Theories of Globalization

The Neoclassical theory involves the macroeconomic and microeconomic aspect. Macro focusing on structural factors and microeconomic focusing on an individual choice to migrate (Weiss, 2003). The macro theory is perhaps the most well-known approach explaining the causes of migration, it came from the theoretical model explaining internal labor migration in light of economic development (Corry 1996, Harris and Todaro 1970). According to the theory assumptions: 1.

The second critique he offers is that the industrialization of Europe cannot be seen as a follow-up of the British model. He calls this claim so oversimplified as to be seriously misleading (Cameron, 1985). Instead Cameron argues that the industrial revolution is a differentiated process. In order to back up this claim he states that this is not only the case between countries in Europe, but also within countries. As an example Cameron uses Germany in which certain states, or provinces, are located in a way that the process of industrialization was different from their neighbouring provinces, due to the availability of natural resources.

We now know that that assumption is far from the truth. What we were witnessing was fragmented globality. It was an increased but selective form of capital, which also intensified the differences between labor markets across national borders and the uneven integration of global consumer markets. Frederick Cooper argued globalization was more of a discourse than a applicable reality; it may cause change over time but it lacks a perspective of history needed to differentiate between its mechanisms and limits of spatial

When money was first introduced, it was used as an object to facilitate trade amongst individuals. Capital depends on money because the capitalist’s number one desire is to accumulate the most money he or she can. Marx describes a difference between money being described as money and money being described as capitol. Marx states The first distinction between money being described as money and money being descried as capitol is nothing more than a difference in their form of circulation.

Taking a look at the evolution of society as a whole, structures from previous social organizations vary drastically from the civilization individuals reside in today; now known as a 'market society.' It has shifted towards a society where members of the community are now solely concerned about economic relations, rather than interpersonal relations. This is what Karl Polanyi refers to the emergence of market society as "the great transformation." The shift towards a market society is characterized by the emergence of a self-regulation society, allowing the birth of fictitious commodities, as well as placing great emphasis towards individualism. It focuses on the significant changes that have taken place since the transformation, which are further discussed through the notion of "protestant work ethic" and the

“Neoliberalism is considered to be the dominant ideology that is shaping our world day. ”(Thorsen and Lie, 2009, p. 1). There is however, no one true definition to neoliberalism as it is very diverse in terms of covering a lot of aspects of economic, cultural, and social terrains. This era came about with the introduction of Structural Adjustment policies stemming from the Bretton Woods System, Washington Consensus, World Bank, and the IMF (http://globalsocialtheory.org/topics/neoliberalism). There was also an increase in the number of capitalist theories claiming to be the “better” way for society to become developed.

He also states that the European thinkers’ idea of societies when they become more modern they then become more like each other is wrong. According to him there are many different modernities and modernity is not universal because of the cultural difference between different societies. For him this is one of the errors of enlightenment thought about modernity (Gray, Page #2). In addition, according to Gray modernity is definitely not spontaneously embracing enlightenment thoughts or the enlightenment project. So for him it is not what European enlightenment thinkers always believed it is.

Core tenets of economic liberalism, such as competition and free trade, are not compatible with laissez-faire and require regulation in order to be sustained. Polanyi’s double movement suggests that the needs of a self-regulating market are incompatible with the demands of laissez-faire and that economic liberals turned against laissez-faire and preferred regulation. More important, it demonstrates the inevitability of the ‘collectivist’ methods of regulation in a self-regulating market. Perhaps, after all, a market economy and interventionism are not mutually exclusive. Regardless of their arguments, economic liberals, as Polanyi has shown, will rely on state intervention in order to establish a market economy, and once established, in order to maintain it.

Overall, imperialism causes a copious number of issues in society that took place in the past and still take place in today 's world. To start with, a few major causes of imperialism are economics, exploration, ethnocentrism, politics, and religion. Economics prompted imperialism due to countries pursuing benefits to improve their economies. Economic benefits mean having control of markets, raw material, and natural resources. Ethnocentrism was a cause of imperialism since its the belief that one race or nation’s values or beliefs were superior to those around them.

The British Industrial revolution (ca. 1780) was the result of an economic expansion which took place at the beginning of the sixteenth century and was achievable thanks to many distinct factors, such as Britain’s geographical position and culture. But were institutions an additional important element that affected the start and outcome of the British Industrial Revolution? Were all of these elements correlated? The role of institutions is a subject that continues to stir much debate; considering for example Acemoglu’s point of view in “Institutions as a fundamental cause of long-run growth” and Allen’s view in “Why industrial revolution was British” we notice how different opinions can be on what actually initiated the Industrial Revolution. In this essay

See Abner J. Mikva, The Changing Role of the Wagner Act in the American Labor Movement, 38 STAN. L. REV. 1131-–32 (1986). Bednarek, supra note 246, at 217 (stating that structural changes resulting from globalization usher in a more flexible workforce with reduced labor regulations and costs that ultimately devalue labor). Global wage competition has combined with a stockholder primacy culture to put downward pressure on wages for most workers while promoting the interests of senior managers.