ABSTRACT

There is a myth prevailing in current thinking about globalization that a new global village is emerging. In contrast to other societal structures, the global village is an open international society, not sealed and exclusive like previous regimes. It is a new institutional design that promotes uninhibited market forces and regulations. Private ownership is respected and protected. State rules and institutions that constitute forms of political interference are reduced to a minimum. Freedom in supply and demand of production and consumption is guaranteed. Global capitalism as such is a new architecture that offers access to ample opportunities, efficiency, and prosperity. The compression of time and space, the increased interdependence and integration of trade and capital, and the rapid flows of technology, ideas and people, all seem to facilitate an individual’s pursuit of goals and success. Yet, accumulating evidence indicates that globalization is not a system inherently characterized by equal access to liberty, opportunities, freedom, and prosperity. Precious and prestige goods become more unequally distributed as globalization advances. Income disparity between rich and poor countries and between upper and lower classes widens (Korzeniewicz and Moran 2007). Poverty, injustice and ignorance of basic rights become more and more pronounced on the global scale (Veltmeyer and Petras 2001; Wade 2004). Inequality and the ‘race to the bottom,’ observed widely, should not come as a surprise, as social scientists have long been engaged in the investigation of differential opportunities across different countries and groups.