The Impact of The Globalization Process on The Modern World – The Need to Find a New Path of Human Development

Introduction

The objective process of development of the world community is globalization, through which a complex multi-level system of socio-economic relations is being formed. As part of this phenomenon, there is a significant increase in political, socio-economic, informational, and cultural interrelations of countries around the world. In the political context, globalization or the so-called “mondialism” seeks to establish supranational institutions of governance – a single world government. In the economic sense, globalization embodies the process of formation of an interconnected monolithic global economy, a single market for goods, capital and services. Thus, globalization is understood as the historical process of all spheres of human life unification, primarily a change in the structure of the world economy, understood as a close interweaving of the subjects of the world economy on the basis of internationalization, transnationalization and liberalization, interconnected by a system of political relations. Consequently, capitalism, as a social system and an ideology that calls for an increase in capital and obtaining super profits, occupies a central place in this social process and the trend of world development.

Globalization – Methodological Approaches of Modern Scientific Schools

Given the ambiguity and versatility of the globalization process, modern scientific schools use different methodological approaches to its study. Thus, from the standpoint of the culturological approach, the process of globalization is studied in a general civilizational context. Proponents of this approach believe that globalization is the final stage of the global transformation of the socio-economic system, and the process of globalization is the gradual transformation of the general into the particular, the particular into the general. This approach does not seem fair, since not all features in the global context can be transformed into general ones. There are various world civilizations, each of which has its own models of cultural self-identification. In addition, there are various religiously conditioned models of life regulation, which are united only by the presence of a “God” who helps and protects the believer.

The second approach is economic. According to him, globalization is the process of bringing national economic norms to the level that has been formed in the world economy (essentially, the universalization of economic processes). The goal of globalization is the formation of a world single economy in accordance with the indicators and norms of developed countries, that is, the elimination of the nation state itself. This approach is largely utopian, since there are a huge number of economically underdeveloped countries for which global economic standards are out of reach. As a result of such transformations, the world economy will not be able to develop steadily and evenly, thus the inequality of states will become more blatant.

The following concept of globalization is proposed by the proponents of the ecological approach. The basis of this direction is ecological distribution; rational use of natural resources; environmental policy; implementation of environmental justice; ensuring the survival of society in the future. This vector of globalization is of great importance, but, in comparison with the economic one, is secondary. It can be realized only within the framework of the implementation of environmental parity concept.

The fourth approach is complex. Globalization is a complex geopolitical, geo-economic, geo-cultural phenomenon that affects all spheres of society’s life included in the global process. The process of globalization is the weakening of traditional territorial socio-cultural, state-political and economic barriers, which, on the one hand, isolate individual states, and, on the other hand, protect against negative external influences. To assess the degree of inclusion of the state in the process of globalization, a rating is carried out according to a number of parameters (UNDP). The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), also known as the Global Goals, were adopted by the United Nations in 2015 as a universal call to action to end poverty, protect the planet, and ensure that by 2030 all people enjoy peace and prosperity. The 17 SDGs are integrated—they recognize that action in one area will affect outcomes in others, and that development must balance social, economic and environmental sustainability. Countries have been committed to prioritize progress for those who’re furthest behind. The SDGs are designed to end poverty, hunger, AIDS, and discrimination against women. The creativity, knowhow, technology and financial resources from all of society are necessary to achieve the SDGs in every context. Most of these goals are focused on social and economic global issues: eradication of poverty and hunger, achievement of gender equality, affordable and clean energy, etc.

The political economy concepts of globalization are based on various methodological approaches. The first is based on the position that globalization is a purely ideological construction and the idea of a new, highly internationalized economy, which is actually not controlled and based on the dictates of a monopolized market, and thus is doubtful.

The second concept is diametrically opposed. The global economy is an economy in which transnational capital subjugates national economies. National economies, especially developing countries, lose the ability to withstand financial pressure and forcibly form a single economic space, within which everything is regulated by the “right of the strongest”. This concept is also doubtful, because it was actual during the 20th century, when the MNCs were not supressed by international regulations which provided strict requirements for maintaining security and promoting the development of the territories in which they carry out their business activities.

The third one supports the objectivity of the globalization process and the subjective trend in the distribution of world incomes, their polarization. But it is believed that this does not harm the nation-states and does not weaken them. That is, globalization is based on the formation of international relations based on the value of national economies, that is, they can independently carry out the process of redistribution of economic resources, but, as a rule, not in their favor.

The fourth defends the importance of qualitative transformations in society, which are reproduced in all spheres of its life. The dominant point of view is the need to rethink the relationship between the global and the national; national and regional; national, regional and individual. It is the latter approach that looks the most reasonable and optimal, since development requires a scientific justification for the interaction of all levels of the national and global economy, and not a simplified subordination to the development goals of individual states.

The globalization of the world economy has been studied and continues to be actively studied by scientists of different schools and directions. It is generally accepted that it was Karl Marx who first introduced the concept of “globalization” into literature, but in the 19th century, the term was used in the sense of “intense international trade”. Based on the worldview of the universalism of the Enlightenment, Marx developed the idea of ​​the emergence of a global system of capitalism, and then, through the proletarian revolution, the utopia of turning humanity into a single global civil society without a state – communism. This utopia did not come true, the Soviet ruling elite followed the path of building communism in a single country, despite the opposition of orthodox Marxists.

More than a hundred years before the start of globalization as an active phase in the development of capitalism, K. Marx gave an exhaustive analysis of this phenomenon. The key aspect of Marx’s teaching was the description of the immanently chaotic nature of capitalism, which is largely subject to crises and instability. He argued that the relentless pursuit of profit would sooner or later force companies to automate jobs and start producing more and more goods, while reducing the wages of workers until they could finally buy the products of their labor. Companies produce and produce until there is no one left to buy their products.

Thinking about overproduction led Marx to predict what is now called “globalization” – the spread of capitalism around the world in search of new markets for products. Marx wrote: “The constant need to expand the market for the sale of products drives the bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe.” He not only accurately predicted what happened in the 20th century, he also explained the reason for this phenomenon: the relentless search for new markets and cheap labor, as well as the constant need for natural resources, is only the natural demand of big business.

1. Lenin developed the teachings of Marx and subsequently formulated the theory of imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism. He described the incessant competition between capitalists and, as a consequence, the centralization of capital, which, after the merger of banking capital with industry, forms “financial capital” capable of challenging the existing world order and starting a new redistribution of the territories of the whole world. Moreover, Lenin created a theory of uneven development under capitalism, describing the predatory and aggressive policy of finance capital. The political elite and the capitalist class, according to the theory, firmly secured the right to hyper-exploit the labor force and extract super-profits from the colonies. Without delving into the philosophical meaning of the concept, which generates many contradictions, we can conclude that this theory foresaw some of the phenomena observed in the modern world economy. It should be emphasized that this theory formed the basis of the modern neo-Marxist understanding of globalization.

One of the first modern scientists involved in the study of the main processes of globalization was the American economist Theodore Levitt. Thanks to his article “The Globalization of Markets”, written in 1983, the term “globalization” is firmly entrenched in the lexicon of modern scientists. Levitt claims that by the end of the 20th century global markets have reached previously unimaginable magnitudes. Within the new economic reality, corporations are looking to capitalize on this through huge savings in the production, distribution, management and marketing stages. Thus, by reducing the prices of goods and services, corporations gain the opportunity to get rid of their competitors in the market. Therefore, large corporations are focusing on globally standardized products that have a low price, instead of products made for certain consumers. T. Levitt predicts that the preference structure is “homogenizing”, and the modern world is moving towards merging into a single community.

The British scientist and one of the founders of the theory of cultural globalization Roland Robertson, on the contrary, believes that those corporations that produce and sell their goods on a global scale are forced to adapt their products to certain local market conditions. Robertson introduced the term “glocalization”, that is, the process of coexistence of regional features and characteristics against the backdrop of the development of mass global culture. Consequently, globalization is developing in two directions simultaneously: impressive integration processes and the formation of a single dominant global ideology are taking place at the level of world elites, and complete archaization and the loss of any kind of universalism are taking place at the regional level. According to Robertson, this process is ambiguous and can lead to the creation of a global society as well as provoke the development of a completely “new barbarism”, “archaism”, “regionalism” and “locality”.

Daniel Bell, an American sociologist and publicist, has proposed a completely different approach to globalization. The concept of a post-industrial society, described by D. Bell in his book “The Coming of Post-Industrial Society: A Venture in Social Forecasting” in 1972, is perhaps the most authoritative and well-known concept at the moment. Within the framework of this theory, Bell showed the development of society as a transition between three stages – pre-industrial, industrial and post-industrial societies. The basis of each stage is the dominant type of production – agriculture, industry and services. Bell identifies three technological revolutions that have served as the strongest impetus for the development of mankind. The first technological revolution was the invention of the steam engine in the 18th century and the subsequent Industrial Revolution, which swept through all the advanced countries of Europe and America. The impetus for the beginning of the second technological revolution was scientific and technological achievements in the field of chemistry and electricity. And, finally, the creation of computers and further mass informatization became the cause of the third technological revolution. A distinctive feature of the post-industrial society is the primacy of knowledge, not property. D. Bell wrote: “If over the past hundred years the main figures were the entrepreneur, businessman, head of an industrial enterprise, today the “new people” are scientists, mathematicians, economists and other representatives of new intellectual technology”.

Alvin Toffler, a no less famous American sociologist and philosopher, one of the authors of the concept of a post-industrial society, actually completes Bell’s theory, believing that a post-industrial (information) society will become the basis for the prosperity of all mankind in the future. Toffler focuses on the presence of a key product inherent in a particular technological wave, the possession of which is a priority for the state. In the periods of Antiquity and the Middle Ages, land (agrarian society) was a similar product. In the industrial age – raw materials and markets for products. The third technological wave is characterized by the availability of information as the highest value, and the “knowledge economy” – the highest stage of development of the post-industrial (information) society. Toffler made remarkable predictions, many of which have already become a reality.

The followers of the globalization’s neoliberal concept, George Soros and Zbigniew Brzezinski, interpret globalization as a new era in the history of all mankind, based on the economic and technological supremacy of Western civilization, the center of which is the United States, spreading Western liberal democratic values ​​and upholding the principles of a unipolar world. Consequently, the global system is built on the principles of “Westernization”, where the United States, as the only superpower, is the main geostrategic and economic center of the world, and the American society and way of life is the only fair type of social organization. According to Brzezinski, one of the most dangerous geopolitical opponents of neo-liberal globalization is Russia, which he calls a “black hole” in the very center of Eurasia. Brzezinski insists that Russia become part of a new global community and abandon its own civilizational model, independent geopolitical role and ambitions that have had a significant impact on Russian statehood over the past centuries. Soros, on the other hand, argues that globalization is inevitable and that such resources as finance, capital and information have the greatest activity in this process. Soros believes that the state should not violate the principles of “market fundamentalism”, that is, any influence of the state on market processes is harmful. The role of the state should become less significant over time, and national characteristics should become less noticeable. Soros developed the ideas of Brzezinski to a certain extent, trying to instill market principles not only in economics, but also in other spheres of public life (political, social and spiritual). A striking example is attempts to incorporate market principles into culture. Consequently, Soros is a supporter of the idea that globalization is a complex phenomenon that is reflected in all spheres of public life, including biosocial.

It should be noted that the concept of Zbigniew Brzezinski, outlined in “The Grand Chessboard”, is subject to significant criticism in the scientific community. First of all, the assessment of Russia as the greatest threat to globalization raises serious doubts. It seems that a powerful state from an economic point of view can be a real obstacle to this objective process, while Russia, which is only a raw material appendage with a poorly developed economy, after the invasion of Ukraine, finally turned into a rogue state. This is confirmed by the fact that the only international platform where Russia really has the ability to influence decisions made by the international community is the UN Security Council, while in other organizations (in particular, the Council of Europe) Russia has lost such an opportunity.

Speaking of globalization, it is impossible to ignore Immanuel Wallerstein, an American sociologist, political scientist and philosopher, a follower of the neo-Marxist theoretical interpretation of globalization concept. Wallerstein is the founder of the most widely used version of world-systems analysis. According to Wallerstein, the formation of the capitalist system was originally a global and world-wide process, so globalization is at least five hundred years old. This system consisted of three zones: core, periphery and semi-periphery. The core was the countries of Western Europe, later also the countries of North America, in which the rapid development of capitalism took place. It should be noted that capitalism is a colonial phenomenon in its essence, as it is based on a global division of labor: cheap or free resources, including human (slaves), are concentrated on the periphery, and the beneficiaries are in the core. Countries of the semi-periphery, not as dependent on the core as the countries of the periphery, but less independent than the countries of the core. From the 16th century, that is, from the moment of the emergence of capitalism, to the present, the world system has changed little. The core developed through the exploitation of the periphery under various pretexts – from direct colonization and the slave trade to the modern economic, social and political exploitation by the rich North of the poor South. The industrialized countries are now led by industrial and financial oligarchy who realize that their very existence, as well as enrichment, security and continuity are directly related to maintaining the global system of capitalism.

In the XX century the world system has reached the limits of its development, and there is no more room for further expansion. This means that world capitalism is on the verge of historical extinction: it arose under certain historical conditions and reached the limit in the implementation of its model. The liberal ideology that was its basis dissipates in the absence of a large-scale ideological alternative (which for a long time was communism). Wallerstein states: “The structural limitations of the process of endless accumulation of capital that governs our world have reached the bow of the ship and now act as a functional brake. They create a chaotic situation. Fifty years from this chaos, a new order will emerge.” Modern globalization, therefore, is not the beginning of a new process, but the end and completion of the old one. How the “era of transition” will end, Wallerstein does not specify, admitting: “We are face to face with uncertainty”.

Samuel Huntington, an American sociologist and political scientist, the author of the concept of the ethno-cultural division of civilizations, also does not make any specific predictions, but declares with some confidence about the upcoming confrontations. The author identified several dominant world civilizations: European (including North American), Orthodox (Russian), Islamic, Confucian, Hindu, Latin American and African, which have specific features in the first place – culture. By a clear example, the author proved that cultural and religious differences in the conflicts of civilizations play a more important role than ideological and economic ones. Therefore, societies that are united by ideology, but historically divided culturally, disintegrate, as happened with Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union. Consequently, culturally similar countries are most likely to cooperate politically and economically. Huntington attaches great importance to economic globalization, which is the basis of the power of one or another ‘core’ state or group of states. Globalization, according to the political scientist, leads to the weakening of a particular national state, but at the same time strengthens the “civilizational self-awareness” (belonging of peoples and national states to a certain civilizational model). He drew attention to the total superiority of European civilization. Western policy, expanding its influence, covering more and more spheres of public life, gives rise to aggression by non-Western civilizations trying to maintain their positions. Of course, within the framework of the world order under consideration, the “war of civilizations” becomes truly irreversible. Globalization understood as some kind of “experiment” with any all-planetary political and cultural order has failed and reached its limits. Some authors claim the cultural social and political differentiation even intensifies.

At its core, modern globalization has a neoliberal European-American trend. The process of globalization and the strengthening of the role of TNCs lead to the emergence of groups which try to confront this process. In this regard, the movements of anti-globalists, who oppose globalization in general, and alter-globalists, who reject neoliberal globalization and the global power of transnational capital and defend the principles of social justice and the protection of the cultural identity of the peoples, are becoming widespread. Such world-famous scientists as Joseph Stiglitz and Noam Chomsky openly declare the dangers of globalization processes on the stage of the World Social Forum , created in opposition to the World Economic Forum in Davos, offering an alternative model for the development of globalization. It is a rare case these days when representatives of the American intellectual elite do not share the opinion of the Western establishment. Stiglitz criticizes “market fundamentalism” and the policy of the Washington Consensus, believes that the conditions imposed by the IMF on the client country cause only economic disasters and do not contribute to economic growth at all, and the liberalization of international trade proceeds exclusively in the interests of a small number of transnational corporations. Globalization, Stiglitz notes, requires global collective interaction. However, in order to achieve social justice and reduce the gap between developed and developing countries, it is necessary to establish cooperation in a completely new format, where there is no dictatorship of international financial capital. However, such sentiments are not widespread and are not capable of challenging the globalization as a process.

Thus, in whatever direction globalization develops, objectively it is an inevitable and irreversible process. In addition, at the end of the 20th century, the phenomenon of globalization gave rise to the so-called “global economy” as a new historical reality and the current stage in the evolution of international economic relations, expressed in the transition from a set of national economies interconnected by the exchange of manufactured goods to the interpenetration of all economic entities and their interdependence with each other. Unfortunately, in such conditions, the negative trends of modern globalization only continue to worsen.

Conclusion

The study of conceptual approaches to defining the essence of globalization once again proved that in order to solve global problems and eliminate existing global contradictions, it is necessary to form qualitatively new conceptual approaches to the study of processes and phenomena in modern socio-economic development, since not all of them can be explained from the classical theoretic point of view. The latter developed on the basis of the following key positions: rationalization of processes and phenomena; maximization of the effect due to technological renewal; changing the role of man in the process of economic development (the main source of progressive development). A consequence of the implementation of the rational principles of classical science is the gap in the levels of development between rich and poor countries; differentiation between social groups within individual societies; strengthening of the contradiction between labor and capital; assertion of aggressive egoism due to the loss of spiritual potential (the economic result prevails over the moral basis); threat to the survival of mankind (environmental consequences of economic development); shadowing and criminalization of public life.

It should be noted a significant transformation of development targets. The development priorities of the previous century were: national sovereignty, independence, democracy, subjugation to the power of the people. In the modern global world, states do not have guarantees of external non-interference in the economy and politics; the ability to control the centers and the force of external influence; the ability to submit to the internal power of the people, since it is already controlled by global control centers. Therefore, the derivative fundamental principles of development should be the optimization of world social development and the justification of strategies for the inclusion of individual economic entities in the process of globalization.

The foregoing allows us to conclude that a scientific substantiation of a qualitatively new conceptual approach to the study of the globalization process is needed. Its development is possible on the basis of the theoretical and methodological principles of the system-synergetic conceptual approach, which is based on the synergetic paradigm of modern economic theory and system analysis.

The expediency of applying this concept can be substantiated as follows: the existing methodological apparatus of economic theory is not capable of fully covering the essence of dynamic socio-economic processes. For example, firstly, dialectical materialism does not explain why socialism, which has “historical advantages”, succumbed to capitalism at the end of the 20th century; secondly, the excess of the environmental load on the environment activates the problem of sustainable development, which requires a change in attitude towards nature, and therefore, forces science to find radical epistemological approaches to further socio-economic development; thirdly, modern civilization, together with limitless possibilities, has provoked the emergence of a large number of problems related to the survival and further development of mankind. This justifies the objective need for a radical change in the social, economic, cultural coordinates of the functioning of society, that is, there is a dispute between the objective necessity and the subjective unwillingness of individual socio-economic systems to cooperate due to the presence of religious, ethnic, ideological barriers. So, the transformation process itself requires justification – the transition of the system from one state to another.

The global horizon of events causes them to take place virtually in the same time and space, while communication technologies are only a means and not the essence of globalization. Globalization is a source of economic and social change that raises ethical issues to which we are forced to find some response. Solving the ethical problems of globalization strongly depends on the selected ethical model. Globalization represents a complex and internally differentiated instrumentalized and socialized event. Globalization is considered a historical trend; in its current form, it is identified with the establishment of a unipolar Western model, which is impossible. Globalization must be multidimensional, that is, both the West and the East must be included in this process on a balanced and equivalent basis.

Notes

1. Syrotinski, Globalization, mondialisation and the immonde in Contemporary Francophone African Literature, Paragraph, Vol. 37, No. 2, 2014.
2. Dulski, A. Ilnicki, W. Słomski, The Principle of Subsidiarity and Sovereignty in European Integration, “AD ALTA-Journal of Interdisciplinary Research” 2022, vol. 12, nr. 2 (Special Issue), 86-91;
3. O’Rourke, J. Williamson, Globalization and history, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass; London 1999, p. 101.
4. Słomski, Distance Human Resource Management under Uncertainty of Pandemic Era (w:) Business Excellence and Innovation Management: A 2025 Vision to Sustain Economic Development in the Era of Pandemic. Proceedings of the 39th International Business Information Management Association (IBIMA)., red. Khalid S. Soliman: International Business Information Management Association (IBIMA), 2022.
5. Maynard, N. Chaudhary, Globalization, Culture, and Development: Concepts, Clarifications, and Concerns, Human Development, Vol. 64, No. 4, March 2021.
6. O’Rourke, J. Williamson, Globalization and history, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass; London1999, p. 101.
7. Robertson, The three waves of globalization: a history of a developing global consciousness, Fernwood Publishing, Zed Books, Black Point, Canada; London2003.
8. What are the Sustainable Development Goals? https://www.undp.org/sustainable-development-goals, 16.08.2022.
9. Bishop, A. Payne, The political economies of different globalizations: theorizing reglobalization, Globalizations, Vol. 18, Issue 1, 2021.
10.  
11. Dannreuther, R. Lekhi, Globalization and the Political Economy of Risk, Review of International Political Economy, Vol. 7, No. 4, Winter, 2000.
12.  
13. Marx, Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Vol. 1, CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform; California, 2010.
14. [1]
15. Tairako, Marx on Capitalist Globalization, Hitotsubashi Journal of Social Studies, July 2003, Vol. 35, No. 1.
16. Lenin, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/, 16.08.2022.
17. Levitt, The Globalization of Markets, Harvard Business Review, May 1983.
18. Robertson, Global Modernities, SAGE Publications; London 1996.
19. Bell, The Coming of Post-Industrial Society: A Venture in Social Forecasting, Basic Books, Reissue edition; New York, 1976.
20.  
21. Toffler, The Third Wave, Bantam, Westminster; Maryland,1984.
22.  
23. Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives, Basic Books, Later Printing Used edition; New York, 1998.
24. Soros, George Soros On Globalization, Public Affairs; New York, 2005.
25. Wallerstein, The Modern World-System II: Mercantilism and the Consolidation of the European World-Economy, 1600–1750, University of California Press; Berkeley, 2011.
26.  
27. An Interview with Immanuel Wallerstein: The Inevitable Decline of the American Empire, https://nacla.org/news/2008/3/13/interview-immanuel-wallerstein-inevitable-decline-american-empire, 16.08.2022.
28. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations? Foreign Affairs Vol. 72, No. 3, Summer, 1993.
29. Dupkala, M. Ambrozy, Education towards “dialoque of cultures” in the context of axiological pluralism. [In:] Ad Alta, vol.12, issue 01, 2022. p.21.
30. Stiglitz, Globalization and Its Discontents, W. W. Norton & Company, 1st edition; New York 2003.
31. Myths of Globalization: Noam Chomsky and Ha-Joon Chang in Conversation, https://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/blog/26/06/2017/myths-globalization-noam-chomsky-and-ha-joon-chang-conversation, 22.08.2022.
32. Hammond, The World Social Forum and the Rise of Global Politics, https://nacla.org/article/world-social-forum-and-rise-global-politics, 22.08.2022.
33. Stiglitz, The Price of Inequality: How Today’s Divided Society Endangers Our Future, W. W. Norton & Company, Reprint edition; New York 2013.
34. Šandalová, J. Polačko, Nevyhnutnosť aplikácie tradičných modelov etiky v spoločnosti žijúcej prevažne vo virtuálnom prostredí. [In:] Diversity of skills postmodern society, Košice, TUKE, 2022. p.104.
35. Słomski, Wprowadzenie do zagadnień etycznych. Warszawa: Europejskie Kolegium Edukacji w Warszawie, 2011. p.20.
36. Słomski, Etyczne uwarunkowania funkcji sędziego pływania. Warszawa: Katedra Filozofii Wyższej Szkoły Finansów i Zarządzania w Warszawie, 2017. p.22-23.
37. Bochin, J. Polačko, Politický proces. Teoretická a fenomenologická analýza. Plzeň, Aleš Čeněk. 2021. p.36.

Bibliography

• An Interview with Immanuel Wallerstein: The Inevitable Decline of the American Empire, [Online], [Retrieved August 16, 2022], https://nacla.org/news/2008/3/13/interview-immanuel-wallerstein-inevitable-decline-american-empire
• Bell, D., (1976) The Coming of Post-Industrial Society: A Venture in Social Forecasting, Basic Books; Reissue edition.
• Bishop, M., Payne, A., (2021) The political economies of different globalizations: theorizing reglobalization, Globalizations, Vol. 18, Issue 1.
• Bochin, M., Polačko, J., (2021) Politický proces. Teoretická a fenomenologická analýza. Plzeň: Aleš Čeněk.
• Brzeziński, Z., (1998) The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives, Basic Books; Later Printing Used edition.
• Dannreuther, C., Lekhi, R., (2000) Globalization and the Political Economy of Risk, Review of International Political Economy, Vol. 7, No. 4, Winter.
• Dupkala, R., Ambrozy, M. (2022) Education towards “dialoque of cultures” in the context of axiological pluralism. [In:] Ad Alta, vol.12, issue 01.
• Hammond, J., The World Social Forum and the Rise of Global Politics, [Online], [Retrieved August 22, 2022], https://nacla.org/article/world-social-forum-and-rise-global-politics
• Huntington, S., (1993) The Clash of Civilizations? Foreign Affairs Vol. 72, No. 3, Summer.
• Lenin, V., Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, [Online], [Retrieved August 16, 2022], https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/
• Levitt, T., (1983) The Globalization of Markets, Harvard Business Review, May.
• Marx, K., (2010) Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Vol. 1, CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
• Maynard, A., Chaudhary, N., (2021) Globalization, Culture, and Development: Concepts, Clarifications, and Concerns, Human Development, Vol. 64, No. 4, March.
• Myths of Globalization: Noam Chomsky and Ha-Joon Chang in Conversation, [Online], [Retrieved August 22, 2022], https://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/blog/26/06/2017/myths-globalization-noam-chomsky-and-ha-joon-chang-conversation
• O’Rourke, K., Williamson, J., (1999) Globalization and history, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass; London.
• Robertson, R., (1996) Global Modernities, SAGE Publications, London.
• Robertson, R., (2003) The three waves of globalization: a history of a developing global consciousness, Fernwood Publishing, Zed Books, Black Point, Canada; London.
• Šandalová, M., Polačko, J. (2022), Nevyhnutnosť aplikácie tradičných modelov etiky v spoločnosti žijúcej prevažne vo virtuálnom prostredí. [In:] Diversity of skills postmodern society, Košice, TUKE.
• Słomski, , (2017) Etyczne uwarunkowania funkcji sędziego pływania. Warszawa: Katedra Filozofii Wyższej Szkoły Finansów i Zarządzania w Warszawie.
• Słomski, W., (2011) Wprowadzenie do zagadnień etycznych, Warszawa, Europejskie Kolegium Edukacji w Warszawie.
• Soros, G., (2005) George Soros On Globalization, PublicAffairs; Edition Unstated.
• Stiglitz, J., (2003) Globalization and Its Discontents, W. W. Norton & Company; 1st edition, New York.
• Stiglitz, J., (2013) The Price of Inequality: How Today’s Divided Society Endangers Our Future, W. W. Norton & Company; Reprint edition, New York.
• Syrotinski, M., (2014) Globalization, mondialisation and the immonde in Contemporary Francophone African Literature, Paragraph, Vol. 37, No. 2.
• Tairako, T., Marx on Capitalist Globalization, Hitotsubashi Journal of Social Studies, July 2003, Vol. 35, No. 1.
• Toffler, A., (1984) The Third Wave, Bantam, Westminster, Maryland.
• Wallerstein, I., (2011) The Modern World-System II: Mercantilism and the Consolidation of the European World-Economy, 1600–1750, University of California Press, Berkeley.
• What are the Sustainable Development Goals? [Online], [Retrieved August 16, 2022], https://www.undp.org/sustainable-development-goals