Search results

The purpose of the article is to analyze the contradictory trends in the development of the modern world economic system. The relevance of the topic is due to the multifaceted and ambiguous nature of regionalization, glocalization and fragmentation tendencies formed as the most important trends in the crisis of globalism.

Based on the classical methods of historical and functional analysis, system approach and comparative studies, the authors realized the research potential of modern methodological tools, alternative forecasting methods and comparative modeling, as well as special methods of economic globalistics and global political economy. Heuristic possibilities of the methodological–theoretical concept of glocalization of international economic relations are used.

New directions and opportunities for attaining regional and global geo-economic leadership are revealed and demonstrated. It is justified that glocalization does not lead to economic isolation in previously known historical forms but to priority realization of the interests of local economic entities included in the processes of globalization and subordinated to its patterns. Glocalization causes an increase in the role of local factors in the global development of the society, in particular of the global economy.

It is established that the so-called equilibrium zones (enjoying the advantages of an intermediary role in the interrelationships of large areas of the world economy, which are headed by geo-economic leaders) possess the potential for novelty in the dynamics of a globalizing economy. The article predicts the formation of a multidimensional and multilevel geo-economic multipolarity due to the reshaping of the global system of leadership in the world economy and due to the contradictory competitive relationships of its main centers.

This introduction frames the papers in this volume with a brief critique of how and why the dominant approaches to understanding world affairs obscure our understanding of the chief developments that have marked our age, and a discussion of the resources geopolitical economy can draw on to address the resulting deficiencies of understanding. It then goes on to discuss how the papers that follow demonstrate the gains from putting the geopolitical economy framework to work. They interrogate and challenge conventional wisdom in three broad areas – the international monetary system, world trade and the requirements for successful combined development historically and today, when China’s own stunning combined development confronts other developing countries with new possibilities and constraints. The introduction closes with some necessarily brief reflections on the vast agenda for future research and discussion that remains to be tackled.

This introduction to the essays that follow argues that the chief problem with the dominant understanding of world affairs in the disciplines of International Relations and International Political Economy, including their Marxist versions, is an a historical, non-contradictory and economically cosmopolitan conception of capitalism. In their place, geopolitical economy is a new approach which returns to the conception of capitalism embodied in the culmination of classical political economy, Marxism. It was historical in two senses, distinguishing capitalism as a historically specific mode of social production involving by value production and understanding that its contradictions drive forward capitalism’s own history in a central way. This approach must further develop and specify uneven and combined development as the dominant pattern in the unfolding of capitalist international relations, one that is constitutive of its component states themselves. Secondly, it must understand the logic of the actions undertaken by capitalist states as emerging from the struggles involved in the formation of capitalist states and from the contradictions that are set in train once capitalism is established. Finally, it must see in the ways that class and national struggles and resulting state actions have modified the functioning of capitalism the possibilities of replacing the disorder, contestation and war that are the spontaneous result of capitalism for international relations the basis for a cooperative order in relations between states, an order which can also be the means for realising the permanent revolution and solidifying its gains on the international or world plane.

This chapter provides fresh insight into the lives of Generation Z in Turkey, who are described as the generation born after 1995. The chapter uses secondary information harvested from academic and popular literature, and national statistics. In addition, results from a quantitative survey conducted among 237 Generation Z members in Turkey and insights gathered from a qualitative study based on semi-structured interviews performed with 12 individuals from Generation Z have been utilised. Understanding Generation Z in Turkey is challenging because the effects of fast digitalisation, cultural globalisation, and new challenges in attaining high-quality education and finding good jobs are not yet fully known. This chapter offers insights on Turkish Generation Z, including but not limited to their (1) future-orientation, (2) multipolarity of selves, (3) identity as consumers, and (4) perceived challenges regarding future work life.

The purpose of this paper is to examine processes of Eurasian integration and the veritable ‘culture war’ between Russia and the West over it, while contributing to the theoretical paradigm of geopolitical economy. This paradigm invites us to consider the multiple manifestations of an emerging multipolar world order while scrutinising the extent to which previously popular approaches to the study of international political economy were themselves enmeshed in projects, the architects of which aspired to global hegemony.

The paper employs critical historicism, an approach in which cultural difference is seen as the sedimentation of historically constituted material and ideational processes and which eschews cultural essentialism and orientalising tropes. It is through this lens that Russian state attempts at normalising Eurasian integration processes are examined.

I demonstrate that Russian state organs and officials, as well as ‘political technologists’ attempt to de-politicise processes of Eurasian integration by appealing to both the logic of cultural/civilisational compatibility of affected parties, as well as the logic of economic integration. Such portrayals invite scrutiny; however, it is important that we also consider how Eurasian integration initiatives are the product of a post-Soviet struggle over Eurasian space but represent something more than mere neo-Soviet revisionism.

The paper demonstrates its originality by situating ongoing processes of Eurasian integration within the longer post-Soviet conjuncture and amid processes of international contestation. Moreover, it situates Russian officials and political technologists as active contributors to international debates about the emerging multipolar world order.

The contemporary business environment for public companies is much more multinational and multicultural than at any previous time. It is now driven by complex economic, political, technological and demographic forces such as these six: multipolarity eclipses globalization; the internet of things; corporate business model; uncertainty; privacy, big data and alternative data; and shifting demographics. The communication function has been central to this transformation.

The corporate communication international (CCI) studies have revealed three periods of transformation, namely, the focus, practices, perceptions, and the strategic aim of corporate communication to establish coherence by managing the messages reflects a top-down mind-set of communicating from the corporation to its stakeholders. The CCI study data indicated that the approaches to communication started changing; the fragmented media landscape of businesses reveals an awakening of a new kind of corporate communication whose aim is not to control and order, but to endure and to accept the “truth” being constantly challenged.

Findings from the CCI practices and trends studies validate the field’s strategic role in engagement and amplification of corporate messaging. Forces that have an impact on the practice of corporate communication include continuation of rapid changes, unintended consequences of changing reporting structures, core functions remain unchanged Budget and staff increases reflect economic confidence, Search for talent, Integrity, Core competencies focus on “business acumen” to drive corporate value, Employee engagement to build corporate culture, “Counsel to the CEO” suffers as the role of the communication officer changes.

Corporate Communication Practices and Trends studies underscore corporate communication as a strategic management function and, increasingly, as a strategic business partner for the enterprise. The integration of marketing and communication in many corporations, changes the corporate communication function. This special issue of the Journal of Business Strategy is focused on the transformation of corporate communication strategy. Six experts share their perspectives.