Where is Globalization Heading?
Parliament of Karnataka, Bangalore, India, 13-19 May 2006

‘The international and the global are not two ways of expressing more or less the same idea…the two concepts are of fundamentally different kinds.’ (Shaw 2003: 41)

‘I had come to Bangalore, India’s silicon valley, on my Columbus-like journey of exploration…I just wanted to understand why the Indians I had met were taking our work, why they had become such an important pool for the outsourcing of service and information technology work from…(the) industrialised countries.’ (Friedman 2005: 4-5)

‘The emergence of China and India as powerful actors in global governance arenas and in global politics poses a series of questions for development policy and the future of global governance.’ (Kaplinsky 2006: 108)

This overview of contemporary globalization (I prefer the plural globalizations) contrasts several perspectives not often brought together, but any attempt to understand the phenomena from the vantage point of today’s ‘global south’ so demands. It means recognizing and incorporating a variety of debates, from business, economics, international political economy, international relations, political science, sociology as well as development and security studies, especially the emerging field of globalization studies.

This overview proceeds from the background to globalization – historical, theoretical, ideological and aspirational – to their various characteristics and reception in different quarters of the world. It identifies a range of conceptualisations, including: anti- or alter-globalization, current development discourse, regional responses and global issues. It treats global governance as a response to such globalizations with special reference to the Indian debate about it. It also highlights several major attendant concerns such as ecology, energy, and security, and concludes by considering the implications of globalizations for theory, policy and practice beyond the first decade of the new century.

i) Globalization and Anti-Globalization
‘Because it is flattening and shrinking the world, Globalization 3.0 is going to be more and more driven not only by individuals but also by a much more diverse – non-Western, non-white – group of individuals. Individuals from every corner of the flat world are being empowered.’ (Friedman 2005: 11)

Globalizations embrace a wide range of phenomena, from ideology to structure, from theory to policy. Nor are they uncontroversial: there are many points on the pro- to anti-spectrum. Several leading pragmatic analysts highlight hyperglobalist versus sceptical versus transformationalist perspectives (Held, McGrew et al 1999: 2-10).

The burgeoning literature around globalizations (Friedman 2005, MacGillivray 2006, Naim 2005) poses many questions including whether it is exponential, sustainable, or uneven. Might alternative, more populist globalizations be envisaged? Certainly, global civil society depends on features of globalization such as the Internet. Is a descent into ‘global apartheid’ inevitable: two worlds with a minority facing a global ghetto across a digital divide. By contrast, might innovative development theories and policies become possible, notwithstanding American unilateral impulses? Might the BRICs/G20 point to another direction. Such projections hold profound implications for state and non-state actors – including national, regional and global MNCs and NGOs.

A leading American student of globalizations, James Mittelman (2000: 5-7), from a critical, inter-disciplinary perspective, conceives of them as a ‘syndrome’ or ‘nexus’ involving:

·    compression of time and space

·    new capitalist structures such as contracting out, e-commerce, feminization, just-in-time production etc

·    governance almost always involving a mix of state and non-state actor networks or partnerships.

From a somewhat more uni-disciplinary, economics vantage-point, Ian Goldin and Kenneth Reinert (2006: 1 and 9) offer a reflective yet positive perspective on globalization and development in 21st century: ‘globalisation has the five primary economic dimensions trade, finance, aid, migration and ideas. Increases in these...if managed in a way that supports development in all countries, can help alleviate global poverty under certain conditions.’

From the other side, alienation from and opposition to extant globalizations span the spectrum from anti-globalization to anti–capitalism: how compatibly is unclear (see intense blog and other debates around successive World Social Forums)! There are even still a few pre-globalization romantics.

ii) Meanings, Origins and Alternative Perspectives
The literature on globalizations asks how far it just renames familiar trends, including:

·  Inter- or trans-nationalisation – the process of relations being increasingly cross-border, whether inter- or non-state in composition?

·  Liberalisation of economies and polities, typically under structural adjustment conditionalities

· Global homogenization in design, production, and consumption

·  Westernisation if not Americanization and dominance of northern assumptions, patterns and values (Scholte 2005: 16).

Are these old or new? Some dimensions – external versus internal trade, for example – were more central a century or two ago during the imperial periods. Yet was the impact of such early-globalization as pervasive as today’s?

Similarly, we can enquire whether contemporary globalization entails United States unilateralism or OECD multilateralism – in strategic if not in other spheres – with what implications for the environment, economics, politics, and societies. Is American unilateralism – some say imperialism – primarily a function of the state and its security sector? Is Northern multilateralism any different, involving a range of non-state actors? Finally, how far is the informal, sometimes illegal economy another form of globalization?

We can also question whether state and non-state actors tend to espouse similar perspectives or not. How different are MNCs and NGOs in their assumptions, calculations, and projections? Other key potential perspective fault-lines include:

South versus North: Does the majority of the world have a different view on globalizations than that which originates in and favours the North? Is there a ‘global South’ in which diasporas and remittances moderate antagonism or alienation? Does the recognition of a ‘new middle’ of emerging economies and NICs bridge the gap between OECD and fragile states?

East versus West? Does the history of state socialism in Eastern and Central Europe still mean anything, or has everyone moved on to new identity blocs?

A Small Island Developing State Perspective? Given the roles and numbers of SIDS, including formally dependent ‘Overseas Territories’, how does their unique window on globalization – from cruise-boats to retirement communities, migrations and diasporas, money-laundering to drug and gun smuggling – affect attitudes?

Organized Religion: Other approaches have their roots in distinctive religious movements: from varieties of Christianity to Buddhism, Confucianism, Hinduism and Islam and onto secularism. The global divide between South and North has an increasing religious versus secular dimension to it as Europe becomes ever more secular while conservative forms becomes central to the survival of many religions, including organised Christianity.

Given such diverse perspective, it comes as no surprise that emerging notions of partnership and coalition frequently capture novel definitions and practices of local to global governance, involving a heterogeneous set of actors usually focused on specific ‘global’ issues – mainly arising from contemporary ‘development’ debates – such as child soldiers, conflict diamonds, dams, gender, landmines, small arms etc.

iii) Three New Worlds by 2010?
We live in a global system of about 200 states: some 25-30 OECD/G8 members; another dozen or so ‘emerging economies’ (BRICs), especially the high growth/high population economies of China and India and the NICs; and the rest, mainly ‘fragile’ states. We should in particular note the shift from the attention to Asian NICs as ‘models’ in the late-20th century, to the focus on BRICs in the early 21st as models, catalysts, opportunities and threats – including discussion of their impacts on the demand and supply of energy and raw materials. BusinessWeek wrote last year:

Rarely has the economic ascent of two still relatively poor nations been watched with such a mixture of awe, opportunism and trepidation.... China and India...possess the weight and dynamism to transform the 21st century global economy…even America’s rise falls short in comparison to what’s happening now. Never has the world seen simultaneous, sustained take-offs of two nations that together account for one third of the planet’s population.

If such a high-growth scenario is maintained for another decade or more, at least two interesting possibilities arise for global public policy. First, will the BRICs, especially China and India move towards convergent or divergent positions on globalizations? Or, given their distinctive post-war and colonial histories, will they tend to be schizophrenic towards South and North? Second, given such apparent exponential inequalities, is the question of how to mediate this emergent trio of worlds. Is there a role for institutions like the Commonwealth as the set of emerging economies includes Malaysia, Singapore India and South Africa?

In re-imagining the global political economy in terms of the unevenness of globalizations, no revised trio of worlds will neatly fall into geographic regions – a few African economies may qualify as democratic developmental states and more appear in the Economist’s annual list of the fastest growing economies in the new millennium. Indeed currently half are African, largely because of oil and as their low starting points.

Meanwhile, in a world mesmerised by rankings, from Business Schools to billionaires, the globalization nexus can be approached through comparative lists. Diverse contemporary rankings may privilege those which symbolise development – Human Development Index (UNDP) and Millennium Development Goals (UN) – versus those which emphasise growth – Gross Domestic Product (Internationmal Bank of Reconstruction and Development) and Global Competitiveness (World Economic Forum). But there are many others which complicate any simplistic trio of worlds: for example corruption, democracy human rights, human security. One of the ironies of current globalizations is that such data encourage recognition of the varieties rather than singularity of ‘capitalisms’ or ‘competition states’. The rise of the BRICs following the ascent of Japan and then the NICs shows that contemporary capitalism is not just profit-oriented Anglo-American, or corporatist European or welfarist Japanese variants, but also Chinese and Indian.

iv) The Proliferation of Global Issues
We can identify an evolving range of analytic and policy dilemmas, many defined by novel non-state actors rather than by governments or universities.

Any such ordering is a function of personal and national locations and analytic perspectives. Symptomatic of such reflections is the current FCO analysis (2006: 10-20) which identifies and ranks the following ‘international trends’ for the next decade: economics, demography and migration, resource pressures, climate change, religion and identity, poverty and governance, security and conflict, science and innovation and the wider participation of non-state and other actors in global issues. Different companies, communities, frameworks, genders, NGOs, sectors, think tanks, regimes, and regions would advance distinctive priorities and sequences.

Here I privilege a half-dozen such issues given their relevance for any consideration of trends in globalization:

·  a further generation of ‘new’ states, largely ex-Russian Empire rather than the traditional South, leading to a global total of about 200;

·    parallel proliferation of ‘development’ issues, including such disparate challenges as biodiversity and child soldiers/workers as well as drugs, guns and viruses;

·    recognition of ‘emerging economies’ especially China, India and the other BRICs;

· apparent uncertainty and rethinking within the international financial institutions, given regional financial ‘crises’ in the Former Soviet Union and Latin America, matched by resilient stagnation in much of Asia, at least until recently;

·   the growing costs of inequalities in resources becoming apparent in further conflicts and increasing incidence of crime and migration;

·   challenges of 9/11 and 7/7 in terms of both inter-faith and -race relations and the costs of both ‘new’ security and the ‘war on terrorism’.

v) Governance in Response to Globalization
Increasingly, governance rather than government involves a trio of types of actor, not just states or interstate agencies but civil society (from NGOs to think tanks) and private companies with a variety of home bases and global affiliates. Such networks treat a wide and evolving range of ‘development’ issues, including everything from the ‘global south’ to child soldiers to HIV/AIDS. In turn, such diverse foci lead to growing varieties in areas of governance including civil society, corporate, ecological, informal/illegal, islands, security, supply chains, oceans etc, often emerging from innovative policy networks. Some of these may evolve into heterogeneous partnerships over a variety of contemporary issues at several levels, from the UN Global Compact and World Economic Forum to the World Social Forum (WSF) and ‘Commonwealth Plus’ - an extrapolation from established Commonwealths to emerging ‘Commonwealths’ of diasporas, universities and think-tanks, legal and political structures etc.

The emerging role of myriad coalitions is apparent in extensive ones around the Ottawa and Kimberley Processes in response to land-mines and blood diamonds. These global processes constitute forms of ‘Track Two’ or ‘Track Three’ diplomacy of semi- or non-state public diplomacy as pioneered around ASEAN to pre-negotiate issues amongst inflexible regimes.

Given exponential globalization as well as the elusiveness of inter-state consensus such as over the WTO Doha ‘development’ round, other novel forms of private/public ‘regulation’ are being developed for particular sectors: certification, codes of conduct, corporate social responsibility, global standards (the ISO series now to extend to ISO 26 000 on corporate codes) etc. Informal or illegal forms of global governance are even appearing among international mafias and militias. Regulatory governance is increasingly present in regional as well as global sectors, notably the EU and NAFTA but also APEC, and engage all three types of partners: states, civil societies and companies. Together, might these several strands of governance serve to reinforce and define more abstract levels of sustainable partnership for global to local governance into the new the century?

vi) Governance and India: a debate about globalization
India is presently in an uneven and unpredictable transition from a planned to market-driven economy as well as from official ‘non-alignment’ to further integration into the global economy. Before the present century, it would have been unthinkable for it to have been considered one of the BRICs let alone a leading one. Its ‘rebranding’ as India Inc holds considerable relevance and resonance for overlapping debates around democracy, development, emerging economies, globalisation, outsourcing, security and related issues.

But its new direction and status are neither assured nor uncontroversial. There are some distinctive and eminent ‘anti-globalization’ movements and leaders in India, such as the Chipko Movement and the anti-dam campaigns in the Narmada Valley, with lessons for globalization discourses and directions. Moreover, some Indian social scientists/ public intellectuals continue to be sentimental about the glory days of Gandhi and Nehru. Niraja Gopal Jayal and Sudha Pai (2001) critically analyse the redefinition or relocation of the state - its ‘franchising’- given liberalization.

In particular, for some in India, ‘governance’ itself is a controversial term because of its association with the ‘Washington Consensus’ (Mooij 2006). Thus Niraja Gopal Jayal (1997) opposes ‘good governance’ because of its orthodox set of neo-liberal conditionalities. Neera Chandhoke (2003) criticises the delegitimization and downgrading of the state through a variety of strategies such as privatisation and subcontracting. Chandhoke has also lamented (2002: 45) that ‘the activities of most...NGOs legitimise the post-Washington consensus, ...by linking civil society to an apolitical notion of governance. All this…has depoliticised the very concept of civil society.’

vii) Major Issues Arising from Contemporary Globalization
The following, alphabetically-arranged selection of current issues is informed by myriad debates but it is not exclusive.

Development: Development in the new century is more problematic and multidimensional than ever given globalizations and the new ‘three worlds’. It poses a set of analytic and applied challenges, including:

·    increasingly important roles of civil societies, think tanks and private companies in development policies and processes;

·   novel market opportunities given emerging niches, including varieties of outsourcing of services employing new technologies, new supply chains around fresh produce and growing remittance flows to the South from diasporas concentrated in the North; and

·    the emergence of the ‘political economy of conflict’ perspective which complicates any simplistic inclination towards ‘humanitarian intervention’ or a ‘responsibility to protect’

Ecology: Global warming is increasingly accelerating the melting of the polar ice caps, leading to sea-level rises and related shifts in the patterns of ocean currents, with profound effects likely on regional weather patterns. If temperatures at the poles rise by some 3-5 C degrees during the current century, exacerbated by pollution which darkens the snow and enables it to absorb more sunlight, then such climate change would lead to a global sea level rise of about half a metre by the next century. Many low-lying island countries could disappear along with many coastal zones and ecologies, such as atolls, barrier reefs and coastal wetlands. Related shifts in ocean circulation may also dramatically affect regional weather patterns. The Gulf Stream which keeps north-western Europe warm may decline in strength, especially in winter, so that the UK and Denmark could become much colder than at present.

Global weather patterns may well become more intense and frequent, with hurricanes becoming more numerous and destructive, with particular implications for the vulnerable poor in the South. Similarly, the El Nino ocean circulation – warmer water in the eastern equatorial Pacific leading to drought in parts of Africa, Australia and Southeast Asia - which presently affects the global climate every 2 to 7 years may become more familiar. The Rio and Kyoto treaties, may not even slow, let alone reverse, these trends.

Energy: There is a growing imbalance between supply and demand of many raw materials, especially oil and gas, with increasing impacts on price and supply-chains. These present implications for states’ foreign policy, especially security calculations and reactions. For example, US Administration fears of dependence on the Middle East for energy means it is increasingly willing to source from other non-Islamic countries, especially in Africa, even if their human rights records are less than stellar.

Health: Tony Barnett and Gwyn Prins (2005) write,‘the potential security consequences to societies where life expectancy has dropped by 30% or more [due to HIV/AIDS] are considerable yet we do not yet now enough about the interaction between AIDS and other factors that determine the resilience, governance and coherence of societies and governments.’ Globalization intensifies other health risks too, such as viruses like SARS and avian flu. Exacerbated by the AIDS pandemic, TB is spreading again. Are these the new global security threats, at least for some?

Migration and Remittances: In addition to the continuing increase in legal and forced migrations, after some six decades, in 2005 the World Bank ‘discovered’ remittances. These have grown dramatically under globalization and liberalization, despite the new restrictions after 9/11. Of the total $232 billion in 2005, some $167 billion flowed to the South, up from $160 in 2004 (World Bank 2005: 85). Remittances are now larger than FDI and ODA (World Bank 2005: 88). Major surges have flowed to the emerging economies like China, India and Mexico, with India receiving $20 billion in 2003 (up from $13 billion in 2001 and $5 billion in mid-1990s) (World Bank 2005: 89). As such flows are hard to track, actual flows may be some 100 % larger!

Security: Globalization presents a growing set of security dilemmas in part because it requires global communications, logistics, and supply chains. In turn, the traditional and critical security literature present a range of choices or controversies: old and new? national and human? state and private? formal/legal versus informal/illegal? The ‘responsibility to protect’ might conceivably be extended beyond peoples to a range of commodities such as energy and water (ICISS 2001) in which case, we may need to reconsider whether ‘security’ is any longer a collective good. As Scholte (2000: 315) laments, ‘Globalization has…undermined human security’

viii) How we talk to each other:
Globalizations will even impact what language we speak, with implications for English as the global lingua franca of the Internet, higher education, and 21st Century Trust conferences. As David Crystal (2002: 280-281) argues, ‘at present, English is the only language in a position to adopt the role of the world’s first language.... due primarily to the economic superiority of the US, there is no competitor.’

However, if this analysis has any validity, the future of English is likely to be a function of the rise of the BRICs, notably China and India. The Economist (2006) indicates the scale of the market for English in China, where Macmillan alone has sold 100 million school textbooks and there are some 50 000 private language schools. In a recent report for the British Council, David Graddol (2006: 12 and 13) focuses China's and India's impact on global English, ‘the current enthusiasm for English in the world is closely tied to the complex processes of globalisation.... the future of English has become more closely tied to the future of globalisation itself.’

Conclusion
Will we encounter more or less globalization in each of the three worlds in next 5-15 years: more or less hyperglobalist? sceptical? transformationalist? for all or some state and non-state actors? In turn, this presents a range of conceptual challenges: how shall we analyse it? Whether established scholars appreciate or not, a set of overlapping genres are impacted by globalizations. The changes are too complex and varied to understand in isolation, whether personal, national or intellectual.

References

Association of African Universities (2004) ‘The Implications of WTS/GATS for Higher Education in Africa’ (Accra, April. Proceedings of Accra Workshop)

Barnett, Tony and Gwyn Prins (2005) ‘A Report to UNAIDS: HIV/AIDS and Security: fact, fiction and evidence’ (September)

Barry, John and E Gene Frankland (eds) (2002) International Encyclopaedia of Environmental Politics (London: Routledge)

Baylis, John and Steve Smith (eds) (2005) The Globalization of World Politics: an introduction to international relations (Oxford: OUP. Third edition)

Bello, Walden (2000) Deglobalization: ideas for a new world economy (London: Zed)

Bhagwati, Jagdish (2004) In Defense of Globalization (Oxford: OUP)

Boas, Morten, Marianne H Marchand and Timothy M Shaw (eds) (2005) The Political Economy of Regions and Regionalisms (London: Palgrave Macmillan)

Bowles, Paul, Henry Veltmeyer et al (2007) (London: Palgrave Macmillan, forthcoming)

Breslin, Shaun (2006) China in the Global Political Economy (London: Palgrave Macmillan, forthcoming)

Business Week (2005) ‘China and India’ August 22-29: 29-104

Cerny, Philip G (2003) ‘The Uneven Pluralization of World Politics’ in Axel Hulsemeyer (ed) Globalization in the Twenty-first Century: convergence and divergence (London: Palgrave Macmillan) 153-175

Chandhoke, Neera (2002) ‘The Limits of Global Civil Society’ in Marlies Glasius, Mary Kaldor and Helmut Anheier (eds) Global Civil Society 2002 (Oxford: OUP) 35-53

--- (2003) ‘Governance and the Pluralisation of the State: implications for democratic citizenship’ Economic and Political Weekly 38(28): 2957-2968

Cohen, Stephen (2001) India: emerging power (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution)

Cooper, Andrew, Agata Ankiewicz and Timothy M Shaw (2006) ‘Emerging Powers and Global Development in the New Century: economic size trumps all else? Lessons from BRICSAM’ (San Diego: ISA, March)

Corbridge, Stuart and John Harriss (2000) Reinventing India: liberalization, Hindu nationalism and popular democracy (Cambridge: Polity)

Crystal, David (2002) The English Language: a guided tour of the language (London: Penguin. Second edition)

DFID (2005) ‘Why we need to work more effectively in fragile states’ (London, January)

Economist (2001) Globalization (London)

--- (2006) ‘Balancing Act: a survey of China’ 25 March: 1-20

--- (2006b) ‘English beginning to be spoken here’ 12 April

FCO (2006) ‘The World in the Next Ten Years’ (London, March)

Financial Times (2005) ‘India and Globalization’ 22 March: 1-6 (www.ft.com/indiaglobal2005)

--- (2006a) ‘India and Globalization: special report on the world’s fastest growing democracy’ 26 January: 1-8 (www.ft.com/indiaglobal2006)

--- (2006b) ‘FT Special Report: Global Brands’ 3 April: 1-4

Fortune (2005) ‘Special Report: India Inc’ 152(8), August: 42-86

Friedman, Thomas L (2005) The World is Flat: a brief history of the twenty-first century (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux)

Gale, Fred and Marcus Haward (2006) Global Commodity Governance: states’ responses to voluntary forestry and fishing certification (London: Palgrave, forthcoming)

Global Governance (Boulder: Lynne Rienner for ACUNS and UNU, quarterly)

Globalizations (London: Routledge, quarterly)

Goldin, Ian A and Kenneth A Reinert (2006) Globalization for Development: trade, finance, aid, migration and policy (London: Palgrave Macmillan for IBRD)

Gopal Jayal, Niraja (1997) ‘The Governance Agenda: making democratic development dispensible’ Economic and Political Weekly 32(8): 407-412

--- and Sudha Pai (eds) (2001) Democratic Governance in India: challenges of poverty, development and identity (New Delhi: Sage)

Graddol, David (2006) ‘English Next’ (London: British Council)

Grant, J Andrew and Fredrik Soderbaum (eds) (2003) The New Regionalism in Africa (Aldershot: Ashgate)

Haynes, Jeffrey (ed) (2005) Palgrave Advances in Development Studies (London: Palgrave Macmillan)

Held, David et al (1999) Global Transformations: politics, economics and culture (Cambridge: Polity)

ICISS (2001) ‘The Responsibility to Protect: Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty’ (Ottawa: IDRC)

ILO (2004) ‘A Fair Globalization: creating opportunities for all. Report of the World Commission on the Social Dimensions of Globalization’ (Geneva, February)

International Affairs (2006) ‘Special Issue: perspectives on emerging world-be great powers’ 82(1), January: 1-94

Kaplinsky, Raphael (ed) (2006) ‘Asian Drivers: opportunities and threats’ IDS Bulletin 37(1), January: 1-114

Khilnani, Sunil (2003) The Idea of India (London: Penguin. Revised edition)

Khor, Martin (2001) Rethinking Globalization (London: Zed)

Klare, Michael T (2004) Blood and Oil: the dangers and consequences of America’s growing dependency on imported petroleum (New York: Henry Holt)

--- (2002) Resource Wars: the new landscape of global conflict (New York: Henry Holt. Revised edition)

Klein, Naomi (2000) No Logo: taking aim at the brand bullies (London: Flamingo)

Kobayashi-Hillary, Mark (2005) Outsourcing to India: the offshore advantage (Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Second edition)

MacLean, Sandra J, David R Black and Timothy M Shaw (eds) (2006) A Decade of Human Security: what prospects for global governance and new multilateralisms? (Aldershot: Ashgate, forthcoming)

MacGillivray, Alex (2006) A Brief History of Globalization (New York: Robinson)

Matthias, Sue (ed) (2006) ‘Special Issue: India’ New Statesman 30 January: 20-39

Mbabazi, Pamela and Ian Taylor (eds) (2005) The Potentiality of ‘Developmental States’ in Africa (Dakar: Codesria)

McGowan, Patrick J, Scarlett Cornelissen and Philip Nel (eds) (2006) Power, Wealth and Global Equity: an international relations textbook for Africa (Cape Town: UCT Press. Third edition)

Mittelman, James H (2000) The Globalization Syndrome: transformation and resistance (Princeton: Princeton University Press)

Mooij, Jos (ed) (2005) The Politics of Economic Reforms in India (New Delhi: Sage)

--- (2006) ‘The Reception of a Concept: “Governance” in India’ (The Hague: Garnet Workshop, April)

Mukherjee Reed, Ananya (ed) (2003) Corporate Capitalism in Contemporary South Asia: conventional wisdom and South Asian realities (London: Palgrave Macmillan)

Naim, Moises (2003) ‘The Five Wars of Globalization’ Foreign Policy 134, January/February: 28-37

--- (2005) Illicit: how smugglers, traffickers and copycats are high-jacking the global economy (New York: Doubleday)

Sachs, Jeffrey D (2005) The End of Poverty (London: Penguin)

Scholte, Jan Aart (2005) Globalization: a critical introduction (London: Palgrave Macmillan. Second edition)

Shaw, Martin (2003) ‘The Global Transformation of the Social Sciences’ in Mary Kaldor Helmut Anheier and Marlies Glasius (eds) Global Civil Society 2003 (Oxford: OUP) 35-44

Shaw, Timothy M (2004a) ‘International Development Studies in the Era of Globalization…and Unilateralism’ Canadian Journal of Development Studies 25(1): 17-24

--- (2004b) ‘The Commonwealth(s) and Global Governance’ Global Governance 10(4), October: 499-516

--- (2005) ‘The Global Political Economy’ in Haynes (ed) Palgrave Advances in Development Studies 249-267

--- (2006) ‘Beyond Internationalisation: onto the globalisation of higher education in the 21st century?’ (Goteborg: New Scenes for International Cooperation: Bjorn Hettne and the Internationalisation of Higher Education’, June)

Soros, George (2002) On Globalization (New York: PublicAffairs)

Therien, Jean-Philippe and Vincent Pouliot (2006) ‘The Global Compact: shifting the politics of international development?’ Global Governance 12(1), January-March: 55-75

van Amerom, Marloes and Bram Buscher (2005) ‘Peace Parks in Southern Africa: bringers of an African renaissance?’ Journal of Modern African Studies 43(2), June: 159-182

van der Westhuizen, Janis (2006) ‘Globalization and the South: markets, mafias and movements’ in McGowan, Cornelissen and Nel (eds) Power, Wealth and Global Equity 186-201

Weiss, Thomas G (2000) ‘Governance, Good Governance and Global Governance’ Third World Quarterly 21(5): 795-814

Wilson, Dominic and Roopa Purushothaman (2003) ‘Dreaming with the BRICs: the path to 2050’ (New York: Goldman Sachs, October)

World Bank (2005) Global Economic Prospects 2006: international remittances and migration (Washington, DC: IBRD, November)

World Economic Forum (2005) The Global Competitiveness Report 2005-2006 (London: Palgrave Macmillan)

Wulf, Herbert (2005) Internationalizing and Privatizing War and Peace: the bumpy ride to peace building (London: Palgrave Macmillan)

Zweig, David (2002) Internationalising China: domestic interests and global linkages (Ithaca: Cornell UP)