Search results

We suggest that globalization, a process that fosters greater interdependence and mutual awareness among actors around the world in their economic, political, social, and cultural interactions, will also decrease the social distance among them and thus increase individuals' propensities to cooperate with distal others. We demonstrate in a multi-country public goods experiment that among the four domains of individual participation in globalization, economic participation in globalization has the least effect in prompting cooperation. Conversely, the other three domains of globalization have strong effects on individual cooperation, and this is robust to different specifications of the econometric model.

Still recently, one could read that social constructivism as a paradigm in sociology has yet generated no substantive theory of globalization (Risse, 2007). The argument was that even though social constructivism could certainly contribute to our understanding of globalization, notably by stressing the role of language and cultural norms in the organization of collective activities on a world scale, it could not satisfactorily account in its own terms for the entire phenomena under examination, due to the fact that globalization is not solely or even primarily about language and cultural norms. The exposition of such a position in the academic literature is worth mentioning, indeed even significant, if only for the reason that it occurred in a collection of essays edited by David Held and Anthony McGrew, who have done so much over the past decade to establish globalization studies as a solid research field, all at once theoretically sophisticated and empirically informed, with the publication of a long series of books on Global transformations (Held, McGrew, Golblatt, & Perraton, 1999; Held, 2004a, 2004b; Held & McGrew, 2002, 2003, 2007a, 2007b; Held & Kaya, 2007; Held & Koenig-Archibugi, 2003; see also McGrew & Lewis, 1992; Held, 1995). In spite of such credentials, the present article aims directly at challenging and overcoming this position by developing what would be the basis or the framework for a full-fledged social constructivist theory of globalization. Admittedly, this requires us to redefine globalization in a fundamental manner. Such a transformation is possible when one turns toward a new kind of social constructivism: Niklas Luhmann's radical constructivism as grounded in his systems theory (Luhmann, 2002; see also Luhmann, 1982a, 1989, 1990, 1995, 2000a, 2000b). I contend that globalization is neither a process of social change nor a historical set of forces of transformation having to do with the way human beings shape space through their collective activities; rather, globalization is one of contemporary society's self-descriptions.

The authors aim to examine the relationship between home bias and globalization while specifically examining the effects of the different dimensions of globalization (social, economic and political) for both developed countries and developing countries. Additionally, the authors test the effect of globalization regulation and laws against actual globalization activities.

This study investigates the influence of globalization on the home bias phenomenon using a panel regression and a three-dimensional globalization index (social, economic and political globalization) of 42 developed and developing countries from 2001 to 2016.

The results show that globalization significantly reduces home bias. In addition, the authors find that social globalization has a key influence compared to economic globalization and that political globalization has the weakest effect. For developing economies only, economic globalization as well as globalization laws and regulations have a crucial impact on the level of home bias.

Prior studies focus merely on the aspect of financial integration. Our study provides a more comprehensive outlook by distinguishing between the features of globalization (social, economic and political) as well as the actual globalization activities (de facto) compared to the laws and regulations enabling those actives (de jure). Lauterbach and Reisman (2004) show that globalization reduces home bias through a theoretical model. This study provides empirical merit to their work. In addition, we examine the different aspects of globalization for both emerging and developed markets.

Aim of the present monograph is the economic analysis of the role of MNEs regarding globalisation and digital economy and in parallel there is a reference and examination of some legal aspects concerning MNEs, cyberspace and e‐commerce as the means of expression of the digital economy. The whole effort of the author is focused on the examination of various aspects of MNEs and their impact upon globalisation and vice versa and how and if we are moving towards a global digital economy.

The purpose of this study is to examine the impact of globalization and its multiple dimensions on human rights in Sub-Saharan Africa.

The study extends the Poe and Tate (1994) model, which enumerates the various determinants of human rights. Ordered probit estimation is used to estimate the impact of globalization and its dimensions. For the purpose of empirical analysis, the period has been divided into three phases: short, medium and long term. This helps in understanding how the impact of the different dimensions of globalization has evolved over a period of time. Furthermore, analysis has been carried out to detect causality between human rights and globalization.

As per the results, overall globalization and social dimension of globalization do have a positive impact on human rights in long and medium term and, also, Granger-cause human rights. The political dimension of globalization has a positive relation with human rights, though there exists no causality between the two. On the other hand, the economic dimension of globalization fails to have a statistically significant impact on human rights. Impact of the social dimension of globalization dominates that of other dimensions of globalization.

This is one of the few studies that examine, in an empirical fashion, the impact of globalization on human rights in Sub-Saharan Africa.

In accounting, several studied Arab countries are keen to acquire the dominant Western thinking categories that justify and normalize the exerted domination, especially when it comes to globalized practices. This paper aims to challenge this assumption by examining the dynamics of globalization and its effects through new theoretical perspectives and through new empirical terrain.

It builds on the concept of “globalization from below”, which emerges from the network of individual development of daily routines, systems and practices, far from international institutions pressure. It uses social representation theory to inform the centrality of a particular social group. The study uses a survey, which was on a sample group of 214 Tunisian public accountants and uses the hierarchical evocation method and an attitudinal scale.

The results are twofold: first, Tunisian public accounts lack a stable and common understanding to globalization; second, there are ambivalent positive/negative attitudes towards globalization among accounting professionals.

The dynamic Tunisian context, along with the absence of a stable collective meaning to the concept of globalization among accountants, shows the complexity of such cases, vacillating between international institutions’ domination and the emergence of emancipatory accounting practices inspired by and developed for local socioeconomic entities, if supported by specific factors.

The purpose of this paper is to show how different philosophical schools of thought view the relation between globalization and culture differently.

This paper places the existing philosophical schools of thought into four broad categories: functionalist, interpretive, radical humanist, and radical structuralist. This paper then shows how each of these four broad categories view the relation between globalization and culture differently.

This paper finds that the functionalist paradigm views globalization and culture as universal, the interpretive paradigm views globalization and culture as particular, the radical humanist paradigm views globalization and culture as a domination ideology, and the radical structuralist paradigm views globalization and culture as causing conflict between classes.

This paper assumes that each school of thought can be located in one of the four broad categories of philosophical schools of thought. However, this may not be applicable to each and every philosophical school of thought.

This paper implies that one would benefit by becoming familiar with other ways of seeing the same phenomenon. This paper shows that the relation between globalization and culture can be viewed at least from four different vantage points and therefore one would have a better understanding of the relation between globalization and culture if one becomes familiar with all four different view points.

The contribution of this paper is the advice that in the era of globalization it is better for people to become open‐minded because different people from different parts of the world have different perspectives and the best way to be able to live together is to learn about how others think.

The purpose of the research is to determine the social consequences of economic globalization based on experience of developed and developing countries and to determine the perspectives of optimization of this process through regulation.

The research method is correlation analysis, for it allows determining dependencies between the indicators without requirements to their close mutual dependence. The research objects are top ten developed and top ten developing countries as to the KOF globalization index in 2019.

It is determined that, contrary to high economic risks, social risks of globalization are very low. Instead of this, in the course of globalization the social advantages increase – they are expressed in the form of harmonization of the labor market, development of digital society and increase of population's quality of life – in particular, provision of balance of the global society by leveling the social disproportions between developed and developing countries. It is substantiated that consequences that stimulate the increase of population's quality of life in developing countries are more expressed than in developed countries. This means that developing countries, which are traditionally more inclined to limiting the influence of globalization on them due to economic reasons, have to reconsider their foreign economic policy and include the measures on stimulation of globalization in the interests of social development. Other than that, the differences in consequences for developed and developing countries are minimal. There is no imbalance of consequences that is peculiar for the economic sphere, in which the main advantages are obtained by developed countries, and developing countries bear most of the costs. From the social point of view, globalization could be characterized as a positive phenomenon of modern times.

The offered authors' recommendations will allow optimizing the influence of globalization on the social environment in developed and developing countries and ensuring usage of economic globalization as a mechanism of implementation of the global goals in the sphere of sustainable development.

For sociological perspectives on globalization to do justice to its many facets, they must be informed by an understanding of modern societies as simultaneously complex, contingent, and contradictory – as modern capitalist societies. As is becoming ever more apparent, such an understanding of modern societies is the necessary precondition for identifying the defining features of globalization. Yet, for the most part, the history of the social sciences did not produce research agendas, theories, and methods designed to grasp complexity, contingency, and contradiction as core dimensions of modern social life that continually reinforce each other. The social sciences did not evolve as ongoing efforts to grasp the gravity each dimension exerts on concrete forms of political, economic and cultural life, and how the force of each depends on the constant exchange of energy with the other two. To the extent that scrutinizing the impact of globalization on the future – and possible futures – of human civilization is the primary challenge for social scientists to confront today, the current condition presents a unique, and perhaps most unusual opportunity to conceive anew the promise of each and all the social sciences, as elucidating how the complex, contingent, and contradictory nature of modern societies, in the name of advancing social justice, has engendered a regime of managing “social problems.”

For perspectives on globalization to do justice to its many facets, they must be informed by an understanding of modern societies as simultaneously complex, contingent, and contradictory – as modern capitalist societies. As is becoming ever more apparent, such an understanding of modern societies is the necessary precondition for identifying the defining features of globalization. Yet, for the most part, the history of the social sciences did not produce research agendas, theories, and methods designed to grasp complexity, contingency, and contradiction as core dimensions of modern social life that continually reinforce each other. The social sciences did not evolve as ongoing efforts to grasp the gravity each dimension exerts on concrete forms of political, economic, and cultural life, and how the force of each depends on the constant exchange of energy with the other two. To the extent that scrutinizing the impact of globalization on the future – find possible futures – of human civilization is the primary challenge for social scientists to confront today, the current condition presents a unique, and perhaps most unusual opportunity to conceive anew the promise of each and all the social sciences, as elucidating how the complex, contingent, and contradictory nature of modern societies, in the name of advancing social justice, has engendered a regime of managing “social problems.”