Globalization's Alternatives: Competing or Complementary Perspectives?

Abstract

Recent writings on globalization have tended to argue that such economic interconnectedness is, in one way or another, geographically delimited. Three competing views appear in the literature, regionalization, triadization and the involutionist perspective. This article challenges the portrayal of these perspectives as competing conceptions and instead argues that each perspective furnishes us with a partial view of a larger process. In so doing, this paper revisits the involutionist perspective, arguing that, in relation to the developing countries’ relative share of world trade and investment shares, the use of the term ‘globalization’ should be questioned. Rather, in relation to trade, involution is a more apt description. However, in terms of FDI, stasis better describes the contemporary international economy. The article then examines the trade and investment patterns within the triad, corroborating earlier findings that each leg of the triad is increasingly trading more with their neighbours than with each other, but that inter‐triad FDI is indeed increasing. Three main factors are presented in order to explain the contemporary patterns of trade and investment associated with involution, regionalization and triadization: product differentiation, vertical specialization and the continuing concentration on primary product production in much of the developing world.

The Development of Trade Blocs in an Era of Globalisation

“…Note that the colonial effect might be overtaken by shared language, shared cultural background, and institutional similarities (compare Andresen, 2009b;Glenn, 2008). The results for common coloniser are similar to the long-timespan estimations.…”

“…Having common colonial ties has a positive effect on the probability of being in the same cluster (compare Head et al, 2010). Note that the colonial effect might be overtaken by shared language, shared cultural background, and institutional similarities (compare Andresen, 2009b;Glenn, 2008). The results for common coloniser are similar to the long-timespan estimations.…”

“…Are fewer trade clusters the result of this growing number of relationships? According to Glenn (2008), this is not the case. Even though trade might increase at a global level, the distance to a nation's trade partners will affect the volume of trade and therefore the regionalisation processes.…”

“…What drives the (geographic) clustering of trading nations? From the literature that will be discussed below, it can be argued that regional clusters exist due to forces of natural and institutional regionalisation (Andresen, 2009a;2009b;Glenn, 2008;MacLeod and Jones, 2007;Poon, 1997a;1997b;Poon and Pandit, 1996;Poon et al, 2000).…”

“…Economic activities occur within supranational or regional states, resulting in functionally interconnected transnational spaces. The 'space' where trade takes place is defined by flows of economic activity, rather than by political boundaries (Glenn, 2008;Jackson, 1999;Newman, 2003;Smith, 1913). Poon (1997a;1997b) argues that the regionalisation of international trade is a 'natural phenomenon' mainly driven by market forces.…”