Marco Caselli

Measuring… What? Notes on Some Globalization Indices

The article examines some of the instruments devised to measure globalization, in particular the CSGR Globalisation Index and the A.T. Kearney/Foreign Policy Globalization Index. The article begins by comparing the features and results of these instruments, and then highlights their strengths and weaknesses. The two most significant weaknesses are as follows. The first consists in what Beck has called ‘methodological nationalism’: the fact that attempts are made to study an essentially transnational phenomenon on a national basis. The second weakness resides in the problems—in terms of the completeness, adequacy, and timeliness of information—of the database used to calculated these indices. Also to be emphasized is that analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of these indices cannot be separated from the purpose for which they have been devised. In other words, there is no one ‘best’ instrument in absolute terms; rather there is an array of instruments with which to pursue particular knowledge goals. Finally, discussion of the techniques used to measure the phenomenon provides an occasion to raise considerations concerning the nature of globalization. A Chinese version of this articles abstract is available online at: www.informaworld.com/rglo

Trying to Measure Globalization. Experiences, Critical Issues and Perspectives

Contents.- Introduction.- 1. Globalization: in search of definition of a controversial concept.- 2. Measuring complexity.- 3. Measuring globalization: the state-based approach.- 4. Globalization indices based on states: a comparism and some criticism.- 5. Alternative approaches and conclusions.-

New Directions in Globalization Indices

Abstract This paper discusses the measurement of globalization with a view to advancing the construction of globalization indices. It critically analyzes the types of indices that can contribute to knowledge and policy on globalization. Three issues are particularly highlighted: (a) the focus of measurement (i.e. on activities or policies); (b) the dimensions of measurement (i.e. cultural, ecological, economic, political, and/or social); and (c) the units of measurement (i.e. local, national, regional, and/or global). This paper argues that a workable forward strategy should not seek to identify the single best composite globalization index, but rather should work in an interdisciplinary mode towards a set of complementary globalization indices. These quantitative analyses can then be productively blended with qualitative approaches in a fuller assessment of globalizations extent and impact.

Transnationalism and co-development. Peruvian associations in Lombardy

Immigrant associations are, increasingly, at least in Italy, the key actors in the integration of foreign populations into local society; integration understood not as assimilation but as construction of a dialogue that, while respecting mutual differences, can enrich immigrants as much as natives. Not by chance, the objectives pursued most frequently by immigrant associations are both integration and the promotion of the specific culture of the populations (and countries) of which they are expressions. On the one hand, therefore, immigrant associations seek to interrelate their members, and, in general, the communities which they represent, with the population and culture of the host country. On the other hand, however, these same associations increasingly seek to maintain and build relationships between immigrant communities and their countries of origin, thereby becoming transnational actors. In this regard, immigrant associations sometimes promote projects and initiatives to foster the development of specific areas of their countries of origin, fuelling a process which has been termed co-development. Moreover, co-development may be an occasion to activate or consolidate collaboration among immigrant associations and other organizations in the host country. This paper analyses the topics, just outline, on the basis of data collected by a research project on the associations of Peruvian citizens in Lombardy.

Nation States, Cities, and People: Alternative Ways to Measure Globalization

In the first decade of the 21st century, attempts to measure globalization have multiplied, and they have led to the devising of diverse instruments, most notably the A. T. Kearney/Foreign Policy Globalization Index, the CSGR Globalisation Index, the KOF Index of Globalization, and the Maastricht Globalisation Index. Besides important similarities as regards structure, the dimensions considered, and the indicators used, the main feature shared by these instruments is the fact that they all use the same unit of analysis: the nation-state. This is a somewhat paradoxical situation, if one considers that one of the most distinctive characteristics of globalization is precisely that its dynamics extend beyond the state and the country. Gives this premise, the aim of the article is, on the one hand, to justify in any case the use of instruments that seek to measure globalization on the basis of states, and, on the other, to propose alternative approaches to such measurement. The article’s underlying assumption is that different approaches to the measurement of globalization are not mutually exclusive. Rather, such a plurality of perspectives is opportune and desirable given the complexity and multidimensionality of the concept of globalization.

Globalization Indices Based on States: A Comparison and Some Criticisms

In this chapter, the globalization indices presented one by one in the preceding part of the book are compared in regard to both their structure and their results. This is also an opportunity to bring criticisms against these instruments; criticisms above all of a technical nature but which also concern the capacity of globalization indices to reflect the essential features of the concept that they are intended to measure. In this regard, it should be immediately pointed that these criticisms are not intended to indicate the most ‘correct’ globalization index among all those developed to date, on the contrary, the intention is to show that, given the extraordinary complexity of globalization, no instrument is able to capture more than a part of such complexity and will inevitably have limitations and potentialities: full awareness of the former is the necessary precondition for being able to benefit from the latter.

Introduction: Globalization between Theories and Daily Life Experiences

Though a wide range of scientific studies have been published on the topic of globalization, seemingly analyzed to the smallest detail, discussion of this issue is neither commonplace nor easy. Analysis of globalization is never done, as the process is undergoing continuous transformation along development trends that are neither linear nor predictable in advance. In addition, analysis of it is not easy, given that the term globalization has been used with different meanings in several frameworks, both scientific and otherwise (Fiss and Hirsch 2005). But, even considering a single discipline such as sociology, we find that it has not assigned a univocal meaning to the topic, and analyses of the underlying processes of globalization are conducted according to radically different perspectives and interpretations. Hence, there is no general consensus on the concept’s definition, its confines, and even, at least in part, its basic characteristics. Finally, as underscored by Scholte (2005: 46) with a good dose of irony, “the only consensus about globalization is that it is contested”.

Globalization: In Search of Definition of a Controversial Concept

This chapter is devoted to analysis of the concept of globalization, highlighting its main components as well as ambiguities. Above all, however, the most critical arguments brought against the concept are considered, in an attempt to demonstrate, vice versa, its utility and validity: these being the necessary premises for justifying the book’s reflection on the instruments best suited to measuring globalization. The chapter also proposes a definition of globalization that may serve as a benchmark in the analysis of possible instruments for its measurement.

Alternative Approaches and Conclusions

The chapter starts with the challenge against methodological nationalism to envisage alternative ways to measure globalization. The first of them is based on the study of cities; the second on the study of individual experiences and persons. The chapter also draws a number of conclusions. In particular, on one hand it emphasises that the various approaches to the measurement of globalization should be viewed as complementary, not as antithetical, because each of them is able to grasp some aspects of the phenomenon but not its entirety. On the other hand, the chapter stresses that, despite the wide variety of instruments available, there are some features of globalization which, by their nature, seemingly evade any attempt at their measurement; features which, in the author’s opinion, are those most distinctive of globalization.

Measuring Globalization: The State-Based Approach

The chapter is devoted to the main globalization indices proposed to date: in particular those—the great majority—which use the nation-state as their unit of analysis. In this regard, one cannot but point out a paradox reiterated throughout the book: on the one hand, one of the distinctive features of globalization consists in the existence of processes and dynamics that unfold regardless of national borders, thereby gainsaying so-called ‘methodological nationalism’; on the other hand, this same phenomenon is nevertheless usually measured in terms of the nation-state, thereby assuming the perspective of methodological nationalism that is deemed necessary to discard. The chapter pays closest attention to the globalization indices which furnish a multidimensional reading of the phenomenon, thus fully recognizing one of its characteristic features. However, the chapter also makes brief mention of instruments which have measured globalization by considering only one of its dimensions—often, but not always, the economic dimension.