|
Motivation
Globalization involves a variety of links expanding and tightening
a web of political, economic and cultural inter-connections (Mittelman
1997, Hirst and Thompson, 1996). Most attention has been devoted to
merchandise trade as it has had the most immediate (or most visible)
consequences, but capital, in and of itself, has come to play an arguably
even larger role than the trade in material goods. Human movements also
link previously separate communities. Labor, while still subject to much
greater control than capital, moves transnationaly while tourism now
involves an estimated 600 million international travelers a year and
serves as a major economic sector for several countries. Finally, there is
the cultural connection. The ubiquity of CNN is already something of a
cliché, and entertainment industry budgets now make calculations on
the basis of a global market. Hollywood and Silicon Valley software
entertains and informs the world. All the individual data would indicate
that we are undergoing a process of compression of international time and
space and an intensification of international relations. The separation of
production and consumption that is the heart of modern capitalism appears
to have reached its zenith. Globalization is not just another "buzz-word"
(globaloney?), but very much a real and significant phenomenon.
But, what does it mean? What does a globalized world look like?
Despite the extensive discussion on globalization and international
interdependence, we still have a relatively limited idea of what this new
world looks like. We understand that there are more international
connections taking place, that a wider variety of goods and services are
being exchanged across boundaries, that more and more people live their
professional, family, and intellectual lives in more than one country, and
that cultural autarky is no longer possible. Yet, we know little more than
that. How fast have we integrated? What does the global web look like? Who
is in the center and who is on the margins? Have these positions shifted
over the past two decades?
Network analysis is perfectly suited to these types of questions and
represents the best metaphor for the new global system (Castells 1996).
Unlike other metatheoretical approaches, network analysis assumes a
multipolar social world (Knoke and Kuklinski 1982). While most other
methods consider hierarchical relationships in pyramidal forms, network
analysis can define them in an infinite variety of geometric
shapes—precisely what one may expect from a global web. Network analysis
can tell us the relative density of global connections, the relative
strength of ties between countries and regions, and the extent to which
these have changed over the past two decades.
Some initial work has already been done on measuring various forms of
global contact using network language and methods (Nemeth and Smith 1985,
Smith and White 1992, Snyder and Kick 1979). This research has included
studies of trade patterns, capital flows, airplane traffic, and telephone
communication. It has also included analysis of the transmission of idea
and policy frameworks (Meyer, et al 1997). Thus far, however, much of this
work has been focused on generating models or findings of interest to
network theorists. They have rarely been used to understand globalization.
More importantly, the different data sets rarely speak to each other
(Kellerman 1993 is a rare exception). While we might know the pattern of
relationships in trade or communications, we do not know how these are
linked to transnational labor movements, tourism, or the spread of
cultural icons such as CNN or even the Spice Girls. How do the exchanges
of goods, money, services, and persons relate to the transmission of ideas
and policy paradigms?
The combination of various network data sets and analyses would allow
us to link network position in a particular field (e.g.
telecommunications) with that in another (e.g. migration). With
longitudinal data, we could begin to explore the extent to which position
in a particular network could explain or predict subsequent position in
another. By adding non-network data such as economic growth rates, policy
votes, or cultural trends, we could also test the explanatory power of
network position in and of itself. These efforts would allow us to begin
addressing some of the most important questions in contemporary social
science:
- What are the relationships between political decisions and economic
outcomes?
- How are policies shaped by cultural understandings?
- How do economic markets transform cultures?
- What is the hierarchy of global power? What is the shape of the global
hierarchy?
- Are we heading towards a new multipolar world? Would culture,
political alliances, or economic links define these poles?
- How interdependent are we?
Such an exercise will also inform further research on networks. One
major weakness of network analysis is that while it has already produced
interesting work where networks serve as the causal variable, the shape of
any individual network is rarely explained or analyzed as a dependent
variable (Emirbayer and Goodwin 1994). By linking a variety of measures of
social, political, and economic ties, we may begin to discover which types
of relationships beget the others.
Stage 1:
The first stage of this process is publicizing the work that has
already been done and presenting basic findings regarding global
connections. We propose to edit a special issue in the American
Behavioral Scientist focusing on global networks. The point of these
articles would be to describe general findings in each of the
participants’ data sets. A reader of the special volume should be able to
a) better understand the current status of global integration and
b) have a good idea of what data already exist.
Stage 2:
The next stage is assembling all these data sets in a central
location and standardizing them so the various indicators can be combined.
Given the immense amount of work that defining a global web will involve
we want to argue for disseminating the raw data as widely as possible so
as to recruit the largest possible number of collaborators. This stage
would begin with a grant proposal to the McArthur Foundation asking for
support for:
- Collecting various network data sets (e.g. ITU, trade, tourism, policy
issues)
- Establishing a uniform format for these so that they can be combined
in models
- Creating a Website describing these various data sets and perhaps
(depending on level of difficulty) creating mechanisms by which they can
be downloaded through the Web
Stage 3:
Pursue further funding to support projects combining data sets and
semi-regular conferences on progress in mapping a global network.
References
Emirbayer, Mustafa and Jeff
Goodwin, 1994. "Network Analysis, Culture, and the Problem of Agency."
American Journal of Sociology, 99, 6, pp. 1411-54.
Hirst, Paul and Grahame Thompson. 1996. Globalization in
Question. London: Polity Press.
Kellerman, Aharon. 1993. "Interdependence and Autonomy in International
Communications", in Edward Bakis, Ronald Abler, and Edward Roche, eds.
Corporate Networks, International Telecommunications and
Interdependence. London: Belhaven Press.
Knoke, David and James H. Kuklinski. 1982. Network Analysis.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Meyer, John, J. Boli, G.M. Thomas, and F.O. Ramirez. 1997, "World
Society and the Nation State", American Journal of Sociology,
103.
Mittelman, James H. 1996. "How Does Globalization Really Work". In
James H. Mittelman, ed., Globalization: Critical Reflections.
Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Nemeth, Roger, and David Smith. 1985. "International Trade and World
System Structure: A Multiple Network Analysis", Review, 8, 4,
517-560.
Smith, David, and Douglas White. 1992. "Structure and Dynamics of the
Global economy: A Network Analysis of International Trade 1965-1980,"
Social Forces, 70, 4, pp. 857-893.
Snyder, David and Edward Kick. 1979. "The World System and World Trade:
An Empirical Exploration of Conceptual Conflicts", Sociological
Quaterly, 20,1, 23-36.
|
