Globalization 2

 

= 1. Introduction =

In recent times, intercontinental flow of masses, information, technology, goods and services, financial resources and culture have been showing a huge spurt of growth and without doubt this has transformed the world in a completely different way[1]. This concept can be termed as globalization. In apropos to this, a diversified set of discussion and debates have taken place regarding the phenomenon of globalization and the contradictory meanings linked with this phenomenon[2]. This refers, among others, to either “a dominant logic of globalization” which states that there is a single cause for globalization or to a “phenomenon with a complex set of causes” which argues that there are various causes for globalization[3].

Globalization is a phenomenon which includes in it multiple aspects of almost all spheres of life and is limited to not only economic and fiscal components but includes in it aspects related to culture, ideology and politics[4]. As a result, globalization has been included in many debates related to politics, social sciences, economics and international relations. Nevertheless, effects pertaining to globalization are seldom deemed as determinant or responsible in having an impact on our societies and cultures

The preservation of culture is feeding a lot of controversial and opposing reactions in the present borderless global scenario because of globalization of economies. One such example is that of Cowen[5] who states that many people see globalization as a damaging and destructive phenomenon because of what it has done to traditional and local cultures and the cultural differences, but at the same time all of this can take us towards new prospects as well.

In the same context, Pieterse J.N.[6] argues that globalization has given rise to a diversified set of trends such as that of cultural hybridization, cultural convergence and cultural differentiation.

This Wiki entry will provide an overview on different aspects pertaining to the interaction between globalization and culture. Key concepts will be introduced in the paper and a literature review of the relevant contributions will be presented. Also the factors of culture, which might affect management in cross-cultural settings will be discussed. Furthermore, there will be chapters discussing the three different cases of the interaction between culture and globalization. Despite some intersecting perspectives, this paper will present a broader set of debate on the current scenario of culture and globalization and further be presenting a cultural side of post globalization challenges. At the end there will be a future outlook and a conclusion.

= 2. The concept of Globalization =

Globalization is a widely discussed multidimensional concept that has been discussed by several major academic disciplines. The concept is so vast that no single theoretical framework can explain it fully.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) defines globalization as being characterized by the following attributes[7]:

•                    Increased economic interdependence between countries worldwide

•                    Increased volume and variety of international exchange in goods and services

•                    Increased cross-border flows of capital and international financial investment and

•                    Increased global distribution of technology and innovation.

As a result of the interaction of these factors a concentrated, unified, global scheme of prices, products, wages, compensations, interest rates and profits can be observed. It also leads to a homogenization of culture: globalization brings cultures in contact and proximity. Simply stated, globalization refers to a dominant and driving force that is shaping a new form of interconnections, flows among nations, economies and people[8].

A compiled definition that captures the essence of globalization states that it is a “multidimensional set of social process that create, multiply, stretch and intensify worldwide social interdependencies and exchanges while at the same time fostering in people a growing awareness of deepening connections between the local and the distant”[9]. This definition introduces to a broad idea of the main concept of the discussion of this paper: Cultural Globalization.

Acoording to Kumaravadivelu[10], Cultural Globalization refers to how “contacts between people and their cultures, their ideas, their values, their way of life, have been growing and deepening in unprecedented ways”. Cultural globalization refers to direct and immediate interactions between people from many different regions. This also exposures people to values and ideas other than their own, the mixing of these values and ideas, and how the ways of life are changing and hybridizing as result of these unifying processes.

A critical analysis of the relevant literature reveals the emergence of three schools of thought referring to Cultural Globalization: Cultural homogenization, Cultural heterogenization, and Cultural glocalization. The first group, the Cultural homogenization model, holds that cultural globalization is the progressive spreading of one dominant culture outward to other cultures[11] and positions American individualism and consumerism. The second group of researchers argue that some kind of cultural heterogenization is taking place in which local cultural and religious identities are being strengthened mainly as a response to the threat posed by globalization[12]. The third group holds that both homogenization and heterogenization are taking place at the same time. The third model, therefore, asserts that forces of globalization and those of localization are so complex and overlapping that they cannot be understood from the narrow perspective of a “Centre-periphery dichotomy”[13]. The three models will further be discussed later in this paper.

= 3. Management in Cross-Cultural Settings =

When working in a globalized world, managers should take several aspects of culture into consideration, which might affect operations. Several models exist to provide a general overview into the concept of national culture. The model of Hofstede is the one used most widely[14]. It provides managers a first impression of a culture he or she is interacting with. In his model form recent years he describes six dimensions:  power distance, individualism, masculinity and uncertainty avoidance pragmatism and indulgence[15]. According to Hofstede, power distance describes the degree to which members of society accept authority, while individualism describes the importance which is place on the individual above the group. Masculinity describes who much importance a society places on attributes which are regarded to be typical male attribute, such as being result driven as a goal orientation. Uncertainty avoidance takes into account how willing a society is to take risk. This is for example depicted in the degree of social security nets. He defines pragmatism as the degree to which traditions are important or how a society prefers to live in the present. The newest dimension is the indulgence one. It provides in insight into how much people in society are influenced by their desires and impulses and to what extent they want to control them[16].

Following Griffin and Pustay, several aspects are of importance[17]. They first consider social structure, the role of the individual, of family, and groups in a culture. In particular, what the place and the role of the individual is in a group and how important family ties are. This can have a major impact on the way business is conducted, in the way that family ties might be a major factor in the decision making or that the group is more important than the individual. Countries which score high on Hofsted’s individualism dimension will place more importance on the individual. Also, following Griffin and Pustay, the concepts of social stratification and social mobility have to be considered under this aspect[18]. Social stratification describes the degree to which people are categorized on the basis of their social background. For example, in India the cast system determines the place of an individual in the society from the day of birth and further the way the individual interacts with others. Social stratification can have an impact on the hiring and promotional practice of a firm[19]. In contrast, social mobility describes the degree to which members of the society are able to “climb the social letter”. This is usually more easily done in countries where social stratification is less an issue. The dimension of power distance will give an indication about the acceptance of power. Countries having a high score value a strict hierarchical structure and accept authority more easily. Social mobility is much more difficult in such countries. Cultures also differ in what they want to achieve and how they want to achieve them. This is closely related with the concept of individualism and collectivism. Hofstede differentiates here between aims which are regarded to be more masculine or more feminine. Feminine aims are more consensus-oriented, caring for the weak and achieving good quality of life for everyone. A society regarded to be more masculine aims at achievement, heroism, assertiveness and material rewards.

The second aspect managers should take into account is language and communication. Language is the factor that represents a society’s values, beliefs, attitudes and behavior routines[20]. It is the primary means of communication between members of a society and organizes society’s beliefs about the world[21]. How things are said and what is the importance of verbal and nonverbal communication. With verbal communication the message is encoded by the person who sends the message, thereby using cultural filters. The receiver of the message in turn then decodes it using the same filters[22]. A large part of communication between members of a society is done nonverbally. It includes facial expressions, hand gestures, intonation, eye contact, and body language. Also silence is part of nonverbal communication and can be interpreted differently in different cultural contexts. Countries, where the focus is on direct, explicit communication such as the Germany or Switzerland, are called low context cultures while countries in which the focus is on indirect communication such as Arabic countries are called high context cultures. With indirect communication the importance is often not what is said but how things are said and in which kind of setting[23]. Further should be considered the importance of gift giving and hospitality. In some cultures gift giving is an essential part of building relationships[24]. This aspect has a major impact on the way business is done, but is also the one which leads to most misunderstandings. Doing a thing one way in your country can mean a major insult in another. Knowing about such potential problems can help to avoid conflicts and help anticipating reactions beforehand.

An important aspect of culture is religion. Often religious beliefs are closely related to cultural beliefs and often shape those[25]. Religion can have a major impact on the way of doing business. For example, in some religions taking interest on a loan might not be allowed. As a last aspect Griffin and Pustay state the contribution of values and attitudes in a culture. This includes the perception of time, the importance of age, education, and status. The only dimension which might give an indication about this in the Hofstede model is one which was just introduced shortly: Indulgence versus restraint dimension. The more a society is influenced and ruled by religious rules or by the norms and values of the society, the more restraint the individual is within the society.

Many more aspects of culture, that effect management in cross-cultural settings, exist; however, the ones mentioned above are the most important ones.

= 4. Hybridization between globalization and cultural differences. =

Pieterse J.N.[26] argues that increasing awareness of differences in culture with the passage of time has become a subset of globalization, because globalization and cultural differences are interdependent. In fact, tourism, cross cultural communications, investments on a global scale, migration, international labour force mobility, etc. have made everyone conscious of the cultural differences in the current global scenario.

Ritzer, G.[27] explains that the process of hybridization is a model, which can be used to explain the interaction between globalization and culture. A new cultural hybrid is developed because of the interaction of internal and external flows and it itself contains the components of both. Barriers to block external flows do exist but normally they are not strong enough to do their job completely, though they are strong enough when it comes to protecting local cultures from being completely overwhelmed by the external flows.

Hybridization gives a postmodern outlook which contains in itself boundaries adhering to the amalgamation of different cultures. Advocates of the doctrines of modernity stand for a culture of order rooted within an explicit demarcation of national boundaries. Modernists would not tolerate that hybridization vanguards effects and experiences of what Foucault[28] termed subjugated knowledge.

In the past, there was a distinct division between cultural bands, but that is not the case in today’s globalized world, therefore we are in need of a stance so as to acknowledge and accept the cultural contributions which these diverse cultures bring towards the ongoing process of technological change and globalization[29].

In the same perspective, intercultural interaction is a deeply rooted phenomenon. Hamelink[30] also wrote that “the richest cultural traditions emerged at the meeting point of markedly different cultures, such as Sudan, Athens, the Indus Valley and Mexico”. This paved a way for an alternative argument in terms of globalization and culture and suggested that many cultures appeared to be fused together since centuries and thus the hybridization of cultures can be termed as a very normal phenomenon.

Over the time, hybridization in globalization and culture has also been quite frequently termed with the concept of glocalization and creolization[31]. Interaction of local and global resulting in an entirely new outcomes can be interpreted by the term glocalization[32], whereas when we talk about persons living in a society belonging to different races, it can be termed with help of cultural Creolization[33]. Robertson[34] argued that since the world is continuously experiencing growth of the societies and individuals living in these societies with the ability to accommodate themselves according to their newly formed communities refer to it as glocalization.

Keeping in mind the hybridization perspective, Appadurai[35] argues that globalization is a phenomenon which includes in itself the concept of differentiation as well as interconnection. Hence the world is composed of partially overlapping set of sociological, technological and cultural landscapes instead of comprising only of monolithic networks and these landscapes are the roots of globalization and of the cultural flows. Ritzer, G.[36] also states that these landscapes affect different nations differently and are independent in their own terms.

= 5. Homogenization: Globalization resulting in a universal culture =

Often questions are raised whether the transfer of technology, goods and services, capital, movement of the masses, etc. can lead to a somewhat unique and standardized culture or not? Can acculturation be a cause of a universal culture?

The homogenization is one such perspective which answers these questions positively as the world is getting more homogenized while adopting the European and American mode of life style because of the increasing interconnection between different cultures and countries[37].

Barriers preventing the amalgamation of the cultures in homogenization are quite weak; instead a strong flow of global factors can be observed[38]. He further states that in its most extreme form one can refer homogenization as convergence, in which the global culture has such a strong influence on the local culture that it changes it outlook completely or there is a very high probability of this to happen.

Prasad & Prasad[39] also pointed out that many people observe quite similar habits across different borders when it comes to watching television programs, music, consumption of global brands, their products and services, and they wear almost same clothes as well.

Robertson[40] shows that these similar traits are supportive of the emergence of a ‘global culture’. In other words, globalization is responsible for the creation of a new class of people belonging to this emergent global culture. Because of this concept and globalization, we can see a weakened connection between geographical boundaries and cultural experiences[41], and erosion of the feeling and sense of having national boundaries[42].

Globalization is, according to Beck U.[43], replication of western and American traditions and is considered as a destructive phenomenon which can result in a disaster for cultural traditions. As a result, more and more often the local cultures are not able to withstand this assault on them by the forces of globalization[44] [45]. This is due to the fact that globalization results in the elimination of national cultures and contributing towards the establishment of a homogenized culture for the entire world.

But on the other hand, many researchers follow the view that globalization is definitely not a destructive phenomenon. For example, Smith[46] entirely rejects this concept of the existence of globalization and that of a global culture as a cohesive force. In the same way, Tomlinson[47] pointed out that the phenomenon of globalization is very helpful for the individuals as it helps them to understand and be aware of the many different and distinct national cultures prevalent in our society. Thus instead of undermining the national cultures, globalization helps to strengthen them.

Almost all the national cultures resist to some extent any change forced on them by influence of a foreign culture. Therefore traits regarding local and global cultures can be amalgamated in a creative way with the help of globalization because of the fact that cultural hybridity is favored most of the time by the interactions of different cultures instead of cultural homogenization[48].

= 6. Globalization generating a state of Heterogeneity =

Many scholars argue that a state of heterogeneity is generated as a result of globalization which can be explained with the notion of a structural network in which dimensions of the culture are connected with each other through different nodes[49].

Chan[50] differentiated between two different types of heterogenization phenomenon. The one at the local level is of the view that the life style of the masses with the passage of time become more and more diverse, whereas heterogenization at a global level pertains to a situation in which the normal traditions in at least two particular locales become more and more distinct with the passage of time. In short, heterogenization, which can also be named as differentiation, points mainly to the obstacles which hinder the flow that can be helpful in making different cultures look alike. Thus, because of the influence of globalization, local cultures are continuously going through a process of reinvention and transformation. However one must be aware of the fact that though the globalization doesn’t allow the cultures to be unaffected by it, the roots of the cultures remain unaffected and intact with only cultural surfaces being directly influenced and impacted by the globalization[51].

Convergence thesis which advocates homogenization as a result of globalization underestimates the flow of individuals, goods, and ideas. Robertson[52], in this regard is a strong advocate of the phenomenon of heterogenization and is of the view that instead of erasing the existence of local cultures, these flows helps in changing only some of the traits of local cultures and at the same time helps to reinforce others as well. Wiley[53] also relates to national cultures in terms of globalization as ‘‘heterogeneous transnational field of culture’’.

In sum, because of globalization, local cultures incorporate in them many traits of foreign cultures and a coexistence can be seen between the two, so it can fairly be said that the phenomenon of differentiation or heterogenization will remain strong with the advancing of globalization.

= 7. Future Outlook  =

Globalization is a complex economic process, and has interdependencies with social and political developments in individual countries. As capital has become globally mobile and to avoid national regulations, it is often said that politics has lost its advantage over economical and societal structures[54]. Therefore, the economic part of globalization is claimed to be the most important one when it comes to measuring growth in globalization. However, in this case growth in globalization is equated with economic growth.

Over the past thirty years globalization has completely transformed how nations are conducting business in the world. In many economies, gains from specialization and trade advantages have arisen as a result of globalization. The future growth trend will be determined by the demographic development. Alongside the population, investments in physical and human capital are important drivers for growth. Furthermore, advances in technology arise and are spread faster to free capital flows and new information technologies. The long-term global economic growth trend is expected continue rising, with a growth of 200 per cent from 1990 until 2020[55].

Rorsted[56] claims that economic forces alone will not be sufficient to successfully manage the consequences of globalization. The author further states the necessity of active political actions and commitment to provide people with skills and qualifications needed in order to participate in a globalized market as key factors. Rorsted [57]also highlights the important role of international corporations in promoting the process of globalization. Moreover, these corporations bear a great responsibility. Rorsted[58] points out business ethics, corporate social responsibility, cultural diversity and training and education as important areas to improve and manage in the future.

Sullivan[59] stresses that culture and paradigm-bound labor will have to be completed by more comprehended theories, theories that take broad human tendencies into account. The author also states the responsibility of global companies and means that they not only have to compel to attend to increased demands by employees regarding autonomy and recognition of cultural and national identity, the companies must also construct workplaces more in accordance with human nature.

The importance of English as a language of international communication has increased significantly during recent decades. It has become the undisputed international language in many areas. Moreover, Rorsted[60] also mentions the importance of education in the future of a globalized world. He mentions the ability to work in teams, flexibility and cultural awareness and, not least, knowledge of foreign languages, English above all.

= 8. Conclusion  =

The growth of globalization is often measured in terms of economic progress. The future growth trend will be determined by the demographic development, investments in physical and human capital, as well as advances in technology and IT. The long-term economic growth is expected to continue rising.

Apart from the economic growth there are other aspects that are important to consider regarding globalization. Aspects as business ethics, corporate social responsibility, cultural diversity and education are important areas to improve and manage in the future. Ability to work in teams, flexibility, cultural awareness and, not least, language knowledge are all important factors regarding education.

Nowadays, through all communication channels available it is quite easy to know and exchange any kind of information from individuals all over the world, which in some way influence their social interaction through acquired behaviors, responses and attitudes. However, nations get involved in a cultural integration process without losing their cultural uniqueness. This argument is supported by some authors who have rejected the idea of homogenization based on empirical evidence, arguing that globalization preserves national particularities. It is argued that every culture preserves its own cultural characteristics while absorbing and interpreting cultural particularities of other societies with which they are in contact. Factors that influence management in cross-cultural settings are the social structure, goal orientation, language and communication, religion and norms, values and attitudes.

Culture openness is a phenomenon that distinguishes differences between cultures, which do not necessarily mean the standardization of cultures. To benefit from richness of other cultures, managers should be opened in order to improve their social and economic capabilities. Cultures are dynamic and can combine foreign attributes without being necessarily eclipsed by another culture.

= References =

[1] Ritzer, G., & Malone, E. L. (2001). Globalization theory: Lessons from the exportation of McDonaldization and the new means of consumption, in G. Ritzer (Ed.), Explorations in the sociology of consumption. California: Sage Publications.

[2] Bird, A., & Stevens, M. (2003). Toward an emergent global culture and the effects of globalization on obsolescing national cultures. Journal of International Management , 9 (4), 395-407.

[3] Beck, U. (2000). What is Globalization? Cornwall: MPG Books, Bodmin Ltd.

[4] Prasad, A., & Prasad, P. (2006). Global transitions: The emerging new world order and its implications for business and management. Business Renaissance Quarterly , 1 (3), 91-113.

[5] Cowen, T. (2002). Creative Destruction: How Globalization is Changing the World's Cultures. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

[6] Pieterse, J. (1996). Globalisation and Culture: Three Paradigms. Economic and Political Weekly , 31 (23), 1389-1393.

[7] IMF, “World Economic Outlook,” May, 1997

[8] Kumaravadivelu, B. (2008). Cultural globalization and language education. New Havenm CT: Yale Universiy Press.

[9] Steger, M. (2004). Rethinking globalism. Rowman & Littelfied Publshers.

[10] Kumaravadivelu, B. (2008). Cultural globalization and language education. New Havenm CT: Yale Universiy Press.

[11] Kinberg, M. (2009). Review of the book Cultural globalization and language education. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism (6), pp. 734 - 737.

[12] Kumaravadivelu, B. (2008). Cultural globalization and language education. New Havenm CT: Yale Universiy Press.

[13] Ibid

[14] Hofstede, G. (2014). Geert Hofstede. Retrieved from The Hofstede Centre: http://geert hofstede.com/germany.html

[15] Griffin, R. W., & Pustay, M. W. (2013). International Businesss'' (7th ed.). Essex: Pearson Education Limited.''

[16] Hofstede, G. (2014). Geert Hofstede. Retrieved from The Hofstede Centre: http://geert hofstede.com/germany.html

[17] Griffin, R. W., & Pustay, M. W. (2013). International Businesss'' (7th ed.). Essex: Pearson Education Limited.''

[18] Ibid

[19] Ibid

[20] Thomas, D. C. (2008). Cross-Cultural Management: Essential Concepts (2nd ed.). NY: Sage

[21] Griffin, R. W., & Pustay, M. W. (2013). International Businesss'' (7th ed.). Essex: Pearson Education Limited.''

[22] Ibid

[23] Ibid

[24] Ibid

[25] Thomas, D. C. (2008). Cross-Cultural Management: Essential Concepts'' (2nd ed.). NY: Sage.''

[26] Pieterse, J. N. (1996). Globalisation and Culture: Three Paradigms. Economic and Political Weekly , 31 (23), 1389-1393.

[27] Ritzer, G. (2010). Globalization: A Basic Text. West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

[28] Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.

[29] Pieterse, J. N. (1996). Globalisation and Culture: Three Paradigms. Economic and Political Weekly , 31 (23), 1389-1393.

[30] Hamelink, C. (1983). Cultural Autonomy in Global Communications. New York: Longman.

[31] Hannerz, U. (1987). The World in Creolization. Africa , 57 (4), 546-559.

[32] Giulianotti, R., & Robertson, R. (2007). Forms of Glocalization: Globalization and the Migration Strategies of Scottish Football Fans in North America. Sociology , 41 (1), 133-152.

[33] Cohen, R. (2007). Creolization and cultural globalization: the soft sounds of fugitive power. Globalizations , 4 (3), 369-384.

[34] Robertson, R. (2001). Globalization Theory 2000+: Major Problematics. In G. Ritzer, & B.Smart, Handbook of Social Theory (pp. 458-471). London: Sage Publications.

[35] Appadurai, A. (1990). Disjuncture and difference in the global cultural economy. Public Culture , 2 (2), 1-24.

[36] Ritzer, G. (2010). Globalization: A Basic Text. West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

[37] Liebes, T. (2003). American Dreams, Hebrew Subtitles: Globalization from the Receiving End. Cresskill, New Jersey: Hampton Press.

[38] Ritzer, G., & Malone, E. L. (2001). Globalization theory: Lessons from the exportation of McDonaldization and the new means of consumption, in G. Ritzer (Ed.), Explorations in the sociology of consumption. California: Sage Publications.

[39] Prasad, A., & Prasad, P. (2006). Global transitions: The emerging new world order and its implications for business and management. Business Renaissance Quarterly , 1 (3), 91-113.

[40] Robertson, R. (1992). Globalization: Social Theory and Global Culture. London: Sage Publications.

[41] Held, D., & McGrew, A. (2003). The Global Transformations Reader: An Introduction to the Globalization Debate. Cambridge,UK.: Polity Press.

[42] Prasad, A., & Prasad, P. (2006). Global transitions: The emerging new world order and its implications for business and management. Business Renaissance Quarterly , 1 (3), 91-113.

[43] Beck, U. (2000). What is Globalization? Cornwall: MPG Books, Bodmin Ltd.

[44] Berger, P. (2002). The cultural dynamics of globalization. In P. Berger, & S. Huntington, Many Globalizations: Cultural Diversity in the Contemporary World'' (pp. 1-16). New York: Oxford University Press.''

[45] Jaja, J. M. (2011). Globalization or Americanization: implications for Sub-Saharan Africa. In K. Deng, Globalization- Today, Tomorrow'' (pp. 113-124). Croatia.''

[46] Smith, A. D. (2003). Towards a global culture? In D. Held, & A. M. A, The Global Transformations Reader: An Introduction to the Globalization Debate'' (pp. 278-286). Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.''

[47] Tomlinson, J. (2003). Globalization and cultural identity. In D. H. al., The Global Transformations Reader (pp. 269-278). Cambridge, Uk: Polity Press.

[48] Hassi, A., & Storti, G. (2012). Globalization and Culture: The Three H Scenarios. In H. Cuadra-Montiel, Globalization - Approaches to Diversity. 

[49] Matei, S. (2006). Globalization and heterogenization: Cultural and civilizational clustering in telecommunicative space. Telematics and Informatics , 23, 316-331.

[50] Chan, C. S. (2011). Divorcing localization from the divergence paradigm: Localization of Chinese life insurance practice and its implications. International Sociology , 26 (3), 346-363.

[51] Ritzer, G. (2010). Globalization: A Basic Text. West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

[52] Robertson, R. (2001). Globalization Theory 2000+: Major Problematics. In G. Ritzer, & B.Smart, Handbook of Social Theory (pp. 458-471). London: Sage Publications.

[53] Wiley, S. (2004). Rethinking nationality in the context of globalization. Communication Theory , 14 (1), 78-96.

[54] Bräuninger, M., & Vöpel, H. (2010). Globaliztation and Groth: A Macroeconomic Perspective. In R. Ijioui, H. Emmerich, M. Ceyp, & J. Hagen, Globalization 2.0 A Roadmap to the Future from Leading Mindes'' (Vol. VIII, pp. 5-19). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.''

[55] Bishop, T., Reinke, J., & Adams, T. (2011). Globalization:Trends and prespectives. Journal of International Business Research , 10 (1), pp. 117-130.

[56] Rorsted, K. (2010), A New Age Dawning. In R. Ijioui, H. Emmerich, M. Ceyp, & J. Hagen, Globalization 2.0 A Roadmap to the Future from Leading Mindes'' (Vol. VIII, pp. 21-35). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer''

[57] Ibid

[58] Ibid

[59] Sullivan, J., & collection), e. (.-b. (2002). The future of corporate globalization: from the extended order of the global village. Westport, Conn: Quorum Books.

[60] Rorsted, K. (2010), A New Age Dawning. In R. Ijioui, H. Emmerich, M. Ceyp, & J. Hagen, Globalization 2.0 A Roadmap to the Future from Leading Mindes'' (Vol. VIII, pp. 21-35). Berlin, Heidelberg:'' Springer