Globalization Theories

Globalization Theories
Introduction. The main theories of development – dependency, globalization and modernization, have been joined by a number of other theories that seek to explain how our world and society have developed. The most prominent among these is world systems theory, but world culture theory and world society theory also exist, using different frames of references to support their views. These frameworks provide an interesting perspective on the many different ways we study development, and as such as are worth of scholarship and understanding, even the minor ones that have yet to enjoy much uptake in the scholarly community on development.
World Systems Theory
Immanuel Wallerstein proposed the world systems theory in the 1970s. As he explains (2013), world systems theory was created out of rejection for the study of sociology as it had existed since the 19th century. The aim, therefore, was to replace sociology with a theory that had greater explanatory power for the world as he observed it. By rejecting sociology, Wallerstein intended to create a system of analysis that broke down the traditional barriers between different social sciences, and instead analyzed the world and its nations as a complex system.
Wallerstein brought to his discussion his own concept of modernization, one that explicitly rejects modernization theory (Skocpol, 1977). Among the direct issues Wallerstein has with modernization theory is that it is focused on the nation-state; Wallerstein's theory traces the origins of modern society back through feudal times, predating the nation-state and rejecting the idea that the nation-state is the only relevant unit of analysis. He also argues that there are multiple different paths of development, contrary to modernization theory, which holds that all nations must follow the same path, albeit at different times. Further, Wallerstein brings to his world systems analysis transnational structures. These were actually nascent in the 1970s, but have come to play a much larger role in global development since that time.
Wallerstein has continued to build out his theory since he first developed it. The theory was brought to light originally with a number of flaws, which proved fodder for critics (Skocpol, 1977). But his theory gained traction as at the very least an alternate system for analysis. These critiques have allowed Wallerstein to not only defend his work, but to build on it. Robertson & Lechner (1985) offered a critique with respect to how the theory treated culture, but that provides an opportunity to flesh out the theory and address the weakness.
There are several similarities between world systems theory and dependency theory, and in part that has allowed world systems theory to maintain relevance. There are several world systems theory scholars, and many of its ideas have become accepted. In part, doubtless, this is because Wallerstein is still alive and contributing to the discourse. However, world systems theory does not outshine competing theories in terms of adherents; it is well-known but not widely accepted as the dominant theory to explain global development.
One key similarity, for example, is that Wallerstein has the core-periphery relationship in world systems theory. Core nations take cheap labor and raw materials from periphery nations, and then with those inputs create high profit consumption goods that can then be sold to the periphery (Moyer, 2016). There is a semi-periphery as well, which serves as evidence that some nations can move from periphery to core, but unlike in modernization theory there is no clear path for this, and not all nations that move into the semi-periphery are destined to further move into the core; the lack of predictability in development pathways is a key element in world systems theory, and may differ somewhat from the understanding under dependency theory as well.
World Culture Theory
World culture theory has been described as a "neo-institutionalist theory of global isomorphism" (Takayama, 2012), meaning that the cultures of the world, while disparate at present, are moving towards a universal world culture. This is a relatively new theory, and remains minor at the present moment. One of the reasons is that it has a lot of relevance for analyzing globalization and its impacts, but where many other development theories look to the past to see how the world has arrived at its current state in order to extrapolate potential future states, this theory is more focused on the future, and making the case that the convergence path we are presently on will continue until there is one world culture.
Three primary authors in world culture theory are Roland Robertson, Arjun Appadurai and Ulf Hannerz. This theory is relatively recent, and focuses on the convergence of cultures around the world. For example, people are "becoming aware of the new global reality – the problem of how to live together in one global system" (ILS, 2006). This theory is used to evaluate the current processes of globalization, which are said to be "compressing" the world into a single entity. While there are currently many unique and distinct cultures, this view holds that the uniqueness and distinctiveness of different cultures is being reduced. If globalization is the endpoint for other global development theories, it is the beginning point for world culture theory, and the end of this story will be written much further down the road when there is truly one world culture.
World culture theory is at this point a relatively minor theory, but it has been applied to some studies. For example, it has been applied to a comparative study of education, on the premise that logic and science form a single source of truth, and that education therefore will converge on such sources of truth; that there is no need for different forms of education because of the universal nature of such truth (Carney, Rappleye & Silova, 2012).
The world culture theory is still being contested. One of the criticisms is that, at least to some extent, there might be an erroneous conflation between globalization and the move to a world culture. Sobe (2014) argues that the two are not the same, that "global" can reflect a person squarely from a culture that simply moves in a global world. This is similar to the arguments surrounding Thomas Friedman's The World is Flat, which basically posited a move towards an even, global world; critics pointed out that outside of some world cities, this was by no means the case. The problem with understanding world culture theory in the way Sobe does is that it fails to understand the point – the move towards a world culture is gradual, over time, piecemeal. Nothing is truly global today, but given enough centuries it will be, especially as we come to realize more and more of our problems, including development but also environmental problems, are genuinely global in nature and demand a global response.
Thus, while world culture is not a major theory yet, it certainly has the potential to be once further developed, and as more evidence comes in to support it.
World Society Theory
World Society theory argues that "transnational interaction and global social change that emphasize the importance of global institutions and culture in shaping the structure and behavior of individuals" (McNeely, 2012). It was developed by John W. Meyer. This theory is relatively new, and is undergoing an evolution driven by debate among those interested in exploring it. For the most part, the debate seeks to define terminology and structure arguments at this point. In 1997, holds that "many features of the contemporary nation-state derive from worldwide models constructed and propagated through global cultural and associational process" (Meyer et al, 1997)
For example, Albert (2008) analyzes the contributions of a number of scholars to this particular field of inquiry, in an attempt to shape the debate. This leaves world society theory as relatively nascent, however, with significant refinements and further literature before becoming a dominant theory with which to analyze globalization.
One of the core elements of debate, as Albert (2008) points out, is whether world society serves as a starting point – that must then be broken down into smaller societies, or whether it is the ending point. World culture theory basically works on the ending point principle – world society theory working with world society as a starting point allows for differentiation between societies, and then seeks to explain that differentiation. This explanation can then be used to help understand development.
This theory looks towards the role of outside actors on individuals, so that these outside actors and institutions contribute to the governance of human behavior, and ultimately to the development of the individual within the greater human society (Meyer, 2010). World society theory has strong roots, therefore, in sociology, contrasting it with Wallerstein's world systems theory entirely, but also creating juxtaposition with world culture theory.
One of the unique features of this theory is the emphasis on statelessness, in explaining world society. Meyer (1997) posits that "the operation of world society through peculiarly cultural and associational processes depends heavily on its statelessness. This is understood to be evident in the way that societies, despite nation-states, "are structurally similar in many unexpected dimensions and change in unexpectedly similar ways." World society theory, therefore, is something of a quest for truth, stripping away the influence and relevance of the nation-state as an explanatory factor in the behavior of societies. Underlying this is the premise that there is more or less one world society – that similarities are more significant than perhaps we realize, because we focus so much on differences. Whether it has been effectively proven that this is true is less certain but there is a small body of scholars seeking to provide evidence for some measure of world systems theory.
Boli and Thomas (1997), though they use the term culture, are referring to world society theory in their study of non-governmental organizations. They find many similarities between these organizations no matter from what country they arose or for what purpose. To them, this is evidence that there are some elements of a world society – some traits that are fairly universal, and therefore form the basis of world society. Other traits might ultimately differ, but the presence of these universal ones is seen as a starting point for exploration of a world society.
Conclusion
All told, these three globalization theories are among the minor ones. World systems theory is the most accepted and widely-known of the three, has been around the longest and appears to have the greatest number of adherents.
World culture theory takes an interesting viewpoint, seeing today as more the starting point of development towards a global culture than an ending point – as would be the case if one were to view the world through the modernization or dependency lenses.
World society theory is fairly young and underdeveloped. It seeks to explain commonalities among cultures and use that as a backdrop to understand the processes of globalization – many of which take as a starting point the view that there are common objectives that all societies are generally interested in, development being one.
References

Boli, J. & Thomas, G. (1997) World culture in the world polity: A century of international non-governmental organization. American Sociological Review. Vol. 62 (2) 171-190.

Carney, S., Rappleye, J. & Silova, I. (2012). Between faith and science: World culture theory and comparative education. Comparative Education Review. Vol. 56 (3) 366-393.

ILS (2006) Theories of globalization. ILS Retrieved November 8, 2017 from https://is.muni.cz/el/1423/jaro2006/SOC146/G_Lecture_4.ppt

McNeely, C. (2012). World society theory Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Globalization. Retrieved November 8, 2017 from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9780470670590.wbeog836/abstract?userIsAuthenticated=false&deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=

Meyer, J. (2010). World society, institutional theories, and the actor. Annual Review of Sociology. Vol. 36 (2010) 1-20.

Meyer, J., Boli, J., Thomas, G. & Ramirez, F. (1997) World society and the nation-state. American Journal of Sociology. Vol. 103 (1) 144-181.

Moyer, K. (2016) Periphery role in the world systems theory. Medium. Retrieved November 8, 2017 from https://medium.com/@kendallgrace15/periphery-role-in-the-world-systems-theory-fa5d291cac55

Robertson, R. & Lechner, F. (1985) Modernization, globalization and the problem of culture in world systems theory. Theory, Culture and Society. Vol 2 (3)

Skocpol, T. (1977) Review: Wallerstein's world capitalist system: A theoretical and historical critique. American Journal of Sociology. Vol. 82 (5) 1075-1090.

Takayama, K. (2012). Provincialising the world culture theory debate: Critical insights from a margin. Globalisation, Societies and Education. Vol. 13 (1) .

Wallerstein, I. (2013) World systems analysis. Sociopedia.isa. Retrieved November 8, 2017 from http://www.sagepub.net/isa/resources/pdf/World-Systems%20analysis.pdf