Globalization
Debates about“globalization”have ranged from French complaints about McDonald's“burger imperialism”to agricultural giant Monsanto's decision to withdraw“terminator”seeds(which yield large crops without pesticides but cannot be replanted)from the market.London School of Economics director Anthony Giddens(1999)notes that globalization“has come from nowhere to be almost everywhere”.In the early 1990s，the term was little used.By 2000，no speech was complete without it even if those who used the term agreed on little more than the fact“that we now all live in one world.”“Globalization”is poorly defined.Most often，the term is synonymous with the galloping expansion of the global marketplace.However，globalization is much more.It includes political，technological，and cultural forces.It is more than a description—it is an ideology that defines basic expectations about the roles and behaviors of individuals and institutions.Giddens suggests，in fact，that globalization is about“action at a distance”:the increasing interpenetration of individual lives and global futures.
...At the core of the globalization movement，however，are lightning-fast communication systems—especially the Internet—that have developed over the last decade.The communications revolution has made it possible to spread information around the world easily and cheaply.Not only has it fueled the 24-hour financial markets，it has，just as importantly，transformed governance.For the price of a local telephone call to connect to the Internet，organizations around the world can instantly exchange information.Jessica Mathews argues in Foreign Affairs(1997):
Widely accessible and affordable technology has broken governments'monopoly on the collection and management of large amounts of information and deprived governments of the deference they enjoyed because of it．In every sphere of activity，instantaneous access to information and the ability to put it to use multiplies the number of players who matter and reduces the number who command great authority．The effect on the loudest voice—which has been government's—has been greatest．
The result—so far，at least—has been rampant fragmentation of norms，ideologies，values，and institutions.“We are at the beginning of a fundamental shake-out of world society，”Giddens bluntly suggests，“and we really do not know where it is going to lead us.”
Instantaneous communication has already fueled an important transformation.Nongovernmental organizations—NGOs，for short—have quickly acquired great influence，in the United States and around the world.(In the United States，they are better known as nonprofit organizations，for their tax status.)When nations debated trade liberalization in the 1986 Uruguay round of talks，12 NGOs registered to follow the proceedings.Seattle's 1999 World Trade Organization meeting drew so many NGO representatives that they crammed the city's symphony hall to plot strategy.About 1，500 NGOs signed an anti-WTO protest declaration created online by Public Citizen.The Internet allowed organizers to share ideas and tactics instantly.They overwhelmed the Seattle police，who found themselves using 1970s-era crowd-control strategies to try to tame twenty-first-century organizers.(https://www.daowen.com)
...Amid this galloping globalization，the United States has found itself squarely in the middle of an international paradox:It has become the world's only superpower but has found itself unable，for political and pragmatic reasons，to act alone.It has struggled to craft a policy to accommodate these new realities—and to organize its governmental apparatus to cope with them.
In struggling with this paradox，American government faces two tough challenges.First，what is the federal government's role at a time when international organizations—formal organizations like the WTO and the United Nations;informal organizations like the NGOs and multinational corporations—have become far stronger?Policymakers have found their discretion over what to do and，more important，how to do it diminished by the rising power of supranational organizations.National sovereignty，even for the world's remaining super power，has eroded.At least in relative terms，the federal government has become more marginalized in the international debate.
Second，what capacity does the federal government need to play this emerging role?Following a 42-year career in the State Department，outgoing Assistant Secretary of State Phyllis Oakley worried in 1999 that America's ability to conduct foreign policy in the globalized age had become“threadbare”.The State Department itself lacked people skilled in dealing with these issues.Its budget stagnated while the CIA and Pentagon budgets grew.Special envoys took important jobs that previously would have gone to senior career foreign-service officers.“The only thing we have left is the military，”she complained，“so we use it in Iraq and Kosovo.”Consequently，the nation tends toward“using military means for diplomatic purposes”.
...In many ways，however，globalization has sparked an emerging system of governance without government，management，or control.Shared values，which shaped governmental policies in the past，have yet to emerge.National sovereignty has shrunk along with government's capacity to understand and shape the emerging issues and the conflicts that underlie them.European concerns about American“Frankenstein foods”—produced with genetically modified organisms like disease-resistant corn—have shaped a new generation of public-policy problems.So，too，have the rise of ethnic conflicts，international currency flows，and multinational business mergers.The puzzle is building the administrative capacity，in sustained rather than ad hoc fashion，for tackling these problems.It is also strengthening the ability of our political institutions，especially Congress，to frame the policies the nation will need to negotiate the problems and potential of globalization.