est-documentedase for he eeble rgumentgainst lobalizationhas beenmadebyPaulHirst,n Oxford oliticalcientist ith ies otheLabourParty.na recent ook,Hirst Thompson1996,pp. 1-3, 18-98) argue hat heglobalizationrend fthe ast wenty ears asbeenoverstateds a process:t snot nprecedentednworld istory,hey ay, ndforeignnvestmentnd radereconcentratedn the o-called riad-Westernurope,North merica,ndJapan.Insum, heyrgue hathe conomysbecomingmore nternationalutnotmoreglobal.Political cientist obertWade 1996,pp. 66-84) echoes hese riticisms:The volume f trade s smallrelative o thesize of most conomiessee also

Krugman994,pp. 146-48,256-67);domesticnvestmentsgreaterhan oreigninvestment;ultinationalsocatemost ftheirssets, wners, opmanagers,ndR&D activitiesn their ome ountriessee also Doremus tal 1998); andvastareas oftheworldhave notbeenaffectedy globalization,amely,outh ndCentral sia,andthebulk fAfrica.The argumentorthe feebleness f globalizations useful n that t pro-vides nimportantorrectiveo visions ndmythsfglobalizationssumingts



11/27

244 GUILLENinevitabilitynd rreversibility.here re,however,wokeycounterarguments.Regardinghe ssueof heheterogeneouspread fglobalizationcross heworld,Castells1996,p. 102)correctlybserves hat heglobal conomys notmeantoencompasshe ntire arth. ather,tcomprises nly ertainegmentsfactivityinboth eveloped nddevelopingountriessee also Kobrin 997). Thesecondcounterarguments that roponentsfthefeeble hesis ocus lmost xclusivelyonthe conomic ndfinancialspects fglobalizationo he etrimentfpolitical,social, nd ulturalnes.The iteratureffersnddiscusses videncensupportfpoliticalnd ulturallobalizationhats,on thewhole, uite ersuasiveCastells1996, p. 66-147,Meyer Hannan 979, ouch t l 1998, etrella 996, p.63-66).Inaddition,lobalwarming,heAIDS pandemic,nd he lobalizationf hemediahaveheightenedur wareness f ivingn an ncreasinglynterconnectedworld Held et al 1999). n sum, cholarsrguinghe eebleness fglobalizationhave madea contributionndebunkingertainmythsndassumptionsboutprocess hat as all too often eenuncriticallyeified. owever,heyreperhapstoowedded o a monolithiconceptfglobalizationndoblivious othenotionthat lobalitys a networkfrelationshipshat reatesmutualwareness.

Does It Produce onvergence?A second ontestedssue nthe iteraturenglobalizationastodowithts onse-quences s tothe onvergencefsocieties oward uniformatternfeconomic,political,ndeven ulturalrganization.ostfamouslyxpressedn moderniza-tion heory,he pread f marketsndtechnologyspredictedo cause societiestoconvergerom heir reindustrialast, lthoughotalhomogeneitys deemedunlikely.his ineofthinkingas advanced uringhe1950s nd1960sbybotheconomistsnd ociologistsGuillen 001,Waters995, p. 13-15,Albrow 997,p. 49). Economic istoriansuch sJeffreyilliamson1996)havedocumentedconvergencen ncome nd abormarketsuringhenineteenthenturynd firstdecadesofthe wentieth.ociologist aniel Bell (1973) argued or technologi-callydrivenonvergencefpostindustrialocieties.Furtherupportor he onvergencehesis omesfrom heworld-societyp-proachn ociology.n theirummariesf nextensivempiricalesearchrogramontheworldwidepread feducationalystemsndother orms f state ctivity,JohnMeyer ndhis associates nd studentsrgue hat he xpansionfrational-izedstate ctivities as acquired momentumf tsown, argely naffectedycross-nationalifferencesnpoliticaltructurereconomic rowthates. ather,thediffusionf rationalizedystemsollows he exigenciesfglobal ocial or-ganization hose ogic ndpurposesrebuilt nto lmost llstates. he resultsthattheworld s a whole howsncreasingtructuralimilaritiesfformmongsocietieswithout,owever,howingncreasingqualities foutcomesmong o-cieties Meyer Hannan 979, p. 3, 13-15).Nation-statesre een sexhibitingconvergenttructuralimilarity,lthoughheresa decouplingetweenurposesandstructure,ntentionsndresults.World-societyesearchersrgue hat on-formityomesbothfromheworld-culturef rationalized odernitynd fromdomesticroupshatmake laims n the tate ollowinghe consensus ver he



12/27

GLOBALIZATION 245formalcceptance f mattersuch s citizen ndhuman ights,henatural orldand ts cientificnvestigation,ocioeconomicevelopment,nd ducation. heyevenpresentvidenceothe ffecthat ationalismndreligiousundamentalismintensifysomorphism ore han hey esistt Meyer t al 1997,pp. 145, 148,152-154,161).Social andpolitical heoristss well s historiansave laborated comprehen-sivecritiquefthe resumedonvergentonsequences fglobalization.oliticalhistorian obert ox (1996,p. 28, 30 n. 1)writes hatthe ocialand thical on-tent fthe conomy maybeorganized ifferentlyn various arts ftheworld.Historian ruceMazlish 1993, p. 4) argues hatnosingleglobalhistorys an-ticipated. ociologistAnthony iddens 1990, pp. 64, 175) adds an interestingtwistwhen ssertinghat lobalizationis a process funeven evelopmenthatfragmentss itcoordinates... ] The outcomes notnecessarily,revenusually,a generalizedetofchanges ctingna uniformirection,ut onsistsnmutu-ally pposed endencies.nanotherook 1991,pp. 21-22), Giddens laborates:Globalizationastobeunderstoods a dialecticalhenomenon,n which ventsatonepole ofa distanciatedelation ftenroduce ivergentreven ontraryc-currencestanotherseealsoGiddens 000,pp. 30-31,Heldetal 1999,pp.431,441). In a similarein, nthropologistonathanriedman1994,pp. 210-11) as-sertshat lobalizations the roductf ulturalragmentations much s it s theresult fmodernistomogeneity,ndthat what ppears s disorganizationndoften ealdisordersnot ny he esssystemicnd ystematic.These social andpolitical heorists,owever,aveneitherngagednempir-ical testingf their ropositionsorbothered o look for upportn theexist-ing iterature.here s, though, considerableodyofempirical esearch ack-ingthe ntithesishat lobalizationroduces ivergencenddiversityr at eastdoes notundermineational olicies nd nstitutions.anagementcholar ohnStopfordndpoliticalconomistusanStrange1991,pp.1-2)documenthat heincreasinglyomplexnteractionetweenmultinationalsnd states asproduceda divergencenoutcomes, hileDoremus t al (1998) showthat ifferentiatednationalystemsf nnovation,rade,nd nvestmentemain irmlynplace.Political cientisteoffreyarrett1998, pp. 1-4, 10-11,34-37, 51, 74) hasperhaps ontributedhe most xtensive nd solidbodyofempirical vidence,thoughtrefersmostlyothe xperiencefthe dvanced ndustrialemocracies.He argues nd demonstratesmpiricallyhatnthe ontext f a global conomyat least twopaths repossiblefornational conomic nd socialpolicymakers:adherence ither oneoclassical conomics rto social democraticorporatism.Garrett'snalysis efutesimplisticiews bout onvergence,roposingnsteadto viewthebalanceof eft-rightolitical ower nd abormarketnstitutionssthe wokeyvariablesn a contingentnalysis feconomic erformance.he bestmacroeconomicerformances obtained hen he wovariables realignedwitheach other. orexample, edistributivend nterventionistolicies ombinewithencompassingabormarketnstitutionsoproducemacroeconomicerformanceinterms fgrowthndunemploymenthatmatches r ven urpasseshe chieve-ments f aissez-faireolicies ombined ithweak abormarketnstitutions.e



13/27

246 GUiLLENconcludeshat herere enduringross-nationalifferencesneconomic olicy-makingnd ngagementftheglobal conomy.n a broadertudy ncompassingover nehundredountriesuring he1985-1995period, arrett1999) finds oconvergencengovernmentxpenditureatternss a result fglobalization. hathashappened ver heastdecade sthatmany overnmentsavepursued oliciesthat ufferheir itizens romhevagaries f globalmarketsnd, n thepresenceoffree apitalmobility,illinglyndknowinglyccepted ighernterestates okeep apital t home.Studentsf he arietiesfcapitalism, ostly olitical cientists,ave ong r-gued hat irmsnd ountriesursue ifferentaths f ncorporationnto he lobaleconomy. hus,German,rench, apanese,ndAmericanirmsre ompetitiventhe lobal conomy, ut arelynthe ame ndustryndmarketegment. ermanfirmsxcel thigh-quality,ngineering-intensivendustriesuch s advancedma-chine ools, uxuryutomobiles,ndspecialtyhemicalsSoskice 1998,Streeck1991);French irmst arge-scaleechnicalndertakingsuch shigh-speedrains,satellite-launchingockets,rnuclear ower Storper Salais1997, p. 131-48);Japanese irms t most ategories f assembled oods,namely, ouseholdp-pliances, onsumerlectronics,nd automobilesGerlach 992); andAmericanfirmst software,inancialervices, rbiotechnologyStorper Salais 1997,pp. 174-88).

Comparativerganizationalociologists ave also presented ualitativendquantitativevidenceothe ffecthat irmsursue ifferentodes feconomicactionnd dopt ifferentrganizationalormsependingn the nstitutionalndsocial tructuresf heir ome ountriesven s globalizationncreases. oreover,they ave ollected ataonnewlyndustrializedountriesn addition o themostadvanced nes.Orrut l 1997)draw numberf ystematicomparisonsmongEast Asian and Westernuropean ountries,emonstratinghat niquenationalpatternsforganizationot nly ersistver ime ut lsocontributeothe nter-nationalompetitivenessf firms. uillen2001) presentsystematicase-studyandquantitativevidence emonstratinghat irmsnd abor nions nArgentina,SouthKorea, ndSpaindivergedntheiratternsfbehavior,rganizationalorm,andgrowthven s their ome ountriesecamemorentegratedith heglobaleconomy uringhe ost-World ar I period.Taken ogether,he mpiricalvidence rovided y sociologistsndpoliticalscientistsupportsell he ase for iversity,r t east esilience,n ross-nationalpatternsn themidst fglobalization.t must e admitted,owever,hatworld-society esearcherslsohave point,ndonethat swellsupportedyempiricalevidence. hereason ehind heseeeminglyrreconcilablempiricalesults ightbe thatworld-societyesearch as mademeasurementst evelsofanalysis ndabstractionigherhan he iner-grainednalysis fcomparativeociologistsndpoliticalcientists.It should e noted hat ome ociologists eject hevery erms f the onver-gencedebate y arguinghat lobalizationomogenizes ithoutestroyinghelocal andthe articularistic.or xample, iviana elizer 1999) argues hat theeconomy.. differentiatesndproliferatesulturallynmuch he ameway s other



14/27

GLOBALIZATION 247spheresf ocial ife o,withoutosing ational nd vennternationalonnected-ness. Thus, lobalizations not een s precludingr ontradictingiversity.ikeZelizer, obertson1995,pp. 34-35) sees theglobal s the linking f ocalities.Perhapshemost ontroversialspect f he onvergenceebate as todo withthempactfglobalizationn nequalitycross ndwithinountries.heevidenceunambiguouslyndicates hat herestodaymorenequalitycross ountrieshanten, wenty,iftyreven ne hundredears go. Stunningly,hegap n per apitaincome etween ich nddevelopingountries as grown ive-foldetween 870and1990 Pritchett997,Temple 999). There re,however,everal oteworthydevelopingountrieshat avemanaged o losehalf rmore f he ap ince 960,e.g. SouthKorea,Taiwan, nd reland.Very ewdevelopingountries,hough,have consistentlyrown aster han hemost dvanced nessince1980. Thus,developmentevels acrosscountriesppearnot to be convergings a result fglobalization.Bycontrasto ross-nationalnequality,t s not learwhetherncreasedoreigntrade nd nvestmenturinghe asttwenty earshave resultednsubstantiallyhigherwage nequalityrunemploymentithin ountries. age nequality asrisennmost dvanced ountriesuring he ast hree ecades. n a review ssay,Kapstein2000) presentseveralounterargumentsothe laim hat lobalizationhasbeen hemajor auseof ncreased agepolarization,ncludinghat radestoosmall percentagefGDP tohave large mpact,nd hatechnologicalhangestheultimateause ofwagepolarization.nagreementithKapstein's eadingfthe vidence, aldwin& Martin1999,p. 21) summarizehe mpiricaliteratureas follows:Virtuallyll studies ind ome mpact ftrade nthe abormarketnboth heUnited tates ndEurope. he range ffindings,owever,swide.Somefind hat rade ccounted or irtuallyone f hewagegap,while thersssigned100percentf thegaptotrade. he consensus angesperhaps 0-20percent.As opposed owagedisparities,verall ndicatorsf ncome nequality ithincountries ave not ncreased uringhe astthirty ears, ndtheres evidenceindicatinghatwhen ountriesrow conomicallyndbecomencorporatedntothe lobal conomyovertyates all Deininger Squire1996).Discussions ndcalculations fthempact fglobalizationnwageand ncomenequality ithincountrieshould ake nto ccount hatwhileforeignrade ndinvestmentrepowerfulorces,omestic olitics ndprocesses tillmatter.In sum,globalizationoesnot eemtocompelgovernments,irms,nd ndi-viduals oconvergen their atternsfbehavior.While hismaybe regardedsa welcome spect,t s importantobear nmind hatncreasing lobalizationhas coincidedn timewith nexacerbationf ncome isparitiescross ountries,and that t eastpart f thegreater egree f ncome ndwage nequality ithincountriessdue to ncreasedoreignrade nd nvestment.

Does ItUndermineheAuthorityfNation-States?A third ey ssuesurroundinghe opic fglobalizations whetherhisprocesshasoutgrownhegovernancetructuresf the nternationalystemf states nd



15/27

248 GUILLENunderminedhe uthorityf thenation-state.or example, conomist aymondVernon1971,pp.249,265-70,284)has ong rguedhat he preadfmultinationalcorporationsreates destructiveolitical ensions, nd that heres a needtoreestablishalance between olitical nd economic nstitutions.istorian aulKennedy1993, pp. 53-64, 122-34)assertshat overnmentsre osing ontrol,andthat lobalizationrodes hepositionf abor nddevelopingountries,nddegrades he nvironment.Today's lobal ociety, e writes,confrontshe askofreconcilingechnologicalhangend conomicntegrationith raditionalo-litical tructures,ational onsciousness,ocialneeds, nstitutionalrrangements,and habitualwaysofdoing hings Kennedy 993,p. 330). In a similar ein,Kobrin 1997, pp. 157, 159) argues hat lobalizationoth hallengeshe uton-omy r ndependentecision-makingfthe tate nd raises uestionsbout hemeaningfsovereigntyn ts xternalenseof a system rderednterms fmu-tuallyxclusiveerritoriality.ndMazlish 1993,p. 4) argueshat lobalhistoryis anattempto transcendhenation-states the ocus fhistory.Internationalelation'scholar oshikazu akamoto1994, p. 19, 36) andpo-litical cientist obert ox (1996, p. 26-27) concurnarguinghat lobalizationgenerates roblemsf nternationalovernancendreduce he egulatoryowerof states. orRodrik1997,p. 1-6), globalizationreatesocialandpolitical en-sionswithinnd cross ation-states.ndpoliticalheorist ichaelMosher1999,p. 35) asks, is there successful ayofreconcilingheboundaryransgressingcharacterf markets ith heboundary aintainingctivities fnation-states?He furtherotes hat lobalizationasplacedtwo iberal ractices-the iber-alism f themarketnd the iberalismfdemocraticitizenship-on collisioncourse, aisinghe ilemma fwhethermoral oncernstop t he ational order(Mosher 999,p. 25).Sociologists ave lso oined he horusf tate oomsayers.orWaters1995,pp. 96-123),theres an attenuationf he tate, rise f nternationalrganiza-tions,nda trend owardmore fluid nternationalelations. cMichael 1996,pp. 197-207) also sees a decline f the tate. or Albrow1997, p. 164), thenation-stateas failed o confineocialitywithintsboundaries,oth erritorialandcategorical.he sheerncrease n cross-nationalies, hediversificationfmodes fpersonal elationshipsnd themultiplicationf formsfsocialorgani-zation emonstratehe utogenic aturef he ocial ndreveal henation-statesjust notherimeboundorm. n a more mpiricallyrounded ay, vans 1997,pp. 82-87) pointsut hat lobalizationndermineshe tate ecause ts ssociatedneoliberaldeologys againsthe tate ndnotbecauseglobalizations inextrica-bly gainsthe tate. e furtherrgueshat he tatemay tage comebackf hereis a returnf the deological endulum, r a transformationfthe tate nd adevelopmentfnew lements fstate-societyynergy.Theanalysis yBritisholiticalconomist usanStrangesperhapshemostsophisticatedrticulationf thepositionhat he nternationalystemf nation-statesnd henation-statetself re oming nder irena globalworld. he writesabout he declininguthorityf tates ndpreemptseveral ossible riticisms.First, henotes hat tate nterventionisms on therise, lthoughnrelatively



16/27

GLOBALIZATION 249marginalmatters.econd, she argues hat here re more tates n the world,especiallyfter 989,but hatmost fthenew ones are weak and ack control.Third, hepoints ut hat he ffectivenessf he ast Asian tate n orchestratingeconomic rowth asonlypossiblen a post-WorldWar I order n which ro-tectionismf thedomesticmarket as acceptable ndmature echnologies ereavailableStrange 996,pp. 4-6). She furtherbserves hree ower hiftsn theglobalworld, amely,rom eak o strongtates, rom tates omarkets,ndfromlabormarketso financialmarkets, ith omepower vaporatingr dispersing(Strange 996,p. 189).Notsurprisingly,hosewho argue hat lobalizations a feebleprocess lsomaintainhat tcan be easily handled y nation-states.or example,Hirst&Thompson1996,pp.143-49,170-94) ndWade 1996)assert hat tates ancopewithglobalization,lthough heyhave ost some freedom f action, speciallyconcerninginanciallows. eebleproponents,owever,renot lone hallengingthenotionhat lobalizationndermineshenation-state.Macrosociologyaslongmaintainedhat heglobal rena s a playgroundfor tates, herehey ompeteor conomic,military,ndpolitical upremacyndsurvival.hus, heworld-systemr the nternationalrena, ar romhreateningstates,ctuallyostershemWallerstein974, illy 992).Neorealistnternationalrelationscholar obert ilpin 1987,pp. 389-406,2000,pp. 51, 319-23) pointsout hat lobalizationeinforceshemportancefdomesticolicies, s countriesengagenregionalization,ectoralrotectionism,ndmercantilisticompetitionnresponseochangesn the nternationalocation feconomic ctivities,esultingin a mixed ystem, ncreasinglylobalized nd at the ame time ragmented(see alsoBerger 996,pp.7-21).A related,hough istinct,rgumentgainsthepresumedoss of state ower nthewakeofglobalizationomesfrom oliticalscientisteo Panitch1996,p. 84-86).Herightlyrgueshattoday's lobalizationis authoredystates nd s primarilyboutreorganizingather han ypassingthem see also0 Riain2000,Poulantzas 974,p. 73). Moreover,s Cox (1992,pp. 30-31) observes, powerhas shifted ot wayfrom he tate utwithin hestate,.e. fromndustryr aborministriesowardsconomyministriesnd entralbanks. Andsociologist ean 0 Riain 2000, p. 205) sees states otas passivepawnsbut athers adapting, hetherutofnecessityrdesire.Anothernfluentialocial cientist,askiaSassen 1996,pp. 25-30),maintainsthat he tate oesnot osesignificance.ather,heresaredefinitionf hemodernfeaturesfsovereigntyndterritoriality,denationalizingf nationalerritory.Cox (1987,pp. 254-59) argues hat lobalizationnduces transformationfthestate, ot ts diminution.topford Strange1991, pp. 1-2, 97-136) examinethenewpossibilitiesor tate ction n theglobal conomynd conclude hat tsrolehasactually ecomemagnifiedndmore omplex see also Held et al 1999,pp. 436-44). Accordingo most olitical cientists,herefore,henation-statesalive ndwell, nd heWestphalianrdersunlikelyobereplaced y fragmented,medieval ne. A key ffectfglobalization,owever,as beenthe iseofglobalcities-NewYork, ondon,Miami, ingapore-whose ole nd tatureranscendthenation-statenwhichhey appenobe ocatedChoiet l 1996, assen1991).



17/27

250 GUWLLENFinally, heworld-societyiew lsorejects he laim hat lobalizationnder-mines ation-states.otinghe xpansionf tate ureaucraciesinceWorldWar

II,Meyer tal (1997,p. 157)writehatglobalizationertainlyoses newprob-lems or tates, utt lsostrengthensheworld-culturalrinciplehat ation-statesaretheprimaryctors hargedwithdentifyingndmanaginghose roblems nbehalf ftheir ocieties. hisarguments strikinglyimilar otheone offeredbyPanitch1996, pp. 84-86) and Poulantzas1974, p. 73). Themodemnation-state,world-societycholarsonclude, mayhave essautonomyhan arlier utitclearly as more odo (Meyer tal 1997,p. 157).Thequestionfwhetherlobalizationndermineshe uthorityfthenation-state omes bestto lifewhen xamininghe mpact fglobalizationn thevi-ability f thewelfare tate.Rodrik 1997, pp. 49-67) argues hat lobalizationputsdownwardressurengovernmentpendingor edistributionndwelfare,andthat he nteractionf trade isk ndopennessalls formorewelfare pend-ing,butgovernmentsave trouble indinghemoney,n argumenthatVernon(1998, pp. 172-175)finds ersuasive.tryker1998, pp.7-8, 14-15, 17, 32-33)summarizeser ssessmentfthe videncenthat lobalizationlaces imits nexpansionaryolicies, epresentslossofpower or heworkinglass, nd auseswelfare tate etrenchment.ccording othese ocialscientists,he hallengestoengineer newbalancebetweenmarketndsociety,ne thatwillcontinuetounleash he reativenergies fprivatentrepreneurshipithoutrodinghesocialbasis ofcooperation Rodrik 997,p. 85).Theseargumentsavebecomeconventionalisdommong eoliberalolicymakersndournalists. loomy,f-ten nsubstantiated,orecastsbout henabilityfEuropeanwelfaretates opayfor enerousocialbenefitsavebecome ommonplaceince he arly 980s.Other olitical cientistsndsociologists, owever,ee things tterlyiffer-ently.olitical cientistaul Pierson1994, p. 1-9) argues hat hewelfare tatehas declined ot o much s a resultfglobalizationut ecauseof such ndirectactions f onservativeovernmentssreductionsn the evenue ase of he tateand ttacksnthe trengthf nterestroups,speciallyabor. his sanargumentthat ligstein2001)andGilpin2000,pp.312-15)endorse. arrett1998,pp. 1-2,11,107, 132-33,157-58)empiricallyemonstratesheviabilityf social demo-cratic orporatismvenwithncreasingxposureoglobalizationnthe orms fcross-borderrade ndcapitalmobility. e alsoproves hatt s possible o winelections ith edistributivend nterventionistolicies,ndthat etterconomicperformancenterms f GDP growthndunemploymentbtains, houghwithhighernflationhann the aissez-faireountriesUnited tates, ritain). arrett(1998,p. 157)concludes hatbiggovernmentscompatible ithtrong acroeco-nomic erformancend hatmarketsonot ominateolitics.n a direct ebuttalofRodrik1997),Garrett1999) analyzes ataon more han 00 countriesuringthe 985-1995 eriodofind hatncreasingxposureoglobalizationoesnot e-ducegovernmentpending.olitical cientistvelyne uber nd ociologist ohnStephens1999)echoGarrett'sonclusionhat hewelfaretatescompatible ithglobal apitalism,lthoughhey o admit hat ocialdemocraticolicies re oday



18/27

GLOBALIZATION 251more onstrainedhan n the o-called golden ge ofthe1950s nd 1960s seealso Western 997).

ForGarrett,uber, ndStephensndfor ligsteinhewelfaretate s perfectlyviableunder onditionsfglobalization. oreover,tmay e able simultaneouslyto deliver ocial well-being nd enhancenational ompetitiveness.hus, theyreject he radeoffhat eoliberalsee between elfarexpendituresnd conomiccompetitivenessnderonditionsfglobalization.nspite fthe xcellent, ell-supportedesearch y hese uthors, owever,hedebate n themedia nd mongpoliticianshroughoutheworld emains eavily iltedn favor f those lamingthewelfaretate or ecliningompetitivenessndvarious ocial lls.Is Globality ifferentromModernity?

Perhapshemost ifficultebate urroundinglobalizationastodo withwhetherit smerelycontinuationf he rendowardmodernityr he eginningf newera.Ononesideof he ence, iddens1990,pp. 63, 64) argueshatmodernitysinherentlylobalizing, ndthat globalizationmakes] hemodes fconnectionbetween ifferentocialcontextsrregions ecomenetworkedcross he arth'ssurfaces awhole. hisview ollows irectlyromhe onceptf disembeddingor the iftingut ofsocialrelations romocal contextsf nteractionndtheirrestructuringcross ime nd space, whichGiddens1990, p. 21) considersprerequisiteormodernization.orld-societycholarshipakes ideswith iddensonthis oint:Globalizationesultsna sharing f modernitycross heworld(Meyer t al 1997,pp. 150, 164).On theother ide of thefence, ritish ocial theorist artin lbrow1997,pp. 4, 33, 95-101, 144) argues hat lobalizations a transformation,ot cul-mination, ndthe transitiono a new raratherhan he pogeeofthe ld. Heproposes starkistinctionetweenmodernitys thempositionfpracticalatio-nality pon he est f heworldhroughhe gency f he tate nd hemechanismof themarket,hegenerationfuniversaldeas toencompasshediversityf theworld, ndglobalitys itrestoredtheboundlessnessf culture ndpromotesthe ndless enewabilitynddiversificationfculturalxpressionatherhan o-mogenizationrhybridization.ther oted ocialtheoristsfglobalizationlsosupporthe amedistinctionRobertson992, p.27, 138-145), speciallynsofaras themodern-nationtate s concerned:Thepolitics f dentityubstitutesorthepolitics fnation-buildingMcMichael1996,p. 234).The debate ver he elationshipetweenmodernityndglobalitys a centralone for ociologists.fglobalitysmerelyhe esult fan ntensificationfmod-ernizingrends,hen he ecenturgen thenumber f books ndarticles nthissubject anhardlye ustified.heres,however,key heoreticalrgumentobemade nfavor ftheview hat lobalitys differentrommodernity.odernity-like he istortingercatorrojection-is noutgrowthf heWesternorldview.For reasons f theoreticalonsistency,ne should eservehe ermsglobaliza-tion, global, nd globality odenote, espectively,rocesses, ualities,nd



19/27

252 GUWLLENconditionshat renot et ntomotion rdominatedy ny ne model, aradigm,orworldview.n tsbroadestense, lobalitys about multiplicityf onceptions,not bout ulturalrparadigmaticegemony;t s about he roliferationf ross-national etworkies f n economic, olitical,ocial, nd ultural atureGuillen2001,Held et al 1999).Thiscriticisms especially ermanen the ase ofauthorswho onsider lobalizationobe an nevitablend weeping rocess-neoliberalsandMarxistsnparticular-as ligstein2001)hasaptly ointedut.Finally, obrin1997,pp. 147-48) has proposed distinctionetween lobal-ization n the ate wentiethenturyndthe revious eriod fmodem xpansionof theworld conomy hats useful mpirically.he internationalconomy fthenineteenthenturylinks iscrete, utuallyxclusive, eographical ationalmarketshroughross-borderlows ftrade nd investment. y contrast,heglobal conomyfthe atetwentiethenturys drivenythe ncreasingcale oftechnology,he urgen cross-borderollaborationffirmslong he alue-addedchain, ndthe ross-borderntegrationf nformationlows. hus,globalizationhas substantive eaning ecause, his ime round,nationalmarketsre usedtransnationallyatherhaninked crossborders Kobrin 997,p. 148, ee alsoHeldet al 1999,pp.429-31).

Is a GlobalCulturen theMaking?Perhapshemost opularnd ontroversialfthedebates bout lobalizationasto do with he ise f global ulture. ctually,here reonly few cholarswhomaintainhat globalcultures in themaking. he ideagoes backto MarshallMcLuhan's lipperyonceptf he globalvillage McLuhan 964,McLuhan&Fiore 967), ater icked pby ome nfluentialarketingesearchersLevitt 983)who rguedhat heworldwasbecomingncreasinglyopulated ycosmopolitanconsumers.ociologist eslie Sklair 1991, pp. 75-81) writes hat culture-ideology f consumerism -driveny symbols,mages, nd the esthetic f thelifestylendthe elf-image-has pread hroughoutheworld nd shavingomemomentousffects,ncludinghe tandardizationf tastes nddesires,nd eventhe all fthe oviet rder.Othersociologists, owever, rgue againstthe homogenizingffects fmass consumerism.elizer 1999) writes hat onsumer ifferentiationhouldnotbe confused ith egregationndposits hatn theUS economy ifferentia-tion s combinedwith onnection:the ameconsumerroductan have at thesamemoment niversalnd ocalmeaning. elizerurges ociologistso distin-guish etweenhephenomenonfworldwide iffusionndthe xperiencet thereceiving nd,which eems to be growingmorediverse ven as globalizationintensifiessee alsoHeld etal 1999,p. 374). Similarly,nthropologistrjunAp-padurai 1996, pp. 4, 21) argues hat individualsndgroups eek toannex heglobal nto heir wnpracticesf hemodem, nd hatconsumptionf hemassmediaworldwiderovokesesistance,rony,electivity,nd, ngeneral,gency.Using ross-nationalttitudinalata ver he 981-1998 eriod,nglehartBaker



20/27

GLOBALIZATION 253(2000) find hat ationalultures nd valueschange ver ime, houghn path-dependent atherhan onvergent ays.Even world-societyrgumentsboutthe world ulturef educated ndividualhoice and responsibilityMeyer&Hannan 979, . 3) stop hort f nnouncingglobal ulture laMcLuhan.How-ever, hey o describeworld-cultures bindingociety nd ndividualsogetherbyrationalizedystemsf imperfectly)galitarianustice ndparticipatoryep-resentation,n the conomy, olity, ulture,nd social nteractionMeyer t al1997,p. 162). Other esearchersave found hat he pread f themass mediais not nough o account or heriseof cross-borderdvocacy roupsKeck &Sikkink998, p.32-34,210-11), lthoughglobal overnance fmajor spectsofcross-borderommunicationasbeenonthe ise ince1850 Murphy994).

Political nd social theoristsndhistoriansavenoted heriseof whatmod-ernists ould all particularisticdentitiess evidencegainsthe ise f globalculture. ox (1996,p. 27) writes boutglobalizationroducing resurgentf-firmationf dentities, hereasWaters1995,pp. 124-57)contrastsculturaland religiousmosaic with lobal ulturalroductionnd consumptionfmu-sic, mages, nd nformation.azlish 1993,p. 14) notes hat ethnic eelingsa powerful ond, ndskepticallysks, What ounterpartanthere e on theglobal evel? Political cientist eborahYashar1999) rejects globalcultureand global itizenship oncepts ut lsofindsaultwithhe rgumenthat lob-alization as nduced he roliferationfethnicmovements.nher omparisonfindigenous ovementsnLatinAmerica, ashar learly emonstrateshat o as-pect fglobalization-economic,olitical,ocial, rnormative-can ccount orthe ise f thnic-basedctivismince he 960s.Rather,lobalizationhangeshecharacteristicsfthe tate tructureshat ctivistsacewhenmakingheir laims.Cross-borderigrationreates nunusuallyich aboratoryor ssessing herise f global ulture.ociologist lejandroortes1997,p. 3) proposeshe ermtransnationalommunities orefer o cross-borderetworksf mmigrantshatare 'neither erenor here' ut nboth lacessimultaneouslysee also Porteset l 1999).Differentransnationalommunities,owever,xhibitifferentrigins,features,ndproblems,ndthey ertainlyo notform monolithiclobal lassofcosmopolitanitizens. imilarlyoPortes, riedman1994) accepts hebasicnotion fcultural ragmentationroposed y Appadurai, mith,nd Zelizerbutargues hat ntoday'sworld he xistenceftribal ocieties annot e correctlyunderstoodithoutxplainingowtheyreembeddednglobalnetworks.nhisview, ultural iversity ust e seen na global ontext.Someof themost ersuasive rgumentsgainsthe deaofthe mergencefa global ultureome fromnthropologistlifford eertz.He observeshat heworld s growingothmore lobal ndmore ivided,more horoughlyntercon-nected ndmorentricatelyartitionedtthe ametime ..] Whatevert s thatdefinesdentitynborderlessapitalismnd heglobalvillaget s notdeepgoingagreementsndeepgoingmatters,ut omethingoreike he ecurrenceffamil-iardivisions, ersistingrguments,tandinghreats,henotion hatwhateverlsemayhappen,he rder fdifference ust esomehowmaintainedGeertz 998,



21/27

254 GUILLENpp. 107-110). Like Geertz, ociologist nthonymith s skeptical ndnotes ninterestinginitial roblem ith he oncept f global ulture :Canwe speakof culture' n the ingular?f by culture' s meant collectivemodeof ife, ra repertoirefbeliefs, tyles, alues nd ymbols,henwe canonly peak fcul-tures, everust culture; or collectivemodeof ife .. .] presupposesifferentmodes ndrepertoiresna universefmodes ndrepertoires.ence, he dea of'global ulture's a practicalmpossibility,xceptn nterplanetaryerms Smith1990,p. 171).The ultimateuestion bout he lleged iseof a global ulture asto do withwhetherglobal anguagesemerging.hediffusionfEsperanto ascertainlyotdeliveredn early xpectations,nd the English-as-global-languagergumentseems quallyfar-fetchednd ndefensible. s Mazlish 1993, p. 16) observes,English isbecoming sort f ingua rancabut] here re serious imitationsotheuse of English s thedaily anguage fa global ulture.Moreover,nglishis being hallenged s thedominantanguagenparts ftheUnited tates ndtheUnitedKingdom. ven onthe nternet,ewerhan 0 percent fworld sersknowEnglish s a firstanguage,nd theproportions droppingteadilys thenewmedium iffuseshroughoutheworld.t s also instructiveo recall hat hemost uccessful orld anguage ver, atin, volved nto mosaicof Romancelanguages fterpreadingn tsvarious ulgarized orms hroughouthe erritoryoftheRoman mpire. mith 1990,pp. 185-86) notes hat, atherhan he mer-genceof a global ulture eldtogetherytheEnglish anguage,whatwe arewitnessings the mergencef culturereas -notnecessarilytoddsor ncon-flict ith achother,s Huntington1996) wouldhave t.Thus, panish, ussian,Arabic, rench, iswahili, ndChinese avebecome he haredanguagesf er-taingroups, ommunitiesrpopulationtrata cross ountriesocatednspecificregionsf heworld, amely,atinAmerica,heCIS, theArabworld,ubsaharanAfrica,astAfrica,ndSouth astAsia,respectively.

TOWARD A COMPARATIVE SOCIOLOGYOF GLOBALIZATIONThe social science iteraturenglobalizationontainsmportantheoreticalndempirical isagreements.cholars aveprovided ery ifferentnswers othe ivekeydebates iscussed nthis hapter.he balance fopinion ppears obetilted,however. ostresearch ither ssumes r documentshat lobalizations indeedhappening,ndmost mpiricaltudies-with henotablexceptionftheworld-society pproach-donotfindonvergencenpolitical, ocial,ororganizationalpatternss a result fglobalization.he most ersuasive mpirical ork o dateindicateshat lobalizationer e neither ndermineshenation-stateor rodestheviabilityf thewelfare tate. omeempiricalvidence lso documentshatglobalitys differentrommodernity.inally,t seemsthatno suchthing s aglobal ulturesemerging.



22/27

GLOBALIZATION 255Relative otheother ocialsciences, ociology as contributedo thedebateoverglobalizationn threemportantays.First,ocial theoristsavedeveloped

anunderstandingf he aturend pochal mplicationsfglobalization.lthoughtheres noagreements towhetherlobalizations a continuationfmodernityrnot, heres an ncipientody fwork hat utlinesndetailwhat re hemain he-oreticalerspectivesndproblems. oreover,ociologists ave alled ttentionothe ultural,eflexive,nd estheticspects fglobalizationnadditiono ts co-nomic ndpolitical imensionsAlbrow 997,Castells 996,Giddens 990,1991,Guillen 001,Robertson 992, klair 991,Waters 995).Second,world-societyscholars avedeveloped macrophenomenologicalpproach oglobalizationndthe ation-stateased na sound nstitutionalheoreticaloundation,nd hey avesupportedheir iewwithystematicmpiricalvidence ncompassinghe ntireworld Meyer Hannan 979,Meyer tal 1997).Third, omparativeociologistshave heorizedbout lobalization'sffectsn cross-nationalifferencend im-ilarity. heyhave also offeredmpiricalvidence n theforms fboth ich asestudies ndquantitativenalysesGuillen 001,Orru t al 1997).Sociologists,however,eed o continue eadinghemportantontributionshatconomic is-torians, anagementcholars, oliticalcientists,nd nthropologistsremakingtothe heoreticalndempiricaltudy fsucha complex ndmultifacetedhe-nomenonsglobalization.The analysisndcritique resentedn this hapterndicate hat lobalization,far romeing feeble henomenon,s changinghe aturef heworld. owever,it s neithern nvariablyivilizing orce or destructivene.Although urtherempiricalnvestigations warranted,heresalready noughvidence vailable oreject ither xtremeHeldetal 1999).Globalizations neither monolithicoran nevitablehenomenon.ts mpact aries cross ountries,ocietal ectors,ndtime.t scontradictory,iscontinuous,venhaphazard.herefore,neneeds obeopen-mindedbout tsunexpectedndunintendedonsequences. nealso needstotake nto ccount he ole hatgency,nterest,ndresistancelay nshapingt.AsPieterse1996,p. 556)haspointedut, lobalizationoesnotnecessarilyosea choicebetween ondemnationnd celebration.ather,tbegsto be engaged,comprised,iven ormGeertz 998).Thecomplexityfglobalizationertainlynvitesdditionalesearch.We are ngreat eed f urtherheoreticalork o larifyhe conomic, olitical,ultural,ndaesthetic imensionsfglobalizationndhowtheynteract ith achother.Wealsolacktheoreticalerspectiveshat ridgehemicro-macroap, .e. thatmoveacross evelsofanalysis romheworld-systemo thenation-state,he ndustry,sector,ommunity,rganization,ndgroup.Many f he mpiricalisagreementsinthe iteraturereprimarilyueto he ariousevels f nalysistwhich ifferentresearchersperate. nderstandinglobalization illrequire s togathermoreandbetter ata bouttsmyriadmanifestations,auses, nd ffects. estill nowvery ittle boutwhat xactly auses t and what re tsconsequences n suchkey ociological ariabless organizationalatterns,uthoritytructures,ocialinequality,ndsocialmovements,o namebut few.Andsociologists eedto



23/27

256 GUWLLENwork ard n governmentgencies ndother ata-gatheringrganizationsothatthey ay more ttentionn their urveysndcensuses orelationshipst variouslevels f ggregation.Given he nfancyfour ffortsounderstandlobalizationnd he omplexityofthe henomenon,t seems ensible oask notonly or n ntensificationfourinterdisciplinarywareness ut lso for comparativepproacho he ociology fglobalization. omparingies attheheart fthe ociological nterpriseSmelser1976, Tilly 1984). We need to engage n comparative ork n the dual senseofusingmultiplemethods f data collection nd analysis, nd of applying urtheoreticalndempiricalools o a varietyfresearchettingsefinedtvariouslevelsof analysis. he differencesndsimilaritiescross uch ettingsught ogive us a handleon thepatternsccordingo which hecauses and effects fglobalizationhange rom ne ettingo nother. ithoutcomparativepproach,the iteraturen globalizationromisesoremainspuzzlingnd ontradictorysthephenomenontself.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThisresearch asfunded y grantrom heJones entert theWhartonchooland a fellowshiprom he John imonGuggenheim emorial oundation.thank owardAldrich, iguelAngelCenteno, andallCollins, aulDiMaggio,Geoffreyarrett,liffordeertz,szterHargittai,itHenisz,Albert irschman,Evelyne uber, ohn imberly,teveKobrin,ruceKogut, ohnMeyer,MarshallMeyer, amesMittelman, alter owell,John tephens,andra uarez,GabrielSzulanski, drian schoegl,ndViviana elizer or elpfulommentsnd/ororproviding ewith arious eferences,nformation,nd ources. amalsogratefultomywork-studyesearchssistants nneChun, i Jun,ndGinaMok.

Visit heAnnualReviews ome ageatwww.AnnualReviews.orgLITERATURE ITEDAlbrowM. 1997. The GlobalAge. Stanford,CA: Stanford niv. ressAppadurai . 1996.Modernityt Large: Cul-tural Dimensions f Globalization.Min-neapolis:Univ.Minn. ressBaldwin E, Martin . 1999.Twowaves fglo-balization: uperficial imilarities,unda-mental ifferences.BER Work. ap. Ser.6904.Cambridge,A:Natl.BurEcon.Res.Bell D. [1973] 1976. The Comingof Post-Industrialociety. ew York:Basic BooksBerger . 1996. ntroduction.n NationalDi-

versilyndGlobalCapitalism,d. S Berger,R Dore,pp.1-25. thaca,NY: Cornell niv.PressBoyerR. 1996.Theconvergenceypothesise-visited: lobalizationut till he enturyfnations?n NationalDiversitynd GlobalCapitalism,d. S BergerndRDore,pp.29-59. Ithaca,NY: Cornell niv. ressCastellsM. 1996.TheRiseoftheNetworko-ciety. ambridge, A: BlackwellChoi SR, Park D, Tschoegl AE. 1996.Banks and the world's major banking



24/27

GLOBALIZATION 257centers, 990. Weltwirtsch.rch. 132(4):774-93

Cox RW. 1987.Production,ower nd WorldOrder: ocial Forces n theMaking fHis-tory. ew York:ColumbiaUniv. ressCox RW. 1992. Global Perestroika.n NewWorldOrder?TheSocialistRegister 992,ed. R Miliband, Panitch, p.26-43. Lon-don:MerlinCox RW. 1996.A perspectivenglobalization.In Globalization: ritical eflections,d. JHMittelman,p.21-30. Boulder, O: LynneRienner ubl.Deininger , SquireL. 1996. A new data setmeasuringncome nequality.World ankEcon.Rev.10:565-91Doremus N, KellerWW, Pauly W, ReichS. 1998.TheMyth f heGlobalCorporation.Princeton, J:Princetonniv. ressDreyer LE.1953.AHistoryfAstronomyromThales oKepler.New York: overDunningJH,ed. 1997. Governments,lob-alization, nd Internationalusiness.NewYork:Oxford niv. ressEvansP. 1997.Theeclipse f the tate?WorldPolit. 0:62-87Featherstone, ed. 1990.GlobalCulture.on-don:SageFligstein . 2001. s globalizationhe ause ofthecrisesof welfare tates?n The Archi-tecturefMarkets. rinceton,J:PrincetonUniv. ressFriedman .1994.CulturaldentityndGlobalProcess.London: ageGarrett . 1998.Partisan oliticsn theGlobalEconomy.New York: CambridgeUniv.PressGarrett . 1999.Trade, apitalmobilityndgovernmentpending round the world.Work. ap.,Dep. Polit. ci.,YaleUniv.Geertz . 1973.The nterpretationfCultures:Selected ssays.New York:BasicGeertzC. 1998. The world npieces:cultureandpoliticstthe nd f he entury.ocaal.Tijdschr. ntropol.2:91-117Gereffi . 1994. The organizationf buyer-driven lobal commodityhains. n Com-modityhains ndGlobalCapitalism,d.G

Gereffi, Korzeniewicz,p. 95-122. West-port, T: GreenwoodGerlachML. 1992.AllianceCapitalism: heSocial Organization f JapaneseBusiness.Berkeley, A: Univ.Calif.PressGiddens . 1990.TheConsequences fModer-nity. tanford,A: Stanford niv. ressGiddensA. 1991.Modernitynd Self-Identity.Cambridge, A: PolityGiddensA. 2000.RunawayWorld: owGlob-alization s Reshaping urLives.New York:RoutledgeGilpin . 1987.ThePolitical conomy fnter-national elations. rinceton, J:PrincetonUniv. ressGilpinR. 2000. TheChallenge fGlobal Cap-italism. rinceton,J: rinceton niv. ressGuidryJA,ennedy D, ZaldMN. 1999.Glo-balizations nd social movements.n Glob-alizations and Social Movements:Cul-ture, ower, nd the TransnationalublicSphere, d. JA Guidry, D Kennedy,MNZald, pp. 1-32. Ann Arbor:Univ. Mich.PressGuillenMF.2001. TheLimits fConvergence:GlobalizationndOrganizationalhangenArgentina,outhKorea, nd Spain. Prince-ton,NJ:Princeton niv. ressGuillenM, Suarez . 2001.Developinghen-ternet: ntrepreneurshipnd public policyin reland, ingapore, rgentina,ndSpain.

Telecommun.olicy 5. ForthcomingHargittai, CentenoMA,eds.2001.Mappingglobalization.m.Behav. ci. InpressHarvey . 1989. TheConditionfPostmoder-nity. xford: lackwellHeldD, McGrewA, Goldblatt, Perraton.1999. Global Transformations.tanford,CA: Stanford niv. ressHirsch M, FissPC. 2000.Framing lobaliza-tion: hebattle or efinitionsf a contestedissue.Work. ap. KelloggSch.,Northwest-ernUniv.Hirschman O. 1982. Rival nterpretationsfmarketociety: ivilizing,estructive,rfee-ble?J.Econ.Lit.20:1463-84Hirst , Thompson . 1996.GlobalizationnQuestion. ondon: olity



25/27

258 GUILLENHuber , Stephens D. 1999.Welfaretate ndproductionegimes n theera of retrench-

ment. ccas.Pap. No. 1, Sch.Soc. Sci., nst.Adv.Stud., rinceton,JHuntingtonP.1996.TheClashofCivilizationsandtheRemakingfWorld rder. ewYork:Simon& SchusterInglehartR, Baker WE. 2000. Moderniza-tion, ulturalhange, nd thepersistenceftraditionalalues.Am.Sociol.Rev. 65:19-51Kapstein B. 2000. Winners nd osers ntheglobal conomy.nt.Organ. 4:359-84Keck ME, SikkinkK. 1998. Activists e-yondBorders:Advocacy etworksn nter-national olitics.thaca,NY: CornellUniv.PressKennedy . 1993. Preparingor the Twenty-FirstCentury.ew York:RandomHouseKobrinSJ. 1997. The architecturef glob-alization: tate overeigntyn a networkedglobal conomy.n Governments,lobaliza-tion, nd nternationalusiness,d.JHDun-ning, p. 146-71. NewYork:Oxford niv.PressKrugman . 1994.Peddling rosperity. ewYork:NortonLevitt . 1983.The globalizationf markets.Harvard us. Rev. 1(3):92-102LouchH,Hargittai, CentenoMA. 1998.Whocalls whom?Networks nd globalization.Pap. pres.Annu.Meet.Am. Sociol. Assoc.,San FranciscoManderJ, Goldsmith, eds. 1996.The CaseAgainstheGlobalEconomy.an Francisco:Sierra lubMazlishB. 1993.An ntroductionoglobalhis-tory.nConceptualizinglobalHistory,d.B Mazlish,R Buultjens,p. 1-24. Boulder,CO: WestviewMcLuhan M. 1964. Understanding edia.London:RoutledgeMcLuhanM, FioreQ. 1967.TheMediums theMessage.London:AllenLaneMcMichaelP. 1996.DevelopmentndSocialChange:A Global Perspective. housandOaks,CA: PineForgeMeyer W,BoliJ,ThomasGM, Ramirez O.

1997.World ocietynd he ation-state.m.J.Sociol. 103(1):144-81MeyerJW,HannanMT. 1979.National eve-lopment n a changingworld system: noverview. n NationalDevelopmentndthe World ystem:ducational, conomic,and PoliticalChange,1950-1970, d. JWMeyer,MT Hannan,pp. 3-16. Chicago:Univ.ChicagoPressMittelman H. 1996.The dynamics fglob-alization. n Globalization: riticalReflec-tions, d. JHMittelman,p. 1-19. Boulder,

CO: Lynne iennerMittelmanH, d. 1996.Globalization: riticalReflections.oulder, O: Lynne iennerMittelman H. 2000. TheGlobalization yn-drome: Transformationnd Resistance.Princeton,J:Princeton niv. ressMosherM. 1999. BorderPatrols nd BorderCrossings: heSeductions fGlobalization.ManuscriptMurphyN. 1994. nternationalrganizationand ndustrial hange:Global Governancesince1850. NewYork:Oxford niv. ressNaisbittJ,burdene. 1990.Megatrends000.New York:MorrowOhmaeK. 1990.TheBorderlessWorld.NewYork:Harper usinessORiain . 2000. States ndmarketsnaneraofglobalization.nnu. ev. ociol.26:187-213Orrui , Biggart W,Hamilton G. 1997.TheEconomic rganizationfEast AsianCapi-talism. housand aks,CA: SagePanitch. 1996.Rethinkinghe ole f he tate.InGlobalization:ritical eflections,d. JHMittelman,p.83-113.Boulder, O: LynneRiennerPetrellaR. 1996. Globalization nd interna-tionalization.n States gainstMarkets: heLimitsof Globalization, d. R Boyer,DDrache, p.62-83. London:Routledge

Pierson . 1994.DismantlingheWelfaretate?Reagan,Thatcher,nd thePoliticsofRe-trenchment.ew York:CambridgeUniv.PressPieterseN. 996.Thedevelopmentfdevelop-mentheory:owardsritical lobalism. ev.Int.Polit. con.3(4):541-64



26/27

GLOBALIZATION 259Portes A. 1997. Globalization rombelow:the iseof ransnationalommunities. ork.

Pap. 98-08.Princeton,J:Cent.Migr. ev.Portes , Guarnizo E, Landolt . 1999.Thestudy f transnationalism:itfalls nd pro-mise of an emergent esearch ield.Ethn.Racial Stud. 2(2):217-37Poulantzas . 1974. Classes in ContemporaryCapitalism.ondon:New LeftBooksPritchett. 1997. Divergence, ig time. J.Econ.Perspect. 1(3):3-17Rapoport C. 1996.The importancefspaceinviolent thno-religioustrife.ationalismEthn. olit. (2):258-85ReichRB. 1991.TheWork f Nations.NewYork:KnopfRobertson. 1992.Globalization:ocialThe-ory ndGlobal Culture.ondon: ageRobertson . 1995. Globalization:ime-spaceand homogeneity-heterogeneity.n GlobalModernities,d. M Featherstone,Lash,RRobertson,p.25-44.London: ageRodrik . 1997.Has Globalization oneTooFar?Washington,C: Inst.nt.Econ.Sakamoto 1994.Aperspectiventhe hang-ing worldorder: conceptual relude. nGlobalTransformation,d. Y Sakamoto, p.15-54. New York:UN Univ. ressSakamoto ,ed. 1994.GlobalTransformation.NewYork:UN Univ. ressSassenS. 1991.TheGlobalCity. rinceton,J:Princetonniv. ressSassenS. 1996.LosingControl? overeigntyin an Age of Globalization.New York:ColumbiaUniv. ressSklair . 1991.Sociology f heGlobalSystem.NewYork:Harvester heatsheafSmelserNJ. 1976. ComparativeMethods ntheSocial Sciences.Englewood liffs, J:Prentice-HallSmithAD. 1990. Towards globalculture?Theory, ult. oc. 7:171-91Soskice D. 1998.Divergent roductionegi-mes: coordinatednduncoordinatedarketeconomiesnthe1980s nd 1990s. nConti-nuityndChange nContemporaryapital-ism, d.HKitschelt,p.101-34. New York:Cambridgeniv. ress

Stopford M,Strange . 1991.Rival tates, i-valFirms. ewYork: ambridge niv. ressStorperM, Salais R. 1997. Worlds f Pro-duction:The Action Frameworks f theEconomy. ambridge, A: HarvardUniv.PressStrange . 1996.TheRetreatfthe tate:TheDiffusionf Power n theWorld conomy.NewYork:Cambridge niv. ressStreeckW. 1991.Onthenstitutionalonditionsof diversifieduality roduction.n BeyondKeynesianism:heSocio-EconomicsfPro-

ductionndFullEmployment,d.EMatzner,W Streeck, p. 12-61.Hants,UK: EdwardElgarStryker. 1998.Globalizationnd hewelfarestate.nt.J.Sociol.Soc. Policy 8(2-4):1-49TempleJ. 1999. The new growthvidence. .Econ. Lit.37:112-56TillyC. 1984.Big Structures,argeProcesses,HugeComparisons. ewYork:Russell ageFound.Tilly C. 1992. Coercion,Capital, and Eu-ropeanStates,A.D. 990-1992.Cambridge:Basil BlackwellTschoeglAE. 1998.Countryndbank ourcesof nternationalompetitiveness:he aseoftheforeign xchangemarket.Work.Pap,Whartonchool,Univ. enn.Vernon . 1971. overeigntytBay.TheMulti-national pread of U.S. Enterprises. ewYork:Basic BooksVernon . 1998. n theHurricane's ye:TheTroubledrospects fMultinationalnter-prises.Cambridge, A: Harvard niv. ressWadeR. 1996.Globalizationnd ts imits: e-ports f thedeath fthenational conomyaregreatlyxagerated.nNational iversityandGlobalCapitalism,d. S Berger, Dore,pp.60-88. thaca,NY: Cornell niv. ressWallerstein. 1974.TheModernWorld-System.NewYork:Academic ressWatersM. 1995. Globalization.New York:RoutledgeWestern . 1997. BetweenClass and Mar-ket:PostwarUnionizationn theCapitalistDemocracies. rinceton,J: rincetonniv.Press



27/27

260 GUIILLENWilliamson G. 1996.Globalization,onver-gence, istory..Econ.Hist.56(2):277-306Yashar J.1999.Citizenshiplaims nd ndige-nousmovements:ontentiousolitics n anage ofglobalization. ork. ap.Dep. Polit.,Princeton niv.

Zelizer VA. 1999. Multiplemarkets:multi-ple cultures.n Diversity nd Its Discon-tents: ultural onflictndCommon roundin Contemporarymerican ociety, d. NJSmelser, Alexander, p. 193-212. Prince-ton,NJ:Princeton niv. ress

gullien globalization civilizing destructive or feeble

Documents