




























Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
Globalization has a number of characteristics that are neither negative nor positive. It is not about the destruction of the locality in favour of.
Typology: Lecture notes
1 / 36
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
I NTRODUCTION
The intention of this chapter is to examine the notions or concepts of globalization and localization, and to explore them with reference to sustainable development. In this way, hopefully, it will clarify the utility of globalization and localization as concepts that are designed to throw fresh perceptions on change at the local level, set against the transition to sustainability. The following questions have guided this analysis:
This chapter will look first at the theories of globalization and some of the counter evidence. Second, it will examine the literature on locality and how this can be conceptualized, as well as at the relationships between the global and the local. Finally, it will examine the implications of looking at the pathways to sustainability.
GLOBALIZATION
Globality, globalization, globalism – these are all ambiguous words that have come into common usage since the 1960s, but have only been part of the social science vocabulary since the early 1980s. Despite the relative newness of this language, it abounds in the literature on international
relations, sociology and human geography and is creeping into the lexicon of social scientists studying the nature of global environmental change. However, the definition of these terms is often left unstated. Globalization through popular interpretations (journalistic and media representations) is a process of primarily economic, but also social and political, change that encompasses the planet, resulting in greater homogeneity, hybrid- ization and interdependence – a ‘global enmeshment’ (Hurrell and Woods,
constrained by existing social science disciplines. Taylor (1996) has suggested that a new social science beyond disciplinary boundaries can be created. Globalization has presented a challenge to social sciences which are embedded in the notion of a nation state (Taylor, 1996; Yearley, 1996; Robertson, 1992, especially Chapter 6). The response has occurred in two stages. Initially, the aim was to reform- ulate models. Then, more radically, there was a move towards inter- disciplinarity – with the development of global referents at the periphery of the social sciences (culture studies) – and transdisciplinarity, with new frameworks that attempt to transcend the existing disciplines (for example, urban studies which focus on global cities). There is a discourse of global- ization, and a very influential rhetoric about the changes encompassed by it. But what globalization actually means is very difficult to pin down. There is more than one process, more than one globalizing world, and a multitude of possible explanations.
Theoretically, there are many precursors to the concept of globalization. Three of the main approaches are: world-systems theory, globalization as an outcome of modernity and globalization as a dual process which centres around culture.
Globalization from the perspective of a world system is associated largely with the work of Immanuel Wallerstein. His world-systems theory is involved principally with the global capitalist economy and combines a sociological and historical look at its development and maintenance, arguing that it is created by a single ‘division of labour’ – more complex, extensive, detailed and cohesive than ever before. This body of work posits that the world system consists of three worlds: a centre or core, a semi- periphery and a periphery. There are many criticisms of this approach (see Bergesen, 1990), but the most pertinent is that it represents only a mono- causal explanation of globalization. Other theorists have emphasized it more tellingly as a multidimensional process. It can also be criticized as being an historical rather than a theoretical description of a ‘unique historical process’ (Milton, 1996, p145). The same criticism can be levelled at the international relations world-system model, which holds that there is a global political network, created by the increasing interdependency of sovereign states and the consequent proliferation of intergovernmental organizations. Although at one time this process was seen as leading towards a world state, this is now not an assumption that can be supported, even as a theoretical abstraction.
[I]n a general way, the concept of globalization is best understood as expressing fundamental aspects of time–space distanciation [namely,
the conditions under which time and space are organized]. Global- ization concerns the intersection of presence and absence, the interlacing of social events and social relations ‘at distance’ with local contextualities. We should grasp the global spread of modernity in terms of an ongoing relation between distanciation and the chronic mutability of local circumstances and local engagements... globaliz- ation has to be understood as a dialectical phenomenon (Giddens, 1991, p22–23).
Globalization can thus be defined as the intensification of world-wide social relations which link distant localities in such a way that local happenings are shaped by events occurring many miles away and vice versa... Local transformation is as much a part of globalization as the lateral extension of social connections across time and space (Giddens, 1990, p64, quoted in Waters, 1996, p50).
Giddens (1990, p7) puts social relations at the centre of his analysis, which comprises four areas: the world capitalist economy, the nation-state system, the world military order and the international division of labour. These, he argues, relate to his four institutional dimensions of modernity within which the processes of globalization take place: capitalism, surveillance, military power and industrialism. Giddens (1990, pp55–56) sees capitalism and industrialism as two different dimensions. Capitalism relates owners to capital wage labour; industrialism applies to the link between people and the natural world, including the environment. In this analysis it is modern institutions, such as money, that are globalizing as they disembed mechanisms, lifting relations out of local contexts and enabling them to take place across the globe in a manner that was previously regarded as inconceivable. Criticisms of this approach centre on the complexity of this multi- dimensionality, as well as its failure to provide any specific implications that arise from these globalizing processes, rendering it a ‘descriptive, nominalistic definition approach to global-level phenomenon’ (Yearley, 1996, p16). For Robertson (1992, p145), globalization is not just an outcome of the Western project of modernity as Giddens claims. Giddens is also criticized for not taking cultural matters seriously enough.
Milton (1996, p215) has examined the theoretical approaches to global- ization from the perspective of culture, defined as ‘consisting of everything we know, think and feel about the world’. She distinguishes between those who refer to globalization as the way the world is seen or imagined, defined as cultural phenomenon, and those who refer to events going on in the world, which although dialectically related to culture are not part of it. The two approaches already discussed are the latter, whereas Robertson (1992, p8) treats globalization as occurring both outside and inside culture: ‘Globalization as a concept refers both to the compression of the world and the intensification of consciousness of the world as a whole.’
diverse perceptions of the global. Deglobalization, that is, attempts to undo the compression of the world, is ‘encapsulated within the discourse of globality’ (Robertson, 1992, p10) as a result of an emphasis on the cultural. Deglobalization is in opposition to ‘globalism’, a negative term for the intention and desire to make more global, otherwise described as ‘one- worldism’. For Milton (1996), Robertson’s model provides a framework in which to examine how environmentalism can be transformed into a cultural phenomenon, namely ‘transcultural discourse’. This is a second-order communication that crosses cultural boundaries. However, it is still not clear what globalization is from this discussion and how it relates to experiences of ‘globalizing processes’ at the local level. It does indicate, though, that culture is a crucial dimension to any examination of global- ization and is integral to the discourse of sustainability.
A global culture has been characterized as an ‘extrapolation from recent Western cultural experiences of “postmodernism”’ (Smith, 1990, pp176– 177). Smith argues that assertions of a global culture are premature because the meanings of images communicated through worldwide telecommun- ications networks, as mechanisms of a global culture, are still created by the historical experiences and social status of the populations receiving them. The globe does not possess the collective cultural identity required for common perception and understanding. In other words, national cultures do exist as derived from historic experiences, but ‘a global culture is essentially memoryless’ if perceived in national terms (Smith, 1990, p179). Arguments for the existence of a global culture seem to suggest that the structural changes of economic globalization will bring about the conditions, impetus and content of a global culture (Waters, 1995). Smith believes such arguments fall foul of economic determinism and disregard the role of shared experiences and memories in creating identity and culture. He also demonstrates that the nationalistic project is still in evidence through cultural competition, as can be seen by the recent disintegration of Yugoslavia and the recreation of separate nations on ethnic lines. The idea of nationhood is strong for ‘threatened’ communities, by which he refers to communities who feel excluded, neglected or suppressed in the distribution of values and opportunities. Alternatively threatened communities may be suffering from a lack of social cohesion, particularly in the face of a take-over from another culture. Nationhood, therefore, holds within its meaning the commitment to the idea of a national society; it contains the ‘aspirations for collective autonomy, fraternal unity, and distinctive identity’ (Smith, 1990, pp181, 185). As a result, nationalism looks set to continue rather than to diminish. Smith (1990) continues with this theme. He believes that we are entering a phase of ‘cultural areas’ which are not constructed, nor necessarily directed or intentional, but are the result of historical circumstances. Paradoxically, these may be a form of nationalism linked to the political
goals of peace and economic prosperity for nations, creating ‘pan-nationalisms’ based around common cultural characteristics (political idealism, instit- utions, rights and moral principles). European cooperation can been seen as an expression of this. However, cultural areas, as a loose and casual collection of cultural elements, are not a challenge to the national cultures, nor do they equate to the pursuit of a global culture in the face of the stronger pursuit of competition between cultures. For Robertson (1992, p112) one of the crucial issues in social sciences is developing an understanding of globality without reference to the idea of culture as nationally defined. He is not arguing that society based around the idea of a nation is disappearing; indeed, this idea is being ‘revamped
... as the multicultural society, while “old European” and other national- isms have reappeared – but in new global circumstances’. Asserting that the idea of societalism – namely, the commitment to the idea of a national society – is a crucial aspect of contemporary global culture, he claims that a global culture does exist and indeed has a ‘very long history’ if it is seen as a discourse on global or world themes where humankind has identified itself within its empires, civilizations, communities and societies in response to an ever widening context (Robertson, 1992, p113). It is this external versus internal discourse that is at the core of global culture. What the above discussion of global culture indicates is that, depending on your interpretation of culture and the global, it is possible to argue that global culture exists or it does not. Smith’s approach is useful in illustrating that if we conceive of culture along the national lines of orthodox social science, then there is no global culture as we know it. Instead, there is at best a number of loose cultural areas. Robertson’s wider definition, using the second order of discourse and the cultural phenomenon side of global- ization, shows that it is possible to see some form of global culture as present today and in the past. This general theme of polis (a collective cross-nation identity), and demos (a national identity that is secure enough to share meaningful connections in economy and culture across national borders) is central to the case studies that follow. Globalization is helping to widen the basis of the demos, but has yet to create an effective arrangement for a polis that shares common aspirations for sustainability and that transcends national borders. In Chapter 3, Svedin, O’Riordan and Jordan examine the conditions that may enable multicentred and many-layered patterns of governance to help fill this void.
Allen and Massey (1995, p3) have demonstrated that images of globalization are often compelling and suggestive, emphasizing certain aspects while neglecting or underplaying others; they are, in effect, distorted.
[T]here appears to be a number of globalizations, a number of worlds, taking shape. There is the globalization of telecommunications, the
underexplores the influence of migration on culture and the creation of multicultural societies.
What can we gain from the above discussion of the nature of globalization?
APPROACHING THE L OCAL
Local sustainability is not just about sustainability undertaken at the sub- national rather than national or international scale. The experience of sustainability and other changes (such as local investments by multinational firms or new communications technology) and the choices that are made in adapting to change are influenced and mediated by the social processes that exist within that locality, and impact upon real people at this level. Before we can begin to discuss the interplay of the local and the global, and sustainable development at the local level, it is necessary to set out what is meant by locality. This is by no means an easy task! Locality is one of the two concepts (the other is community) that have been used by social scientists to explain differences between places at different times (Day and Murdoch, 1993). ‘Community’ as a concept has been used in sociological literature for around 200 years to refer to place and the importance that it has in people’s experience. However, community
has been strongly criticized for the normative and value-laden way studies have approached it (Bell and Newby, 1971; Day and Murdoch, 1993). In much of the literature on sustainable development, community is seen as the panacea of the sustainability transition (Holdgate, 1996). However, Evans (1994, p106) argues that the sustainability transition requires a deeper understanding of existing multiple local–social networks, rather than a harking back to the unobtainable and naive ‘chimera of community’. This would enable policy-makers to gain a better idea of the social, economic, cultural and political needs of these local networks so that they become ‘stable and self-regulating’ in the long term.
For social scientists ‘locality’ has faced similar problems to community as a concept (Day and Murdoch, 1993, p86). The debate about the nature of locality has come to centre on whether any given locality has agency or causal force, and where its boundaries are. In addition, there have been methodological and conceptual problems with much locality-based research, where economic processes are perceived as the driving local force, and where political and cultural changes follow (Day and Murdoch, 1993). Margaret Stacey (Stacey 1969, pp138–39) argues for locality as a network of institutions: ‘the locality is a context in which one can explore for hypotheses about the interrelations of institutions’. When looking at institutional adaptation to environmental change, it is clear that there are many definitions or approaches to the concept of an institution. A wide stance on the definition of an institution, following Jordan and O’Riordan (1996), should be taken. This would cover formal and informal institutions, ranging from social mores and cultural patterns of behaviour, to organiz- ations and rules as set out in law. Stacey’s perception of locality can be very useful in looking at the sustainability transition as mediated through local institutions. She intro- duced the concept of a local–social system to describe the ideal network of institutions against which we can measure real case studies. Institutions in this context can also be described as ‘communities of interest’. Only a small number of the various possible institutions will occur in one specific place for any one person. But it is possible to show that for a given locality, its inhabitants are engaged in social relationships that form a local–social system; this network provides the basis of social–local identity. The institutional concept of locality is expanded by the understanding that a local–social system would reside within larger society and therefore would have vertical links to that society. As an approach, it is useful in that it allows us to address how social relations are embedded in place, it moves away from favouring one type of institution over another, and it makes no assumptions about homogeneity and internal coherence. This is so because there are large differences between social actors and institutions with regard to what sustainability means. Furthermore, it allows us to see how institutional networks can extend internally and externally so that
and cultural change; as political bargaining and the exercise of power; as resource distribution. In effect, it allows for interdisciplinarity to occur by looking at how institutions adapt and interact and, as such, is a very dynamic concept.
GLOBALITY, GLOCALITY AND LOCALITY
If we wish to understand the local character of our lives, the changing nature of the places in which we live, we have to grasp both the wider, global context of which we are part and what it is that makes us distinctively local... [W]e are part of more than one world. We live local versions of the world and in so doing we have to locate ourselves within the wider global context (Allen and Massey, 1995).
This quote sets out explicitly how the global and the local are linked. It is at the local level that change is experienced, but that can only be understood with reference to what is happening elsewhere in the world. Giddens (1990;
Social relations make places, make local worlds... The social relations that constitute a place – a place that almost by definition is unique – are not all confined to that place... This complex geography of social
relations is dynamic, constantly developing as social relations ebb and flow and new relations are constructed. And it is the combination over time of local and wider social relations that gives places their distinctiveness (Meegan, 1995, p55).
There are attempts to bring together analyses of global and local processes, particularly in the area of human geography, although the emphasis is often on local economic responses. Local-level response to globalization is a process of adaptation that can run counter to the objectives of sustainable development. Peck and Tickell (1994) show that competition between localities over the slice of global economic activity through the establishment of science parks and inward investment agencies is, in the long term, not beneficial to the locality. These are beggar-thy-neighbour strategies that do little to effect real change at the local level, and as such do not further the long-term pursuit of sustainable development in meeting either environ- mental or social goals. It is in work like this that the term ‘glocalization’ has been coined to describe how the global and local levels interact in the current intense period of capitalist restructuring. They are viewed as a single process but are made up of two often contradictory forces which affects how space is perceived in economic and social interaction (see also Swyn- gedow, 1992). For Meegan (1995) the representation of place is often structured around opposition to others, but here more than economic factors are taken into account – for example, competition with another city for economic resources or for cultural identity, or a marginalized position in Europe, or a fight for political control with national or regional government. Liverpool is the example used to illustrate that local worlds can be produced within global worlds. A place is not homogenous but is characterized by gender, race, ethnicity, religion, class, housing type, etc. Such social and spatial segreg- ation can produce a ‘localism’ in which sharp distinctions are drawn between insiders and outsiders, shaping responses to local issues. Counter- ing the claims of increasing cultural homogeneity, the local music scene in the city shows that instead there is a process of cultural exchange, indicating that it is impossible to separate the local from the global. Massey (1994, p151) argues that what is required is a progressive sense of place that takes into account its multiple identities, not a single sense of place as a manifestation of ‘reactionary nationalisms, competitive localisms or introverted obsessions with “heritage”’. She sees a place as being the construct of a ‘particular constellation of social relations, meeting and weaving together at a particular locus’ (1994, pp154–156):
Instead, then, of thinking of places as areas with boundaries around, they can be imagined as articulated moments in networks or social relations and understandings, but where a large proportion of those relations, experiences and understandings are constructed on a far larger scale that what we happen to define for that moment as the place itself, whether that be a street, or a region or even a continent. And this in turn allows a sense of place which is extroverted, which includes
camps as demonstrated by the phrase, ‘think global, act local’. It requires a global awareness of the interconnectedness of processes, places and people as well as their relationship to each other. This will change attitudes and behaviour at a local level; as such it is a globalizing phenomena. It is about both global cooperation to prevent further environmental degradation, and local communities making decisions about how they are going to implement sustainability principles. As briefly discussed in the locality section, ‘community’ is a concept with a lot of idealistic baggage. But both views allude to it: globalists see democracy as community participation in decision-making; anti-globalists see democracy as self-determination by the community. Ignoring questions about the existence of ‘community’, there are problems with globalist and anti-globalist approaches. The goals of sustainable development have been defined by inter- national agencies in meetings such as the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED). However, local people can participate only in the implementation. As indicated by the locality– localization discussion, LA21 could be a forum where more than participation occurs. Rather, interpretation and transformation of these goals into objectives and actions that are meaningful to people at a local level can take place, but local self-determination is not mandated explicitly. The anti-globalist perspective would seem to encourage this. However, self- determination could mean decisions to carry on environmentally degrading behaviour, or to act in ways outside of the goals of sustainable development. How can such locally decided unsustainability be reconciled? There is an assumption in the global environmental discourse that people, grouped into local communities (because of the idealistic way these are perceived), will not act contrary to sustainable development. This is the myth of a ‘primitive ecological wisdom’, and is the reason why environmentalists in both camps support the maintenance of cultural diversity, but only within the context of sustainable development or behaviour that does not degrade the environment (Milton, 1996). What is exposed here by a focus on discourses and culture is that there are contradictions in how sustainable development is viewed. For these contradictions to be resolved, there is a need to appreciate how people understand the environment. It is also important to move away from the ideals of community to a more realistic appreciation of what locality is, how power operates and how it deals with its relationship to the global and globalizing concepts. Any examination of sustainable development at the local level is likely to demonstrate that there can be no standardization of the transition to sustainability. It is unique to that locality and is defined as a place or a local institutional network. Thus we expect to find that the principles of sustainability are interpreted and adapted to local circumstances, just as are other processes of globalization. Taking culture into account therefore by highlighting people’s understandings of globalizing processes and the actions that these produce should provide a key to analysing local sustainability.
CONCLUSION
This chapter highlights a number of points and issues for discussion:
R EFERENCES
Allen, J (1995) ‘Global worlds’ in J Allen and D Massey (eds) Geographical Worlds , Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp121– 143 Allen, J and Massey, A (eds) (1995) Geographical Worlds , Oxford University Press, Oxford Bell, C and Newby, H (1971) Community Studies , George Allen and Unwin, London Bergesen, A (1990) ‘Turning world-systems theory on its head’ in M Featherstone (ed) Global Culture: Nationalism, Globalization and Modernity , Sage Publications, London.
FROM GOVERNMENT TO M ULTILEVEL G OVERNANCE
The transition to sustainability in Europe will have to take place through a complicated and ever-shifting set of governing structures. These structures underwent a slow but nonetheless radical transformation in the latter part of the last century, as government was increasingly replaced by governance. According to Stoker (1998, p17), the word ‘government’ refers to activities undertaken primarily or wholly by states bodies, particularly those ‘which operate at the level of the nation state to maintain public order and facilitate collective action’. Typically these latter functions were performed by the state within its own territory via different parts of the public sector. The term ‘governance’, on the other hand, refers to the emergence of new styles of governing in which the boundaries between public and private sector, national and international, have become blurred. For Stoker, then, ‘the essence of governance is its focus on governing mechanisms which do not rest on recourse to the authority and sanctions of government’. Under a system of governance, more services are supplied by the market, with the state retaining control over core functions such as law and order, regulation and civil defence. Because of policies pursued by many industrialized states such as privatization, new public management and cutting the size of the civil service, the operations of the central state have in many countries become gradually more reduced, with more and more services provided by government agencies and the private sectors. In consequence, govern- ance also involves a search for new means of steering and controlling activities through more indirect mechanisms such as financial control and incentives. The shift from government to governance is also bound up with the trend towards more internationalized patterns of policy-making, in which important decisions are increasingly being made across a range of different administrative tiers or levels (Rosenau, 1997; Svedin, 1997). These stretch
from the supranational down through the sub-national to the local. The term ‘multilevel’ governance is popularly used to describe the increasingly dense set of interconnections between actors who operate at these different levels of governance, sometimes channelled through states, but very often bypassing them. Again, there is no commonly agreed definition of this term and interpretations seem to be numerous and varied (see Hix, 1998). According to Gary Marks and his colleagues, multilevel governance in Europe has the following essential characteristics (Hooghe and Marks, 1996, pp23–24):
On the basis of these trends, Marks et al reach strikingly similar conclusions to Rhodes in relation to the contemporary challenges confronting state leaders:
... [s]tates are an integral and powerful part of the EU, but they no longer provide the sole interface between supranational and sub- national arenas, and they share, rather than monopolize, control over many activities that take place in their respective territories (Marks, Hooghe and Blank, 1996, p347).
Rhodes (1996, p652) accepts that the term ‘governance’ is popular but imprecise. Within that constraint he argues that it represents ‘a new way of governing’ (Rhodes, 1997, p15). Instead of direct government control, he identifies a series of interorganizational and self-managing policy networks that complement markets and regulatory structures. The key to Rhodes’s analysis is the shift from central state-led government to a system of governance based upon poly-centric linkages between the public and private sectors. This, he argues, is helping to produce a more differentiated or ‘hollowed out’ state as more and more governmental functions are shifted either down to alternative, market-based delivery systems, or up to supranational actors such as the EU. Public–private partnerships in the design and construction of major infrastructure projects are but part of the modern manifestation of all this. So, too, are the interesting relationships of regulatory agencies, public organizations and private enterprise that implement policy at any level of action. Kooiman (1993, p4) summarizes this set of relationships as follows: