GLOBALIZATION, NOT SO NEW!

Jurgen Osterhammel, The Transformation of the World: A Global History of the Nineteenth Century, translated from the German by Patrick Camiller (Princeton & Oxford: Princeton U. Press, 2014) (From "Introduction to the First German Edition" (2009): "All history inclines toward being world history." Id. at xv.).

Jurgen Osterhammel & Niels P. Petersson, Globalization: A Short History, translated from the German by Dona Geyer (Princeton & Oxford: Princeton U. Press, 2003, 2005) (From the bookjacket: "'Globalization' has become a popular buzzword for explaining today's world. The expression achieved teminological stardom in the 1990s and was soon embraced by the general public and integrated into numerous languages." "But is this much-discussed phenomenon really an invention of modern times? In this work, Jurgen Osterhammel and Niels O. Peterson make the case that globalization is not so new, after all." "Arguing that the world did not turn 'global' overnight, the book traces the emergence of globalization over the past seven or eight centuries. In fact, the authors write, the phenomenon can be traced back to early modern large-scale trading, for example, the silk trade between China and the Mediterranean region, the shipping routes between the Arabian Peninsula and India, and the more frequently traveled caravan routes of the Near East and North Africa--all conduits for people, goods, coins, artwork, and ideas." "Osterhammel and Petersson argue that the period from 1750 to 1880--an era characterized by the development of free trade and the long-distance impact of the industrial revolution--represented an important phase in the globalization phenomenon. Moreover, they demonstrate how globalization in the mid-twentieth century open up the prospect of global destruction through nuclear war and ecological catastrophe. In the end, the authors write, today's globalization is part of a long-running transformation and has not ushered in a 'global age' radically different from anytime that came before." From the text: "If any consensus exists among authors of the various persuasions, then it is the assumption that globalization challenges the importance of the nation-state and alters the balance of power between states and markets in favor of the latter. It is argued that those profiting from its development and from steps taken by national governments to facilitate free trade are the multinationals corporations, which can pick the least expensive options for direct investment worldwide without being hampered by loyalty to their countries of origin. The ability of national governments to influence economic development and their access to resources, especially taxes, is said to be impaired. The provisions of the welfare state are also being dismantled, thereby diminishing the legitimacy of the state--a development that in the eyes of neoliberal globalization enthusiasts means a gain of personal freedom, whereas for globalization opponents it is the onset of anarchy, which benefits only the strong. Thus, one of the central themes of social science today is the erosion of the (nation) state's external sovereignty, its domestic monopoly of force, and its ability to govern." Id. at 6-7.).