KÜRESELLEŞMEDEN GERİ DÖNÜŞ: KÜRESELLEŞME, YARI KÜRESELLEŞME VE TERSİNE KÜRESELLEŞME ÜZERİNE BİR TARTIŞMA

Year 2016, Issue: 6, 1 - 22, 01.12.2016

Recai Coşkun

Abstract

Çalışma, küreselleşme kavramı çevresinde yapılan tartışmaları 25 yıllık bir süreçte ele almakta ve “küreselleşmecilerin” küçük bulgulardan büyük çıkarımlar yapmaları nedeniyle ana önermelerinin verilerle desteklenmediği ve dolayısıyla reddedildiğini ortaya koymaktadır. Ayrıca, küreselleşmecilerin olguya oldukça ideolojik dürtülerle yaklaşmaları ve iddialarını bilimsel verilerle desteklememeleri nedeniyle konu hakkındaki tartışmalarının doğal olarak spekülatif olduğu gözlenmiştir. Bu çalışmada tartışılan ve küreselleşmeciler tarafından öne sürülen üç ana önerme şunlardır: i Sosyal demokrasi önderliğindeki tek kutuplu bir dünya düzeni insanlık için tek seçenek olarak ortaya çıkmaktadır; ii Ekonomik küreselleşme geri dönülemez bir gidişattır; iii Küreselleşme çağında ulus-devletin varlığını sürdürmesi ihtimali oldukça düşüktür. Tartışmamız, 25 yıllık dönemdeki gelişmeler ışığında bu önermelerin hepsinin reddedildiğini ortaya koymaktadır. Ek olarak, küreselleşmeye atfedilen birçok gelişmenin gerçekte sermayenin tekelleşmesinin yapay ürünleri olduğu sonucuna varılmıştır. Son olarak, ilgili yazında küreselleşmenin giderek daha az çekici ve daha az görünür olduğu; buna karşılık “yarı küreselleşme” ve “tersine küreselleşme” gibi terimlerin ise daha çok göze çarptıkları saptanmıştır.

Keywords

Küreselleşme, Yarı Küreselleşme, Tersine Küreselleşme

RETREATING FROM GLOBALISATION: A DISCUSSION OVER GLOBALISATION, SEMIGLOBALISATION AND DEGLOBALISATION

Abstract

This study handles the discussions made around the term of globalisation in a period of 25 years and displays that due to the grand generalizations that inferred from relatively little findings, the main propositions introduced by the globalists are not suggested by the data and therefore refuted. Additionally, it is observed that because of globalists’ approach to globalization is rather ideologically motivated and not supported by scientific findings their discussions about the subject matter are speculative in nature. The main propositions claimed by the globalists that discussed in this study are: i A single-polar world order led by social democracy is emerging as the sole option for humanity; ii Economic globalization is an irreversible trend; and iii In the era of globalization nation-state is highly unlikely to survive. Our discussion displays that under the light of the developments around the world within 25 years of period all these propositions are refuted. It is also understood that most of the developments attributed to globalizations are in fact artificial products of monopolization of the capital. Lastly, it is identified that globalization as a term becoming less attractive and less existent in the related literature whereas terms such as “semi-globalization”, and “de-globalisations” are more evident.

Keywords

Globalisation, Semi-globalisation, De-globalisation

References

• Amin, S. (2014) Capitalism in the Age of Globalization: The Management of Contemporary Society, Londra, Zed Books.
• Bird, G. Ve Rajan, R. (2001) “Economic Globalization: How Far and How Much Further?”, CIES Discussion Paper 0117, April.
• Caroll, B., Bloomfield, K. ve Maher M. (2014) “The Changing Headquarters Landscape for For- tune Global 500”, The Bureau of National Affairs, http://www.bna.com, s.2.
• Cerny, P. G. (1994) “The dynamics of financial globalization: Technology, market structure, and policy response”, Policy Sciences, December, Volume 27, Issue 4, pp 319–342.
• Chen, A. (2015) “Record number of manufacturing jobs returning to America”, Marketwatch, 1 Mayıs
• http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-flips-the-script-on-jobs-reshoring
• finally-outpaced-offshoring-in-2014-2015-05-01 (erişim 26, 11, 2016).
• Coşkun, R., Taş, A. ve Çitçi, U.S. (2016) Küreselleşme ve Uluslararası İşletmecilik, (basılacak) İstan- bul, ADRA.
• Das, D. K. (2011) “Conceptual Globalism and Globalisation: An Initiation”, Warwick University, CSGR Working Paper, No: 275/11.
• Dedeoğlu, B. (2011) “Türkiye’de AB Karşıtlığı-Küreselleşme Karşıtlığı İlişkisi”, Uluslararası İliş- kiler, Cilt 7, Sayı 28 (Kış), s. 85-109.
• Er, P. H. (2013) Girişimcilik ve Yenilikçilik Kavramlarının İktisadi Düşüncedeki Yeri: Joseph A. Schumpeter, Selçuk Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, s. 29, 75.85.
• Engelhardt, T. (2014) “Will a Multi-Polar World be more Peaceful? The Failure of the Project for a New American Empire”
• http://www.juancole.com/2014/03/peaceful-project- american.html
• Fukuyama, F. (1992) The End of History and the Last Man, New York: The Free Press.
• Ghemawat, P., Pisani, N. (2013) “Are Multinationals Becoming Less Globalized?”, Harvard Busi- ness Review, October, 28.
• Giddens, A. (2003) “The Globalising of Modernity”, içinde, Held, D. Ve McGrew (der) The glo- bal transformations reader: an introduction to the globalization debate, 2. Baskı, Cambridge, Polity Press.
• Goncalves, M., Alves, J. Frota, C. Xia, H. ve Arcot, R. V. (2014) Advanced Economies and Emerging Markets: Prospects for Globalization, New York, Business Expert Press.
• Hagerty, J. R. ve Magnier, M. (2015) “Companies Tiptoe Back Toward ‘Made in the U.S.A.’”, The Wall Street Journal, 13 Ocak, http://www.wsj.com/articles/companies-tiptoe-back- toward-made-in-the-u-s-a-1421206289 (erişim 26 Kasım, 2016).
• Held, D. Ve McGrew, A. (2003) “The Great Globalization Debate: An Introduction”, içinde, Held, D. Ve McGrew (der) The global transformations reader: an introduction to the globali- zation debate, 2. Baskı, Cambridge, Polity Press.
• Hillebrand, E. E. (2010) “Deglobalization Scenarios: Who Wins? Who Loses?, The Berkeley Elect- ronic Press, http://www.uky.edu/~ehill2/dynpage_upload/files/ DeglobalizationScena- rios.pdf (erişim, 26.11.2016).
• Jaffrelot, C. (2003) “For a Theory of Nationalism”, CERI/CNRS, No: 10, June, (http://www.sciencespo.fr/ceri/sites/sciencespo.fr.ceri/files/qdr10.pdf).
• Karacan, S., Aygün, D. Ve Savcı, M. (2012) “Çay İşletmelerinde Faaliyet Temelli Maliyetlemenin Kullanılabilirliği ve Bir Uygulama”, Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi, İİBF Dergisi, C.XIV, S I.
• Kartal, Z. (2007) “Kuramsal ve Tarihsel Yönleri ile Küreselleşme”, Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversi- tesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 8(2), s. 251-263.
• Karunaratne, N. D. (2012) “The Globalization-Deglobalization Policy Conundrum” Modern Eco- nomy, 3, 373-383. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/me.2012.34048 Published Online July 2012 (http://www.SciRP.org/journal/me)
• Lockyer, S. (2008) “Textual Analysis”, içinde GIVEN, L. M., (Derleyen) The Sage Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods, Vol1&2, Sage Publications.
• Mcluhan, M. (1962) The Gutenberg Galaxy: The Making of Typographic Man; Toronto, University of Toronto Press.
• Ohmae, K. (1995) The End of the Nation State: The Rise of Regional Economies, New York: The Free Press.
• Postelnicu, C., Dinu, V. Ve Dabija, D. (2015) Economic Deglobalization: From Hypothesisi to Reality”, Ekonomie, E+M, XVIII, 2 DOI: 10.15240/tul/001/2015-2-001.
• Reich, S. (1998) “What is Globalization? Four Possible Answers”, Working Paper 261, Kellogg Institute, December.
• Roemer, T. (2015) “Why It's Time to Bring Manufacturing Back Home to the U.S.”, Forbes, 2 Şubat, http://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesleadershipforum/2015/02/02/why-its-time-to- bring-manufacturing-back-home-to-the-u-s/#4fc8cfe70260, erişim (26, 11, 2016).
• Rothfeder, J. (2015) “The Great Unraveling of Globalization”, The Washington Post, April 24, (https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/reconsidering-the-value-of- globalization/2015/04/24/7b5425c2-e82e-11e4-aae1-d642717d8afa_story.html) (Erişim 11, 11, 2016).
• Scholte, J. A. (2002) “What Is Globalization? The Definitional Issue – Again”, Warwick University, CSGR Working Paper, No. 109/02, December.
• Schweppe, J. Walters, M. A. (Ed.) (2016) The Globalization of Hate Internationalising Hate Crime?, New York: Oxford.
• Shangquan, G. (2000) “Economic Globalization: Trends, Risks and Risk Prevention”, CDP Backg- round Papers, No 1, United Nations Development Policy and Analysis Division, De- partment of Economic and Social Affairs, http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/cdp/cdp_background_papers/bp2000_ 1.pdf
• Smith, A. D. (1998) Nationalism and modernism: a critical survey of recent theories of nations and nati- onalism, Londra, Routledge.
• Steger, M. B. (2005) “Ideologies of Globalization”, Journal of Political Ideologies, February, 10(1), 11–30
• Steger, M. B. (2013) Globalization: A Very Short Introduction, Oxfors, 3. Baskı, Oxford University Press.
• Şener, B. (2014) “Küreselleşme Sürecinde Ulus Devlet ve Egemenlik Olguları”, Tarih Okulu Der- gisi (TOD), Yıl 7, Sayı XVIII, Haziran, s. 51-77.
• Tomja, A. (2014) Polarity and International System Consequences”, Interdisplinary Journal of Research and Development, Vol I, No.1.
• Tor, S. S. ve Esengün, K. (2011) “Örgütlerde İş Tatminini Etkileyen Demografik Faktörler ve Verimlilik: Karaman Gıda Sektöründe Bir Uygulama, KMÜ Sosyal ve Ekonomi̇k Araştır- malar Dergisi, 13 (20), s. 53-63.
• Tovey, A. (2014) “Why are UK Firms Bringing Manufacturing Back Home?”, The Telegraph, 3 Mart, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/10671738/Why-are-UK-firms-bringing- manufacturing-back-home.html (erişim, 26 Aralık 2016).
• UNCTAD (2015) World Investment Report, New York, BM.
• UNCTAD (2016) World Investment Report, UN, New York.
• Williamson, Jeffrey (2002) “Winners and Losers Over Two Centuries of Globalization”, Camb- ridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 9161.