and Subregional Response
Globalization has become the buzzword of the 1990s. Numerous publications have presented the idea of an increasing global interdependence, conveying the image of a genuine world economy with transnational corporations as its most important actors, deploying resources across economic sectors and national boundaries. In this view, the specific dynamics of national economies and economic management at the national level have become increasingly irrelevant in a truly global economy, where these transnational corporations manufacture parts of a commodity in one country, assemble it elsewhere, put on the finishing touches in a third country, and sell it in yet another. Their marketpower derives from the mobility of capital, but also from the relative immobility of labor. 1 Extreme views on globalization, like those presented by Kenichi Ohmae, 2 picture these international economic processes as a juggernaut rolling along, uncontrolled and uncontrollable by individual governments. The state, in this perspective, has increasingly become a nominal participant on the world economic stage. Its ability to define a course independent from these pressures toward international coordination has been decisively undermined by the increasing global economic interdependence.
Besides the processes pushing toward global integration, globalization addresses widely different developments within the international political economy, including social, political, and cultural-ideological factors. In this way, globalization interrelates multiple levels of analysis in the economic, political, social, and cultural spheres. 3