Search results

The study's objective is to examine the relevance of globalization in affecting the size of the shadow economy in selected African nations.

To do this, the authors employ the KOF globalization index and implement both static and dynamic common correlated mean group estimators on a panel of 24 African nations from 1995–2017. This technique accommodates the issue of cross-sectional dependence, sample bias and endogenous regressors. Panel threshold analysis is also conducted to establish the nonlinearity between globalization and the shadow economy. To examine the causality between the variables, the study employs Dumitrescu and Hurlin's panel causality test.

The results show that globalization reduces the size of the shadow economy. The results of the nonlinear analysis suggest a U-shaped relationship. Overall globalization has a threshold impact of 48.837%, economic globalization has 45.615% and political globalization has 66.661% while social globalization has a threshold value of 35.744%. The results of the panel causality show that there is a bidirectional causality between the two variables.

The results suggest that the government and other relevant authorities need to introduce capital controls and other policy measures to moderate the degree of social, political and cultural diffusion. Appropriate policies should be formulated to monitor the extent of African economic openness to other continents to maximize the gains from globalization.

Apart from being the first study in the African region that evaluates the relevance of globalization in controlling the shadow economy, it also analyzes the dynamics and threshold analysis between the two variables using advanced panel econometrics which makes the study unique. The study suggests that globalization tools are useful for affecting the size of the shadow economy in Africa. This study provides fresh empirical evidence on the impact of globalization on the shadow economy in the case of Africa.

Using composite indices, the paper examines the nexus between militarization, globalization and liberal democracy. The democratic peace theory, the conflict inhibiting effects of international trade – a key and dominant facet of globalization – and the democracy promoting globalization hypothesis form the theoretical underpinnings of the empirical investigation.

To probe into the issue at hand, the paper adopts a dynamic panel VAR estimation procedure. Given the usual data constraints, the sample consists of 113 countries, and the estimations span the period 1995–2019.

The findings from the dynamic panel VAR estimations suggest the presence of a negative and statistically significant nexus between the level of globalization and the level of militarization. No statistically traceable nexus between globalization and liberal democracy was found.

The findings offer empirical support to the hypothesis that the strong links of interdependence shaped by globalization reduce the need for military preparedness. The results lead to a tentative inference in favor of the doux commerce thesis. Nonetheless, given that the estimations span a historically specific period – the entire post-bipolar era – the inferences that stem from the findings should be treated with caution.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, the composite indices Bonn International Centre for Conflict Studies (BICC) militarization index, the globalization index of the Swiss Economic Institute (Konjunkturforschungsstelle) (KOF), LibDem, polyarchy have not hitherto been jointly used in previous studies to examine the nexus between militarization, globalization and liberal democracy.

This study aims to investigate current deglobalization against globalization and to hypothesize reasons and drivers of deglobalization. In addition, the study suggests an empirical model to test whether deglobalization exists in the world economy. The consequences of deglobalization are discussed.

Various measures for deglobalization are introduced for monitoring the deglobalization of a country, and statistical measures are reported. The research framework for deglobalization and empirical models are suggested. The relationship between deglobalization and globalization is being modeled using three KOF globalization indexes: economic, political and societal. This study used panel data from 1970 to 2017 for developed and developing countries to determine the degree of deglobalization.

Deglobalization has been found empirically since the global financial crisis. Deglobalization is estimated by the decreasing trend of import share in a country's gross domestic product and is influenced by manufacturing imports, country's income divide and political globalization. Both economic and societal globalizations have negative influence on deglobalization. Deglobalization is more apparent in developed countries than in developing countries, and the deglobalization trend will continue in diverse formats.

This study limits the use of few variables to test the antecedents of deglobalization. Another study can be done to extend preceding variables and estimate the consequences of deglobalization, which may segregate the globalization effect. The international business executive should understand the complexity of deglobalization and consider business benefits and risks to be encountered.

This study used panel data from 1970 to 2017 for developed and developing countries to determine the degree of deglobalization.

By using the annual time series data from 1986 to 2008 in South Korea (hereafter Korea) we will examine the possibility that the difference in trade liberalization is causal to the differentials in growth and measure the sensitivity of growth to changes in trade liberalization. For the estimation, we will use both alternative measures of trade liberalization; imports for the total factor cost of national income for trade openness (hereafter openness) and the sum of exports and imports for the total factor cost of national income for trade globalization (hereafter globalization). The regression results suggest that both openness and globalization make a substantial contribution towards Korea’s economic growth. In a comparison between these two indicators of trade liberalization, openness is more sensitive to growth. A negative and statistically significant error correction term implies that the null hypothesis of no co-integration is rejected when one period lag is used. The existence of co-integration means that openness and globalization policies can be targeted in order to bring about a desired long-run effect as well as a short run effect on growth.

Busan (Pusan), Korea’s second largest city (population 3.6 million) and fifth busiest port in the world, is experiencing rapidly increasing trade, global connections, events, and resulting infrastructural projects. What should Busan do to better handle the social, political, and economic complexities brought by these changes?

To answer this question, this paper explores the relationship of globalization and culture, as treated by cultural anthropology. It also considers how the tools of applied social science and anthropology can be mobilized to help Busan and the southeast region of Korea deal with these challenges.

After introducing anthropological treatments of culture, globalization and global problems, I discuss how applied social science/anthropology is used in international business/trade, tourism, and transport/logistics, especially the third area. To show how applied social science can help transportation and logistics projects in Busan and Korea, I present lessons from case studies and examples in Denver, Colorado Springs, Chuuk (Truk, South Pacific), and Korea.

Applied social science and applied anthropology present a wealth of helpful methods and insights to help Busan and Korea improve planning, public participation, political, social and environmental issues in transport and logistics projects, and to help prevent ethical and budgetary lapses. Finally, I offer suggestions for initial training programs and future studies to help expedite these goals.

The purpose of this paper is to propose policy recommendations that resort to the domestic market to achieve inclusive growth from an open perspective.

How will economic globalization based on domestic demand affect economic growth and income distribution in an open and large country? With the aim of discussing the mechanism of the impact of expanding domestic demand on the inclusive growth from an open perspective, this paper incorporates the Global Value Chains vs National Value Chains (GVC-NVC) competition, which is triggered by foreign investments attracted by the domestic demand scale into an endogenous growth model with “Schumpeterian Innovation.”

Theoretical analysis indicates the following findings: although domestic demand-based economic globalization can promote transnational inclusive growth across countries, it is not conducive to national (domestic) inclusive growth; the impacting effect of domestic demand scale on inclusive growth across countries is subject to the moderating effect of the development maturity of the labor market; and the impacting effect of domestic demand scale on national inclusive growth is subject to the joint moderating effect of the development maturity of the labor market and labor skill structure.

First, this paper examines the impact of domestic demand-based economic globalization on the inclusiveness of economic growth from an open perspective, which deepens the existing theory of intra-product specialization and inclusive growth. Second, the paper puts the sequential production process into Schumpeterian growth model and reveals the mechanism that domestic demand affects inclusive growth. Third, the study finds that the enhancement of labor market efficiency, transfer payments to low-skilled labor and the creation of a fair competitive market environment will contribute to the globalization of a domestic demand-oriented economy, which provides a policy-making basis for government sectors.

This study aims to analyse the impact of digital divide (DD) on income inequality in sub-Saharan Africa over the period 2004–2016.

In applying a finite mixture model (FMM) to a sample of 35 sub-Saharan African (SSA) countries, this study posits that DD affects income inequality differently.

The findings show that the effect of DD on income inequality varies across two distinct groups of countries, which differ according to their level of globalization. In addition, the study shows that most globalized countries are more inclined to be in the group where the effect of DD on income inequality is negative. The results are consistent with several robustness checks, including alternative measures of income inequality and additional control variables.

This study complements that extant literature by assessing linkages among the DD, globalization and income inequality in sub-Saharan African countries contingent on cross-country heterogeneity.

To realise the shared development of the digital economy, people need to transcend the capital logic and advocate the logic of cooperative development, i.e. “co-construction, benefit-sharing and co-governance”. This study aims to discuss the aforementioned statement.

Platform economy is a new economic form produced by the transformation of the social production patterns in the era of digital capitalism. In the neo-imperialist stage, a new stage of capitalist development, capital logic promotes the global expansion of the platform economy and influences its development process, organisational form, contradictions and dilemmas and internal transcendence. Having the spatiotemporal chain of capital circulation repaired, the globalisation of the platform economy is reshaping how the means of production are combined with labour, affecting the local changes in the general relations of production and “international relations of production”.

In the accumulation of digital capitalism, the social contradictions and fundamental contradictions in the capitalist world have been further intensified, making exploitation, income distribution gap, monopoly and other problems increasingly severe. The imbalance and inequality in the global development of the digital economy are increasingly prominent.

Regarding the global governance of the digital economy, China, as a major responsible country, will strive to encourage all countries to co-build a community with a shared future in cyberspace. In the new international development pattern of digital economy globalisation, China must take effective measures to actively safeguard its national security and development interests to meet specific challenges.

This paper attempts to investigate through empirical exercise how the chances of female employment opportunities rise in a developing country like India, against the backdrop of changes in institutions that are associated with globalization.

The paper develops a simultaneous equation model through a growth equation, gender equation and globalization equation to identify the factors impacting female labor market opportunities in India, based on annual time series data 1991–2019.

The major results of this study are as follows: (1) It is social globalization that positively impacts gender equality in employment opportunities apart from economic growth and trade diversification; (2) Evidence of “feminization of labor force” in the context of trade diversification is found; and (3) Equal gender opportunities reflect in equalizing outcomes in the labor market.

Growth strategies need to be constructed in such a way in India that it has redistributive implications and benefits women. The state agency needs to optimize the productive base of human resources and increase women's empowering capability through social and legal sanctions.

The uniqueness of the present paper lies in contributing to the existing literature on how gender inequality impacts trade diversification and how trade diversification impacts gender.

This article aims to explain the role of philosophical anchors and research paradigms in business research, and how they can be extrapolated in the transformative era of automation, digitalization, hyperconnectivity, obligations, globalization and sustainability (ADHOGS) in the midst of disruption, volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity (DVUCA).

This article entails a general review based on the 3Es of exposure, expertise and experience, delving into the ontological, epistemological, methodological, axiological and rhetorical aspects of the major research paradigms—i.e. positivism, post-positivism, constructivism, interpretivism and pragmatism—and their interplay with the emergent trends shaping business research.

This article underscores the multifaceted nature of business research in the modern day, with an increasing need for blending, or shifting between, research paradigms to address the complex issues arising from automation, digitalization, hyperconnectivity, obligations, globalization and sustainability (ADHOGS). This article also highlights the nuanced interplay between research paradigms and theoretical perspectives, demonstrating the rich, diverse potential of business research inquiries.

While this article provides a broad overview of the interplay between research paradigms and emerging trends, future research could explore each of these interplays in greater detail, conducting empirical studies or utilizing specific case studies.

Researchers and practitioners should be open to adopting, combining or switching between different paradigms according to the demands of their research questions, context and trends shaping the business landscape, thereby underscoring the need for methodological flexibility and reflexivity in business research.

The shift toward embracing digital transformations and integrating sustainability in business research holds significant implications, driving socially responsible and sustainable business practices at the micro-level, and by extension, industrial revolution and sustainable development at the macro-level.

This article offers a holistic and contextualized view of the philosophy of science and research paradigms for business research, bridging the gap between philosophical foundations and contemporary research trends.