Drivers behind Globalization, Market Opportunities, and Threats of Globalization - Coursework Example

Marketing Trends (Globalization) Name Institution Course Tutor Date Introduction Globalization is a complex and controversial concept and it is a continuation of developments that have in progress for quite some time. It has a homogenizing effect on existing national culture (Jones, Abdelal & Kirby 2008). The pressures of globalization brings societies together and makes them more alike as they converge in business approaches, economic and political systems, as well as aesthetic attitudes (Jones et al 2009). Globalization is the increasing interdependence of countries due to growing integration of people, finance, ideas and trade in a single global market place (Moncada-Peterno-Castello, Vivarelli & Voigt 2011). It can also be defined as the multiplicity of interconnections and linkages between societies and states which comprise of the contemporary world system (Stiglitz 2002). Globalization explains the process by which activities, decisions and events in one segment of the world is seen to affect people and communities in other parts of the world that are quite distance away (Stiglitz 2002). The main elements of globalization according to Jones et al (2009) are the flow cross-border investment and international trade. The message we can get from these definitions is that globalization in an ongoing process which is characterized by greater interdependence among countries as well as their citizens (Jones et al 2009). This paper looks at the issue of globalization as one of marketing trends in a broad perspective. It presents the background of globalization, drivers behind globalization, its discourses, market opportunities and threats of globalization and approaches of internalization. Background of globalization The concept of globalization has been applied since the early 1960s. Nevertheless, academicians began to use this term in the early 1980s, and since the time globalization has become common terminology in various disciplines, including marketing (Busch 2000). According to Busch (2000) publications on the concept of globalization started to be released at a very low rate in the 1908s. In the late 1980s, the concept appeared on a regular basis in the mainstream press, but it began mainly as a reference for the ever increasing free market (Teubner 2004). However, as time progressed, it started to appear as a reference to cultural and political aspects. In particular, it begun to appear in reference to particular events, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) passage and the protests of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in Seattle (Teubner 2004). According to Chio (2007) the concept globalization was invented in 1985 following the release of an article by an American academic on ‘Globalization of Markets.” It has been discovered that globalization will cause the international economy to integrate and become inseparable in relation to high productivity. The development of regional cooperation between countries increased further when the Cold War came to an end. Since the 1990s, there emerged a new political era due to major political changes that were felt across the Soviet Union and end of war between the West and East after World War II (Chio 2007). Analysts are convinced that destroying the invisible wall in the West helped remove the barrier that prevented the establishment of global economic integration. For instance, China achieved outstanding economic performance after it introduced new reform and open door business strategies on time in the 1980s (Teubner 2004). In addition, India became one of the most attractive markets in the Asian Pacific Region after it entered into economic integration with other economies across the world and implemented new economic policies. Still, economic integration between other countries, such as between those in the East Asia with Korea, China, Japan and ten ASEAN countries contributed greatly to increase in attention of global investors (Chio 2007). Different independent and sovereign European countries came together to institute the European Union by the middle of the 20th century (Busch 2000). Since the establishment of the European Coal and Steel Community, the economic cooperation of the European Union has incorporated finance, politics and culture domains in the integration (Jacoby & Meunier 2010). The road to globalization in Europe was characterized by twists and turns given its disparity in historical and geographical perspectives. However, prevalence of mutual understanding and acceptance of all members, the process of globalization has been successful (Chio 2007). Drivers behind globalization Currently, it is highly agreed that globalization is changing the world more rapidly and radically (Steger 2010). But what are the drivers behind globalization? There are three trends that explain the rapid pace in globalization in the recent decades. These include technological innovations which facilitate the movement of goods and information across the world, increase in international economic activity and making foreign economic policies liberal (Garrett 2000). The effect of technology on globalization is strongly related to international finance as it is to multinational trade (Narula 2014). In the current period 24 hour global trading in an environment that seems to have infinite range of financial instruments, the best governments can do is to marginally control the movements of liquid capital across borders (Steger 2010). Although the Internet leads to novel problems, it is the avenue through governments regulate the movement of physical goods and trade in fixed assets across borders (Narula 2014). Most mainstream economists argue that there has been an increase in potential efficiency gains from globalization due to technological innovations in recent decades (Narula 2014). From this view, it is possible for governments to protect their countries from the external forces in the market if they decide to do so. However, increase in opportunity costs of closing international trade benefits has become significant creating the need to liberalize foreign economic policy in countries (Lee & Carter 2011). It is somehow difficult to argue that increase in opportunity costs of closure is an influential factor to the globalization of finance. The efficiency gains of openness that are only hypothetical appear practically to be offset by the costs of uncertainty and volatility common in international financial markets (Garrett 2000). In a different perspective, it can be argued that increase in the costs of closure is likely to have been the main influencing factor for liberalization as far as foreign direct investment (FDI) concern. Being a significant driver of growth on a global scene, FDI facilitates the diffusion of technological innovations and other benefits, such as managerial skills which are essential for globalization (Lee & Carter 2011). No one would dispute that technological change has had great influence on international trade in the past decades. However, the technologically determined perspective of trade liberalization is not profound (Narula 2014). The reason to this argument is that the process by which physical goods move across the national borders is transparent which allows governments to monitor and can even slow down the movement of the same if they so decide. However, according to Garrett (2000) one scenario exists in which change in technology is likely to significantly reduce the achievability of trade protectionism. In the contemporary world of e-commerce, physical goods, such as books, music and movies can both be bought and transported through the Internet (Kaul, Conceicao, Le Goulven & Mendoza 2003). In-deed, it is hard to regulate this kind of trade by the use of traditional policy instruments. Nevertheless, there must be limits concerning how much commerce can be conducted in this manner (Kaul et al 2003). Another perspective on globalization recognizes the role of government economic policy. However, it argues that government policy is purely a political construct and does not necessarily improve the economic situation of the entire society (Garrett 2000). According to political scientists, the roots of globalization are found in the neoliberal revolutions. The Bank of International Settlements and the European Union spread revolutions in the entire developed world, and the World Bank and the IMF extended them to developing countries (Jacoby & Meunier 2010). Ideally, since the introduction of information technology it has often been difficult for governments to bring to end global financial flows, which has facilitated globalization (Narula 2014). Therefore, various factors that drive globalization can be categorized under four groups, namely macro-economic factors, technological factors, political factors and organizational factors (Thoumrungroje 2004). Examples of macro-economic factors include rapid increase in populations in developing nations and increase in technological transfer among states (Thoumrungroje 2004). Technological factors, such as development in transportation and communication technologies are also drivers of globalization and facilitate growth in global business transactions (Kaul et al 2003). On the other hand, political forces, such as deregulation, privatization and trade liberation of states in favor of free trade and investments are essential drivers of globalization (Narula 2014). Still, organizations such as MNCs are essential agents of globalization. Shifting strategic attention of the organization towards a global mindset is one of the examples of organizational factors that cause globalization (Thoumrungroje 2004). The discourses of globalization Globalize is a verb whose first appeared for the first time in the English dictionary was in 1944 and it mean to make world-wide in application or scope (Teubner 2004). The definition of the concept “globalize” is quite broad and therefore it has to be clarified. First, it is important to compare it with other concepts of internationalization, multinationalization and transnationalization (Steger 2010). Since these concepts are to a large degree used interchangeably, conceptualization them help create the basis for the analysis of how globalization shapes economic, political, technological and cultural realities of eth business environment in a global perspective (Steger 2010). According to Stiglitz (2002) internationalization focuses on the relationships between countries. The concept of internalization signifies an increase in exchange of goods, services, people, money and ideas between states. Alternatively, transnationalization implies exchange of items across state borders, especially between different companies, organizations and individuals. While, multinationalization considers the company as the unit of analysis in global economy, where by a multinational company (MNC) moves resources from one country to another (Teubner 2004). Unlike the three concepts, the term globalization is more elusive. There is no agreed definition of the concept even among the leading academics and it is therefore applied in diverse contexts of economics, politics, technology and culture among others (Steger 2010). Nevertheless, various elements are repeated when talking about globalization. For instance, the relevance of information technology in facilitating different processes, more so, the media and finance market is always insisted. International trade is also known to cause national economies to integrate into a single global market (Jacoby & Meunier 2010). Still, globalization in various domains is always to be a challenge to the state in relation to providing a secure environment for the citizens. Thus, the concept globalization is said to denote an entire process that incorporates all elements of modern civilization besides politics of economy (Teubner 2004). Considering economic, technological and cultural issues, it is argued that globalization is a major terminology that helps to analyze both domestic and international politics (Teubner 2004). Different categorization has been developed in effort to describe the concept. One of the categorization was proposed by Held, McGrew, Goldblatt and Perraton (1999) which orders various theorists based on the hyperglobalists, the skeptics and the transformationalists categories. This approach provides an appropriate basis for discussing globalization. The approach of the hyperglobalists to globalization considers all elements of social interaction in its broad conceptualization of the concept. According to this approach, globalization is a very important social, political and economic development (Teubner 2004). The hyperglobalists strongly focus on economy because globalization leads to denationalization of national economies through international exchange. They emphasize that the driving forces behind the causal dynamics of globalization are capitalism and technology (Teubner 2004). Therefore, new technologies are essential in eliminating the problems that arise due to time and space in different transfers. According to this approach, the implications for governance and state power is that globalization processes brings to an end the power of the state (Steger 2010). According to Arrighi (2005) the erosion of state power is caused by increased mobility of transnational companies which makes it extremely difficult for the state to have higher taxes compared to its neighboring countries. When the task-base for the state is weakened, its economic power also weakens. Globalization leads to the welfare state, which is a process that results to formation of new socio-economic patterns whereby there are winners and losers within the state (Lee & Carter 2011). Thus, the hyperglobalist approach emphasizes the benefits of knowledge in the economy. In other words, the level of economic development within and between states depends of the differences between skilled and unskilled labour within the countries (Teubner 2004). The skeptics view globalization based on economic indicators and as a process of internationalization. In regards to casual dynamics, this approach emphasizes the importance of markets and states (Robinson 2007). In addition, the skeptics focus more on the role of political choice in regard to globalization issues. However, they do not view globalization as an essential and consequential occurrence in respect to socio-economic repercussions (Stiglitz 2002). According to this approach, major economic powers have the ability to apply governance if they will to do so. Although, there are great inequalities between and within states, the skeptics conclude that globalization has no much impact on the situation (Najam, Runnalls & Halle 2007). In addition, they consider international transfers that happen today as just confined between the regional blocs, such as Europe, USA and Japan. Therefore, the economic development goes toward more contacts between the regional blocs and not towards universal globalization (Najam et al 2007). The transformationalists approach to globalization is situated between the hyperglobalist and the skeptical perspectives. This approach considers globalization as an instrument of change that constitutes all elements of economic, social and political life (Arrighi 2005). The transformationalists are considered to be less precise on the issue of state power and governance as they argue that it is both reconstituted and restructured (Robinson 2007). In addition, they argue that globalization is in its middle process which has no precise trends. As concerns socio-economic consequences, they project new patterns of global stratification without clearly indicating how and according to which factor the process with occur (Teubner 2004). Market opportunities and threats of globalization Since 1980s, when globalization came into existence, there have been remarkable changes in the global marketplace (Thoumrungroje 2004). Liberalization of capital markets and world trade due to globalization has brought about new and challenging competitive scenario for organizations across the world (Nolan & Zhang 2003). A trend has developed where by nations are more interdependent which has resulted to emergency of numerous changes in the business environment (Lu, Li, Shen & Huang 2009). There has been an increase in development of global markets for labor, goods, services and financial capital. Also, consumers’ demands on a global scene have linked (Mrak 2000). According to Scott (2005) increase in trade and liberalization due to improvement in communication and transportation technologies has led to increase in the amount of business transactions on an international scale. These trends in the global marketplace have resulted into two distinct effects of globalization referred to as market opportunities and market threats of globalization (Molle 2002). There is no doubt that globalization brings about more opportunities and threats to organizations that seek to operate within the global marketplace. The same way opportunities arise from globalization, so does competition and uncertainty (Zahra, Rawhouser, Bhawe, Neubaum & Hayton (2008). In presence of globalization, many organizations have been affected by the changes in global market opportunities and global market threats. These are dimensions of the macro environment and are also forces that are likely to affect the performance and outputs of organizations operating within global marketplace (Zahra et al 2008). Global market opportunities are referred to as increases in the potential of the market, trade and investment and accessibility of resources as a result of globalization (Thoumrungroje 2004). Removal of trade barriers and investment barriers, development of information technology, and deregulation of investment and trade policies are rich opportunities to organizations that intended to operate on international markets (Lu et al 2009). These changes in the global business environment allow organizations access new and profitable markets, as well as reduce costs by transferring their business operations and utilizing affordable resources around the globe (Wiersema & Bowen 2008). According to Thoumrungroje (2004) organizations can outsource their production in different regions which helps to lower their operational costs. In addition, globalization of technology has led to market transactions being more efficient. Consequently, global market opportunities have facilitated rapid growth in a range of economic sectors in many locations around the globe (Lu et al 2009). Thus, increase in cross-border transactions, technology and investment during the 1990s and early 2000s is a manifestation of increase in market opportunities caused by globalization (Thoumrungroje 2004). Global market threats are the intensified competition in the international markets due to increase in the number of competitors in the international marketplace (Hafsi 2002). Threats in the global marketplace can be classified as competitive threats and market uncertainty. Therefore, although globalization promotes organizations’ market opportunities, it also intensifies the level of competition the organizations encounter (Thoumrungroje 2004). Developments in trade, liberalization of trade and convergence of nations’ macroeconomic policies due to globalization have created a favourable business environment for organizations around the world to enter various geographical markets, leading to intense competition between organizations around the world (Hafsi 2002). Wiersema and Bowen (2008) argue that globalization has really changed the competitive environment the organizations from both developed and developing countries come from. Due to global competition, organizations operating at various levels of marketplaces, such as domestic, regional, international and global often compete against one another for scarce resources (Thoumrungroje 2004). Therefore, globalization has resulted to a new competitive environment known as “hypercompetitive markets” which presents many threats to organizations in virtually all economic sectors due to the fact that such competition makes organization’s relative competitive advantage more sensitive to time (Scott 2005). Alternatively, globalization makes the process of gathering information by consumers easier, faster and less costly (Zahra et al 2008). Therefore, customers realize the availability of alternative products very first, which makes them ready to switch at any moment (Thoumrungroje 2004). Given that the number of competitors continues to grow, resources available for use are becoming scarcer. This, coupled with such hypercompetitive situations is a threat to organizations’ performance (Lu et al 2009). Due to increase in global competition and resistance from buyers, organizations experience less price flexibility, which affects the rate of return on their investments in the global marketplace (Wiersema & Bowen 2008). Global market uncertainty is another type of global market threat to organizations operating or intending to operate in the global marketplace. It is defined as the increase in complexity and uncertainty in demand in the market (Thoumrungroje 2004). Due to uncertainty in the market, organizations experience problems in planning and making decisions more accurately (Lu et al 2009). In particular, it has become difficult for organizations to predict demand for various reasons. The growing number of organizations in the global marketplace has made forecasting demand for consumer goods and services and responses of competitors increasingly challenging (Scott 2005). In addition, technology continues to change at a very high speed and consumers can easily access information about new products (Hafsi 2002). As a result, consumers easily shift between producers, making it difficult for organizations to predict demand (Thoumrungroje 2004). Different approaches to internationalization The organization and international environment often display different conditions and situations (Danciu 2012). The internalization of the organization reflects the extraordinary diversity that occurs within these business environments and could be well understood with the assistance of various models (Lakomaa (2009). Models for internationalization focus on essential components and mechanisms of activities that take place in international environment, which the organizations should adopt at any given moment when going international (Danciu 2012). According to Danciu (2012) organizations can use progressive, contingency and interactive approaches to globalize their activities. Progressive Approaches Progressive models according to Danciu (2012) assume that the process of internationalization is progressive in nature and it has various successive stages which organizations have to undergo to internalize their business operations. Also known as the Uppsalla model, progressive model relies on learning and knowledge to internalize business activities (Danciu 2012). The model supposes that organizations that lack knowledge are likely to find it difficult to develop international operations (Eternad & Ala-Mukta 2009). However, Lakomaa (2009) asserts that as the organizations acquire more knowledge and learns more from the global operations, the obstacles to internationalization gradually reduce. This assumption suggests that large organizations having more resources are likely to combine some stages and internationalize their business activities in just a single step. As Danciu (2012) argues, even when the organizations utilize stored knowledge concerning major markets it may not significantly lead to successful internationalization if the conditions in the foreign markets are stable and homogenous. Nevertheless, when the organization acquires knowledge on the same markets, it may just use a single stage to enter related markets (Eternad & Ala-Mukta 2009). According to Rubaeva (2010) organizations that use progressive model to internationalize their business activities follow four stages that include sporadic export, foreign sales subsidiaries and production, export through independent representatives and establishment of manufacturing units in foreign markets. Progressive model explains how organizations are successful in learning and acquiring knowledge when internalizing their activities (Rubaeva 2010). During the process of receiving knowledge, organizations can acquire either general knowledge or market-specific knowledge (Danciu 2012). Organizations obtain market-specific knowledge primary through having experience in the international market and this knowledge is often transferred from one state to another (Eternad & Ala-Mukta 2009). Alternatively, general knowledge once obtained facilitates geographic diversification. Therefore, knowledge creates business opportunities and plays a critical role in internationalization of business activities (Lakomaa 2009). The progressive model also shows how organization’s knowledge has influence over its investment behaviour (Rubaeva 2010). Normally, when organizations lack knowledge on the new markets, they may not be in a position to pursue the process of international commitment (Danciu 2012). Alternatively, Eternad and Ala-Mukta (2009) observe that when organizations have more knowledge about new markets, the risk to internationalization are likely to be lower and even organizations’ commitment in foreign markets is may be stronger. When selecting target-market, organizations often start by internalizing business operations in countries that are nearer, both psychological and geographical, before they enter far markets, purposely to reduce incertitude and risk (Danciu 2012). Reorganization of the process of internalization is enhanced when commitment of the organization, geographic diversification and time combine. This, according to Danciu (2012) follows three steps which include first landing, going native and globalization. First landing is where the organization optimizes its specific advantages, such marketing, financial or technological strength to internalize its activities by use of capabilities and competencies that led to its success in domestic market (Eternad & Ala-Mukta 2009). An organization may decide to use the going native approach to enter new markets by capitalizing the relocation advantages that occur due to the change in production and sales capabilities (Danciu 2012). In this case, the organization adapts the strategy and modes of operation according to business environment in each market, making it become a multinational (Rubaeva 2010). In globalization, the organization has global advantages which it capitalizes using a global strategy to enter new markets (Rubaeva 2010). Although progressive models are highly appreciated, they have some criticisms (Lakomaa 2009). Many organizations do not consolidate their activities in the domestic markets before they internalize their activities which are likely to affect their success (Lakomaa 2009). Sometimes, the organizations exceed certain stages of internalization process, or may simply decide reverse the trend (Danciu 2012). In addition, some organizations find it difficult to overpass a particular stage of international commitment (Danciu 2012). Contingency Approaches Contingency approaches to internalization are explained based on the REM as factors that influence the decision of the organization to internalize its business activities (Rubaeva 2010). The R factor stands for reasons for internalization (external and internal drives), the E factors represent the environment, and the M factor represents the mode of entry (Danciu 2012). According to the contingency models, the internationalization of organization’s business operations is influenced by the environment factors existing in the foreign market (Lakomaa 2009). Since these factors are dynamic in nature, there is no single way the organization can internalize its activities. Therefore, the process of internalization may be different in each organization because of the changes between the actual and future environmental conditions (Danciu 2012). The implication of contingency models for management is that organizations are open systems and can have many solutions of internalizing their business activities (Rubaeva 2010). Management can use the organization strength to address the requirements of the environment in the foreign markets (Danciu 2012). In this case, the analysis capacity is seen to be an essential condition for planning the process of internationalization (Eternad & Ala-Mukta 2009). The contingency models have two commonly known approaches which organizations can follow during the internationalization process. They include the transaction cost approach and the eclectic approach (Danciu 2012). According to Hollensen (2008) the transaction cost model supposes that organizations internalize the activities up to the time when its transaction cost is at equilibrium with the cost of similar transaction which is market-based. The transaction cost has different opportunistic behaviour and interests of the exporters. The organization will decide to internalize after undertaking a relevant transaction costs analysis (Rubaeva 2010). Based on the analysis, the organization will choose to externalize if the foreign-based transactions are confirmed to have a lower cost (Rubaeva 2010). The organization can establish business relationship with foreign partners through different modes of entry, such as export, subcontracting, licensing, or joint-ventures (Danciu 2012). Sometimes, partners may be integrated in the organization’s structure internally, a situation that causes organizations to internalize through mergers and acquisitions (Hollensen 2008). Danciu (2012) asserts that organizations use cost transaction approach to internalize primarily to reduce the entire transaction costs. The eclectic model explains the conditions of internalization as a situation when organizations use foreign direct investment (FDI) and not export (Hollensen 2008). It is a concept introduced by Dunning which explains that the propensity of an organization to internalize it business activities increases if it has ownership, location and internalization advantages (Rubaeva 2010). The organization has to have ownership advantages, such as technological assets and bigger resources compared to others organizations already operating in foreign markets to successfully internalize its activities (Danciu 2012). Location advantage explains the immobility of markets at international scale. It occurs due to economic gap between countries and benefits the host country for FDI (Danciu 2012). Alternatively, international advantage emerges when the organization focuses on capitalizing its ownership advantage internally by investing and reducing the cost of transaction of knowledge transfer of the inter-companies (Hollensen 2008). Interactive Approaches The interactive models assume that markets are formed from a combination of anonymous actors which continuously interact and have business relationships that are long-tern in nature. The approach emphasizes the importance of personal, cognitive and commercial relationships between business partners (Danciu 2012). According to the model, the organizational network plays a critical role in promoting internationalization and organizations produces their resources by establishing relationships with other business partners in foreign markets (Hollensen 2008). Organizations in the network can be independent and dependent on the resources other companies control (Hollensen 2008). The level at which organizations dependent on other organizations’ resources gradually increases implying that resources of a single organization become highly dependent on other organizations; resources to the advantage of all parties (Căescu & Dumitru 2011; Rubaeva 2010). The business networks between organizations occur throughout exchange relationships the needs and capabilities of these organizations are reconciled by the interactions during the relationships (Danciu 2012). The internalization of the organizations’ business activities depends on the position of the organization in the business network and on the entire structure of internationalization of the market (Căescu & Dumitru 2011). The position of the organization in the business network can be defined as the early starter, the lonely international, the late starter and the international among others (Rubaeva 2010). Whichever dimension, the international business networks appear to change easily and faster. Therefore, they are likely to be more flexible and respond effectively to changes in market conditions (Rubaeva 2010). Consequently, according to Danciu (2012) international business networks are common in markets and industries interested parties’ coordination achieves additional revenues. Conclusion Conclusively, globalization is a complex and controversial concept that has a homogenizing effect on existing national cultures. The pressures of globalization have brought states and societies together making them more similar as they converge in business approaches, economic and political systems, as well as aesthetic attitudes. The concept of globalization became commonly used in the early 1980s and was driven by various factors that are categorized under four groups, namely macro-economic factors, technological factors, political factors and organizational factors. The concept of globalization is viewed different by the hyperglobalists, the skeptics and the transformationalists categories. Nevertheless, considering economic, technological and cultural issues, it is argued that globalization is a major terminology that helps to analyze both domestic and international politics. These changes in the global marketplace have resulted into global market opportunities and global market threats. The global market opportunities include removal of trade barriers and investment barriers, development of information technology, and deregulation of investment and trade policies. Alternatively, global market threats include global competitive threats and market uncertainty. Lastly, organizations intending to internalize their business activities can adapt progressive approaches, contingency approaches and interactive approaches. Reference List Arrighi G. 2005, ‘Globalization in world-systems perspective.’ In R. Appelbaum and W.I. Robinson (eds.), Critical Globalization Studies, pp. 33–44. Busch, A. 2000, Unpacking the globalization debate: approaches, evidence and data, in C. Hay and D. Marsh (Eds.), Demystifying globalization, New York: St. Martin’s Press. Căescu S.C & Dumitru I. 2011, ‘Particularities of the competitive environment in the business to business field.’ Management & Marketing, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 273-284. Chio, L. K. 2007, Transnational Financial Cooperation-The Driving Force Behind Globalisation. Company. Danciu V. 2012, ‘Models for the internationalization of the business: a diversity-based approach.’ Management & Marketing, vol. 7, no. 1. Etemat H & Ala-Mukta J. 2009, ‘Growth and Internationalization Strategies of Rapidly Growing and Internationalizing Enterprises from Canada and Finland.’ ASAC, Niagara Falls, Ontario. Garrett G. 2000, ‘The causes of globalization.’ Comparative political studies, vol. 33, no. 6-7, pp. 941-991. Hafsi, T. 2002, Global Competition and the Peripheral Player: A Promising Future, in Fawzy, Samiha, ed., Globalization and Firm Competitiveness, Washington DC: The International Bank of Reconstruction and Development. Held, D, McGrew, A, Goldblatt, D & Perraton, J. 1999, Global transformations: politics, economics and culture, Cambridge: Polity. Hollensen, S. 2008, Essential of Global Marketing, Pearson Education Limited, Harlow, Essex. Jacoby W & Meunier S. 2010, ‘Europe and the management of globalization.’ Journal of European Public Policy, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 299-317. Jones, G.G, Abdelal, R.E & Kirby, W.C. 2009, ‘Historical Roots of Globalization.’ Summit Report. Kaul, I, Conceicao, P, Le Goulven, K & Mendoza, R. U. 2003, Providing global public goods: managing globalization, Oxford University Press. Lakomaa, E. 2009, ‘Models for internationalization: A study of the early steps of the internationalization of Scandinavian media companies.’ Stockholm School of Economics, Sweden. Lee K & Carter S. 2011, ‘Global marketing management.’ Strategic Direction, vol. 27, no. 1. Lu W, Li H, Shen L & Huang T. 2009, ‘Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats analysis of Chinese construction companies in the global market.’ Journal of Management in Engineering, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 166-176. Molle W. 2002, ‘Globalization, Regionalism, and Labor Markets: Should We Recast the Foundations of the EU Regime in Matters of Regional (Rural and Urban) Development?’ Regional studies, vol.3, no. 2, pp. 161-172. Moncada-Paternò-Castello P, Vivarelli M & Voigt P. 2011, ‘Drivers and impacts in the globalization of corporate R&D: an introduction based on the European experience.’ Industrial and Corporate Change, vol. 20, no. 2, pp.585-603. Mrak, M. 2000, Globalization: Trends, Challenges and Opportunitess for Countries in Transition. UNIDO. Najam, A, Runnalls, D & Halle, M. 2007, Environment and globalization: five propositions. International Institute for Sustainable Development= Institut international du développement durable. Narula, R. 2014, Globalization and technology: Interdependence, innovation systems and industrial policy, John Wiley & Sons. Nolan P & Zhang J. 2003, ‘Globalization Challenge for Large Firms from Developing Countries: China’s Oil and Aerospace Industries.’ European Management Journal, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 285-299. Robinson W. I. 2007, ‘Theories of globalization.’ The Blackwell companion to globalization, vol. 125. Rubaeva, M. 2010, ‘Internationalization of Western Retail Company Eastwards: Metro Group Case.’ The Aarhus School of Business, March. Scott P. 2005, ‘The opportunities and threats of globalization.’ Creating Knowledge, Strengthening Nations, pp. 42-55. Steger, M. B. 2010, Globalization, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Stiglitz, J.E. 2002, Globalization and its discontents, New York: W.W. Norton and Teubner, G. 2004, Defining a changing world: the discourse of globalization, (Doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M University). Thoumrungroje, A. 2004, The effects of globalization on marketing strategy and performance (Doctoral dissertation, Washington State University). Wiersema M. F & Bowen H. P. 2008, ‘Corporate diversification: the impact of foreign competition, industry globalization, and product diversification.’ Strategic Management Journal, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 115-132. Zahra S. A, Rawhouser H. N, Bhawe N, Neubaum D. O & Hayton J. C. 2008, ‘Globalization of social entrepreneurship opportunities.’ Strategic entrepreneurship journal, vol. 2, no. 2, pp.117-131. Read More