Francisco Brambila's Blog

Globalization and the Global Power Distribution Struggle

February 12, 2018

Engineered Globalization vs. globalization processes

Despite the market-based features of all global interactions, global processes remain subject to an institutional scrutiny that oversees the management of policies under a fixed range of qualitative measures. I.e. the studies around “globalization” are stagnated around the organizational nature and capacity of stakeholders to respond to controlled events, rather than the proportions and mechanisms behind a “virtual organizational space” that delivers equilibrium.

Although claims around the passive nature of the “virtual organizational space” grants an equal transactional language for all stakeholders, fluctuations that go beyond competition and the rule of law, often appear in the preference of Super-actors. Due to the lack of concurrence, after almost two decades of impunity, it is evident that the “virtual organizational space” is in fact a political construct that operates on behalf of an “engineered Globalization” -an attempt to capture the Post-Cold War global state of affairs under a political umbrella- by contrast to “globalization processes” -as a natural expansion of markets-.

Notwithstanding, considering that not even a hegemonic global distribution of power would have the capacity to keep the pace of managing all aspects of globalization, acupuncture policies were to be implemented, not only allow for the expansion of the “virtual organizational space” in a controlled manner, but to seduce all stakeholders under the premises of developmental superiority and “good practices”.


New actors and the new globalization processes

Considering the meticulous attempts by the hegemonic global distribution of power through an “Engineered Globalization” scheme to retain supremacy, two questions arise.

First, why did the hegemonic distribution of power miscalculate the period of time until it was challenged by emerging powers?

Second, how were contesting powers able to challenge the “engineered” vs. “causal” balance of globalization in favor of a natural order?

The diversification of industries and physical expansion of trade -due to the geographical distribution of resources- did not only become the basis of development for both contesting power systems, but also initiated a new struggle for cooperation with third-party nations.

The success of the emerging powers can be attributed to the apolitical nature of their cooperation, superior to the Western institutional ideology with a long history of political interference. I.e. the collectivization of multiple stakeholders under a centralized order was inefficient facing a fluid organizational under a competitive advantage scheme.

This new set of paradigms on the global architecture, ultimately demonstrated that global policy wasn’t dependent on policy brokers but on the causal effects that their specific actions arose. The vestigial nature of such global actions, allowed contesting powers to reorganize their strategic advantages for a common interest on a direction exhausted by the hegemonic power distribution.

Regionalization and new global processes

Considering that the “Engineered Globalization” was defeated by the natural “globalization processes” due to the appearance of competition in a wider power distribution scheme, it seems to open a new set of questions concerning the direction and balance of the global order.

First, the Hegemonic distribution of power contracted -acquiring more internal power- yet is doing everything possible to retain its global dominance. The first question is how to break the hegemonic distribution of power through a peaceful transition. Although the combination of coercive means and power would only result in a global conflict, -thereafter unsustainable for everyone- the globalization’s natural needs for trade and pragmatic international cooperation may be sufficient to challenge the West.

Second, the current struggle for a wider distribution of global power can be understood as a “flexible” process. On the one hand, it contemplates the expansion of new powers on postcolonial regions, on the other hand, national interests may clash -contract- within the general census of certain regionalized alliances; for instance, it seems that the Russian-Chinese conflict resolution around the Tajikistan issue citing reasons for national security, and a range of wider cooperation agreement prospects on equal terms may provide the necessary incentives for crisis management.

Third, when struggle for a wider power distribution involves interaction with post-colonialist countries as a symbol of dominance. As of August 2017, the US debt to China is over $1.2 Trillion USD; moreover, the prospects of Chinese investments on the Nuclear energy market in the United Kingdom seems to the benefit of both parties.

Share this article

Poll conducted

  1. Korean Peninsula Crisis Has no Military Solution. How Can It Be Solved?
    Demilitarization of the region based on Russia-China "Dual Freeze" proposal  
     36 (35%)
    Restoring multilateral negotiation process without any preliminary conditions  
     27 (26%)
    While the situation benefits Kim Jong-un's and Trump's domestic agenda, there will be no solution  
     22 (21%)
    Armed conflict still cannot be avoided  
     12 (12%)
    Stonger deterrence on behalf of the U.S. through modernization of military infrastructure in the region  
     4 (4%)
    Toughening economic sanctions against North Korea  
     2 (2%)
For business
For researchers
For students