This article aims to look at what Globalisation is, and provide a brief overview of how Globalisation has changed the way our world works within developed and developing countries. This topic is an important one to be aware of when considering the situation within Africa - how it is developing and interacting with outside organisations whether they be governments, companies or charities.

This first part will look at what Globalisation is, the second part (coming in a couple of weeks) will look at specific issues surrounding African development, which have largely occured since and from Globalisation, such as the World Bank and the IMF and patent laws.

Possibly an effective way to introduce globalisation is to first define what it is not, largely due to the fact that there is widespread misunderstanding of the actual definition.

Globalisation is not just about economics, neither is it ‘Americanisation’. It is not something that large organisations are trying to create to increase their power, and neither is it reversible. As Keith Suter states,

‘Globalisation is not going to go away.’ (Globalisation, 2006: 5)

Perhaps an effective and concise definition of Globalisation is one stated by Joseph Stiglitz in his book Globalisation and its discontents. His definition is:

‘The removal of barriers to free trade and the closer integration of national economies.’ (2002: ix)

This definition seems to sum up the concept quite well, but for real understanding of the issue the implications of this need to be considered.

The broadest issue is probably the change from the old ‘Westphalian’ system (The name ‘Westphalian’ system comes from the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, which marked the end of an extremely long European war, where the political system changed), which was the phase where nation-states (Nation-states can be defined as ‘Nations (groups of people with a common sense of national identity) had to be controlled via a state (a system of government).’ - Suter, K Globalisation 2006:22) ruled and all interaction around the globe happened through the nation-state governments.

Since the advent of globalisation, there have emerged powers above those of nation-state governments such as Inter-Governmental Organisations (IGO’s) for example the UN or EU, Non-Governmental Organisations (NGO’s) such as Amnesty International, and Trans-National Corporations (TNC’s) like Google, Inc.

Out of these, TNC’s are in reality the most powerful, as they now have the power to control economic policies through the ability to move work around the globe to suit their needs (such as a need to lower costs – a good example of this would be the contentious call centres that are operated in places such as India by companies like Virgin Media).

‘[TNC’s] are now the main global economic force and have eroded the notion of a national economy; there is now only a global one.’
(Suter, K Globalisation 2006: 6)

Therefore, to consider the place of nation-states within this new system, Suter sums up:

‘Nation-states are no longer masters of their own destiny’
(Suter, K Globalisation 2006: 147)

Many problems have been identified with globalisation, and many people have turned against it as a consequence. However, at least some of this can be attributed to the nation-state governments, who have failed to acknowledge, or at the very least admit publicly the changed situation, and provide education on the issue to their constituents.

‘[Globalisation] has not been well communicated to the public.’
(Suter, K Globalisation 2006: 4)

This lack of communication from governments can be understood by considering the motivation of governments. Their aim is to get re-elected by the population, therefore their view is short-sited, and they will put long-term issues to one side in fear of losing the next election if they are seen to advocate a largely unpopular (or misunderstood) issue such as globalisation.

‘Governments are not geared up to thinking in the long term.’
(Suter, K Globalisation 2006: 51)

Some of the changes that have occurred from Globalisation that have been subject to much controversy are:
The transference of manufacturing from developed countries such as the US or the UK, to China, Taiwan and other less developed countries,
The ‘people power’ that NGO’s instil which can have an affect on government’s, through their ability to use the media to rally people together to act in unity against government policies,
The mass media which has created a much more open society, where the events within nation-states cannot be hidden so easily (for example in Russia, where the first nuclear disaster in 1957 remained hidden for many years, in comparison to the 1986 Chernobyl incident discussed in chapter 1, which was viewed around the world within hours of the incident),
The end of colonisation, which was formally undertaken by the UN,
A global consumer culture, seen with products such as Coca-Cola and MacDonalds,
The spread of infectious diseases (and particularly the rejuvination of diseases thought to be successfully and permanently combated), often considered to be due the increased movement of people,
The ability to launder money and undertake other criminal activity ‘off-shore’, away from detection,
The mass movement of people such as refugees, asylum seekers and migrants,
A reduced number of people voting in national elections, due to what is sometimes defined as ‘voter fatigue’ where the people believe that there is so little difference between parties that they do not bother to vote
Removal, or reduction, of barriers to trade between nation-states
Increase in religious fundamentalism, such as Islam and the reaction to Salman Rushdie’s ‘The Satanic Verses’

Clearly, some of these consequences are positive and some negative. Some however are not so clear-cut, and have both advantages and disadvantages to certain groups of people. Perhaps the most obvious example of this was the first point - the movement of manufacturing to less developed countries.

In developed countries this caused job losses, which is some cases led to protests and riots against Globalisation itself.

The effect on the developing countries that have received this manufacturing work however has been in some cases extremely beneficial, bringing about employment, increased importing and exporting, and a growing economy (the issue of whether the employment is fair or not is beyond the scope of this paper).

The anger that has emerged from the process of Globalisation is summarised by Keith Suter into three key areas. The first is the process itself where the power of TNC’s has overtaken government power and issues such as the manufacturing one above occur. The second is that people feel they have been taken by surprise by the change, largely due to the lack of publicity by mass media and governments who give the people what they want, rather than what they need. The last is the lack of political leadership, where leadership has become something similar to entertainment, with the focus being on finding out what the population want to hear, and broadcasting it.

In conclusion, there is clearly no way to answer whether globalisation is a good or bad thing. Instead, perhaps we need to view it in the context that it is simply a system, and it is how we deal with it and use it that is actually the issue in need of consideration. In terms of Africa and it’s development, it is important to be aware of how this new system works (in theory and in reality), and how Africa can benefit or suffer from the consequences depending on how issues (such as trade) are dealt with.

Part two coming soon…