Professional Documents
Culture Documents
YouruseoftheJSTORarchiveindicatesyouracceptanceoftheTerms&ConditionsofUse,availableathttp://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTORisanotforprofitservicethathelpsscholars,researchers,andstudentsdiscover,use,andbuilduponawiderangeofcontentinatrusteddigital
archive.Weuseinformationtechnologyandtoolstoincreaseproductivityandfacilitatenewformsofscholarship.FormoreinformationaboutJSTOR,
pleasecontactsupport@jstor.org.
http://www.jstor.org
Thiscontentdownloadedfrom193.0.225.55onSun,17Jan201621:03:41UTCAllusesubjectto
JSTORTermsandConditions
The
of
Consequences
Economic Globalization
for Affluent Democracies
David
andWei
Sociology,
brady@soc.duke.edu
department
2
Department
email:
of
3
Department
of
Duke
Sociology,
University, Durham,
Harvard
North Carolina
University, Cambridge,
jbeckfie@wjh.harvard.edu
Sociology, University
ofNorth
27708;
Zhao3
email:
Massachusetts
Carolina, Charlotte,
North
02138;
Carolina
Keywords
2007.33:313-34
inAdvtnce on
April4,2007
The Amuul Review ofSociology is online at
economic
Abstract
In recent
the
state, inequality,
10.n467annurcvjoa33.040406.131636
2007 AmmtlReviews.
by
labor
Copyright?
in
grown significantly
0360-0572/07/0811-0313$20.00
connection between
countrycomparisons
stronger
same
theoreticalaccounts of of
and empirical
globalization
social lifehave
been analyses.At the recent
time,many
aspects
neglected
by
researchon
we
currentconsensus
globalization.Throughout,
gauge
and
dissensus, identify
futureresearch.
understudied
topics,
and
suggest
Thiscontentdownloadedfrom193.0.225.55onSun,17Jan201621:03:41UTCAllusesubjectto
JSTORTermsandConditions
directions
for
Panel
INTRODUCTION
the
In
the
1990s,
scene
lively
when
globalization
burst
of the social
debate
about
evidence
ization
the
sciences,
whether
has
suggests
indeed
affluent
of
there
alization's
in
evidence
ization
of
among
discuss
especially
turned
To
our
of
search
on
alization
civil
the
this work
by
We
then
state,
the
we
re?
glob?
economy,
and
gauge
cur?
the
and dissensus
directions
for
in the
future
the
1960s,
a
affluent
substantial
globalization.
investment
have
trade
Australia,
of
displays
openness
GDP)
(trade
and
increase
portfolio
across
be
these
(exports
trends
as a
term total
inward and
as a
investment
of
percent
globalization
outward
percent
direct
of
wave of increased
globalization,
present
began even before 1960. At least for afflu?
of economic
wave
exceeds pre?
caveat is that
of
the globalization of affluent democracies reflects a great deal
regionalization among affluentdemocracies as well
(Alderson 2004, Kim & Shin 2002). For this review, how?
we
ever,
follow the convention and use the term global? ization
to encompass all forms of international economic
vious waves (Chase-Dunn et al. 2000). One
514
Brady
els of
trade
Beckfield
? Zhao
globalization.
of GDP
by
For
extremely
tapered
has
high
amongWest
example,
Ireland's
in 1960 to
in
and
2003)
levels,
in
substantially
By
trade open?
182.2%
Belgium's
trade
farbe?
openness
the United
in 1960 to 26.3%
2003).
lev?
European
to 169.2%. Though
European
in
open?
as the mean
the
openness
from 9.6%
in 1960
Trade
States
in 2000
contrast, Japan
rose
(and
from
Yet,
displays
-h trade
investment
more
total
are
1975,
greatly.
Because
included,
total
The
volatile
this measure
than trade
widely
since only
(in?
globalization
openness).
flows
increased
openness.2
globalization
mean
total
also
globaliza?
flows
in
2003. This
in
the
Western
Europe
slowly
outside
driven
countries
and Ireland.
Netherlands,
rose
from
globalization
was
European
mean
levels of investment
small West
like Belgium,
GDP)
ent
influenced
grew
openness
in 2000.
cyclical
partlyby extremelyhigh
2001).
(IMF2006).1
^f
been
to
The
(Gao
in terms
imports
af?
North
Zealand.
Japan
and
the
Europe,
and New
andwhat we
openness
in eco?
trade
grown
ofWestern
have
International
clearly
democracies
America,
democracies
80.57%
off to 74.25%
countries.
trade
that
of 43.8%
of
is somewhat
fluctuates
experienced
fluent
ness
23.7%
research.
nomic
from a mean
increased
global?
and measure?
society. Throughout,
Since
shows
low West
provid?
economic
democracies.
of consensus
and suggest
of
glob?
before
considering
globalization,
theconsequences
of economic
for
rent bases
literature
wave
place
the conceptualization
ment
reality
toward
review
increased
affluent
among
the
a recent
has
begin
global?
Given
consequences.
we
actually
mount?
economic
globalization,
context,
ing
that
increased,
research
was a
it was
democracies.
economic
scholarly
to a mean
onto
an
average
(117.8%
started
lower
Western
in
2003).
and
Europe.
of
rose
Nev?
the United
has a differentN at
investment data.
1989,
the
Switzerland in 1983, and Ireland in 1990. However,
Thiscontentdownloadedfrom193.0.225.55onSun,17Jan201621:03:41UTCAllusesubjectto
JSTORTermsandConditions
?W.Europe
Mean
i{r*5r^r^ri^*^
?{&?$r^ ^&
t$rt$r$P<f$*
TV
7?V
120
O.100
3 on
(9 80
a?
^.^J^
40
Figure
Trends
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
tarning
conditions within
to the
review,
we note our
scope
studies.4 We
peared
emphasize
since
research
1999, mainly
that has
after other
reviews were
ap?
recent
inflows have been larger than outflows most years since 1981.
Since 1994, portfolio investment inflowshave been
than
and
investmenthas been
greater
outflows,
portfolio
than direct investmentmost years since 1991.
in 19
affluent democracies.
globalization
in economic
globalization
larger
topic.
literature,
www.annualreviews.org
EconomieGlobalization
geography,
in
focus on
Democracies
Affluent
Thiscontentdownloadedfrom193.0.225.55onSun,17Jan201621:03:41UTCAllusesubjectto
JSTORTermsandConditions
315
et
al.
cial
(1999, p. 27)
life
escape
These
alization.
the
opposed
economic,
countries,
so
do
because
partly
grown
have
globalization
so rapidly
constitutes
a substantial
own.
Additionally,
we
these
scope
exchange
occurs
among
(Alderson
reality.
our
democracies
reflects
countries
North
the affluent
shared
America,
Western
the
The
to be
states,
and
electoral
very
few
studies
and
consequences
concentrate
Japan,
consequences
of
and
global?
(e.g., mature
welfare
democracies).5
both
the
in
so
in all
the
legal,
has sparked
an
the
military
debate
height?
industry
2005,Held
et al.
and
locity,
the
make
the
ine
the
no
diverse,
the
longer
(2002)
history
of
this review
and
calls
of
to exam?
legal globalization,
generic globalization,
international
economic
the
the mod?
that marked
capitalist
the
or
of denationalization.
concept
all dimensions
of
claim to capture
broader
globalization
literature.
beyond
scope
cultural, political,
ern
ve?
high impact,
introduces
We
(1999)
rise of
century,
impact
Rather, we
on
strictly
developing
concentrate
on
century
conceptualize
causes
this
the
countries.
Fourth,
of globalization,
ized
integration
institutionalized
explore
globalization
what Sklair
reflect a host
often
absent
are
deindustrialization,
parties,
among
Europe,
countries
developing
there
comparability
political,
so?
glob?
through
2005,
Skiair
2002). For example,Held
describe
thick
character?
globalization
It is
narrowing
democracies,
Antipodes.
ization
for affluent democracies
of distinct
commonalities
that
in
in
naturally
although
some
appear
ened
availability,
review
so our
far more
this
overrepresented
tendency. Third,
developing
is still
are
research,
this
to data
the cultural
democracies
reflects
the
processes
are reflected
of
of
on the
of
&
globalization (Applebaum
Robinsonontology
Gereffi
international
review
partly due
globalization
its
for
disproportionately
affluent
and
Second,
affluent
First,
still
the
2004),
this
on
conditions.
economic
on
literature
from
areas
and
the
environmental."
Theoretical
on the
and nature
of this
meaning
studies
that research
focus
"Few
of
processes
social domains
consequences
state,
the reach
we
review.
in affluent
economic
democracies.
We
globalization
as in?
of
CONCEPTUALIZATION
MEASUREMENT
The
concept
of
AND
globalization
ployed for
has
been de?
ationalize
tional
refer
economic
investment.
to this more
specific
ferring
5
We
countries,Polillo
alization,
bank
&
more
example,
compelling
analysis
using
triggered
based on
independence. However,
theirmodels
in a
theirdata
of
central
reestimations of
(which theygraciously
shared
measures become
one measure
significantly
events, and domestic
insignificant,
independence
influential.Although
(IMF) lending
IMF
316
Brady
lending
in this
Beckfield
period.
? Zhao
has a
International
effect in the
positive
received any
economic
has
many
istence
Thus,
henceforth,
as interna?
we
when
we are re?
phenomenon
of
globalization.
Whether
ring
globalization
trade and
to
globalization
been
globalization
a source
skeptics
great
that
contend
is overblown
is
of
actually
debate,
occur?
and
ex?
globalization's
(Bairoch
2000,
Campbell
globalization's
litical
spectrum.
forceful
were
critics of
radical
(Gordon
political
cuts
Indeed,
the
across
among
po?
of globalization
novelty
economists
1994, Sutcliffe&
the
the most
and Marxists
Glyn
1999).
In
Thiscontentdownloadedfrom193.0.225.55onSun,17Jan201621:03:41UTCAllusesubjectto
JSTORTermsandConditions
the face of
to
a more
acknowledge
responding
some
that
a new
sovereignty.6
grand
theorists,
warranted
have
led
alization
is not
alization
is not
for a concrete
that
something
is
the
(2006)
early
emphasizes,
world"
pirical
support.
From
this
is better
onymous
making
the?
grand
We
is
definitely
century.
But,
at
be understood
as
a
regime
and difference,
instead
of
identity
homogenization
new
and
& Negri
6For
Negri
of the
pro?
of
really
We
example,
Negri
Moreover,
we
"We have
witnessed
an irresistible and
irreversible globalization of
the
economic
and cultural exchanges. Along with
global
a
market and global
circuits of production has
emerged
global order, a new logic and structure of rule_It
is
true
in
the
of
certainly
ization,
tive,
the
has
that,
step with
sovereignty
of
processes
production
goods?move
still effec?
nation-states, while
with
global?
primary factors of
technology, people and
aries; hence thenation-state has less and less power to regu? late
these flows and impose itsauthorityover the economy."
tion
deployed throughout
the
book,
more
pro?
network
metaphor
clarifies
the
globalization by highlighting
people,
the
relations
that are
Thinking
tidimensional
the
in the
concept
investment,
about
network
to the
and mi?
globalization
globalization
formation
levels of
multiple
globalization
process:
and
orga?
consumption,
central
of
and states)
trade,
membership,
The
organizations,
(e.g.,
can
a multidimensional
formation.
(e.g.,
like
globalization
network
process.
social
heterogenization."
persuasive.7
Hardt &
as
that
international
gration)
should
or
suggest
cess of
syn?
&
we
be conceptualized
nization
it
flexibility?
constructs
or capitalism.
Further,
as
suggest
Hardt
modernity
re?
of a sweep?
book, Hardt
"Globalization...
p. 45) write,
broader
dif?
clearly
phenomena?
precise
ar?
seen
totalizing
vague,
popular
In their
duction
advocate
globalization
with
(2001,
skeptics
entiate
to avoid
other
theoretical
glob?
we
from
glob?
tangible
is
and
and from
levels not
position,
measured
concrete
something
provided
glob?
claims
concretely
if, instead,
as
privatization,
the nation-state
and uneven
relevant,
ing "runaway
reaching
twentieth
research
e.g., neoliberalism,
that
skeptics.
discon?
Sociological
productive
is defined
the
vague,
and potentially
changes.8
far more
ferentiated
or that
the
between
be
alization
and
diverse
social
to use
immeasurable
of
new. We
empirical
and
order.
conclude
increasingglobalization
since
mains
to
for
productive
as a
light
the
really increasing
earlier
occurring
least
some
funda?
as
is not
buzzword
will
of
the nation
In
However,
position
and
was
of
it
globalization
nected
were
claims
the skeptics
correction.
skep?
skeptics
epoch
national
these
Sassen
global
term
would
ahistorical
the relevance
or
orists
those
bold,
those
reading
erasing
state
might
that
to the
mentally
gue
appropriate
suggest
in affluent
actually occurring
one
could
criticize
But
be
that increasing
is
democracies,
tics.
evidence
mounting
globalization
as mul?
helps
differ?
inherent
analysis
involves
the local,
by em?
worse
on
the ba?
still, easily falsifiable
pirical evidence or,
sis of widely available
evidence." Tilly (2003, pp. 26-27)
writes,
"Michael Hardt
orbit so far
and Antonio Negri
from the concrete realities of contemporary change that their readers
see little but clouds, hazy seas and nothing?
ness
cast their
in
beyond_They
arguments abstractly,
concrete
illustra? tions of the
idiosyncraticallydefined terms,with few
social processes theyhave inmind_Until we
et al.
how
developed.
global?
of the
differentMore.
the
do not actu?
test
importantly,
chapters
ally
the effectof
quite
manifests
globalization
through increasing uncertainty? even though
this is never really established. The authors do not actually measure
but
measure
globalization
prox?
ies
the volume is
to
skeptical read
www.annualreviews.org
Economie Globalization
in
Democracies
Affluent
Thiscontentdownloadedfrom193.0.225.55onSun,17Jan201621:03:41UTCAllusesubjectto
JSTORTermsandConditions
517
regional,
national,
social
and international
life. Globalization
observe
flows of
in terms of the
effectsof
from
In this
way,
globalization
of
the process
& Centeno
sition
between
the
the
grand
position
and
and
exchange.9
this
con?
on
globalization.
whether
work
considered
to
stabilize
citizens
the economic
and
triggering
ance
an
that
to
state in
of the
1996,
Evans
effects
on
turned
toward
question
the
the more
of how
emergence
that
supersedes
for
empirically
globalization
of
at
the
states
and
others contend
the
Wolf
stresses
major
scholarship
debating
is more
globalization's
dimensions
Many
(Gilpin 2001,
example,Wilensky
(2002)
institutionsremain a
dif?
cross-national
striking
these contributions,
most
Despite
recent
ization
actors
remain
ofthe
of
effects
national
its effects
studies claim
that
with
on particular
state.
regards
concerned
on
about
global?
the welfare
globalization
state.
has pos
volume
ingly
ji8
Brady
Beckfield
the name
The
that
curvi?
globaliza?
expansion
and
subse?
retrenchment.
to
concentrate
negative
effects,
the
early
political
scientists
was
that
caused welfare
state
triggered
of
research,
bold
(Hardt
anced,
expansion,
and
After
from
altered
supporting
more
is an emerging
analyses
aremore bal?
welfare
politics
states
Sassoon
1999,
a decade of scrutiny,
At
consensus.
under
constituencies
welfare
et al.
than
strik?
that were
empirical
and weakening
parties
Kitschelt
a few
state decline
expecting
globalization
2005,
of
detached
&
large
including
accounts
noticeably
(Beland
1996).
there
globaliza?
most,
tion has
small
effects
on welfare
state
fers,
expenditures,
generosity,
or welfare
fort
fects
examine
of a wide
sures
both
that
and
atively
distinct
what
aspects
to retrenchment
(p. 945).
of
Winner
globalization
on
does
the welfare
state,
are most
certainly
rel?
Others
contend
that
globalization
in some
ef?
mea?
of the welfare
"[globalization
effect
effects it has
small"
of
dimensions
and conclude
trans?
ef?
variety
for several
state
not
9This
in
austerity.
higher levels,
sociologists
tended
among
1998).
that domestic
source of
ferences.
One
that nation-states
paramount political
2004). For
and advocates
programs
claims
thesis)
governments
in
coun? tries
especially
small, highly globalized
like
or Sweden
Belgium
(Cameron
1978,
Katzenstein
&
Rodrik
1985, Rieger Leibfried 2003,
This debate
a
further globalization
to
governance
efficiency
causes
potential
their
them. The
forces
and
causes
globalization
tractable
contributes
transnational
national
neoliberalism
disappear?
(the
account
initially
Although
& Dore
(Berger
recent work
has
general
More
1997).
or
view
globalization
competitiveness
of
appease
retrench welfare
of
quently,
globalization
irrelevance
1999).
security
politically
effects
holds
consensus
was
(Hicks
positive
(the compensa?
holds
that globalization
produces
thesis)
that
volatility
and
uncertainty
and
govern?
ments
respond
by expanding
social
policies
tion
Early
or a curvilin?
state
effects account
linear
FOR THE
(Garrett
a reduction
causing
Stephens 2001),
negative
of
insights
CONSEQUENCES
STATE
expansion
tion
ear?
contributions
exemplifies
offers
new
and
&
an
effects
negative
(Huber
evidence
that
scholarship
crete
theorists
the
1998),
causing
distinguished
international
review highlights
itive effects
The
empirical
skeptics
scrutiny
of tangible
recent
and
and services
can be
requires
Our
to
(Hargittai
globalization
Hence,
our concrete
po?
2001).
lier
of
easiest
actual relations
(Alderson 2004).
levels
becomes
specific
? Zhao
Thiscontentdownloadedfrom193.0.225.55onSun,17Jan201621:03:41UTCAllusesubjectto
JSTORTermsandConditions
contributed
dimensions
2001).
labor
but
in a
matters,
sense or in
conditional
complex,
welfare
state
or
regimes
production
certain
as well.
ature
(Burgoon
ably
not
states
to be
the
dominant
and plausibly
has
less
ars
contemporary
do
not
ization
dispute
has
occurred,
the welfare
enced
state
the
expected.
has
than es?
state
note
probably
that
not
or
experi?
as
expansion
measures
nuanced
decommodification
schol?
global?
analysts
decline
Although
influence
increasing
but
dramatic
on
prob?
welfare
welfare
that
liter?
is
influence
in the
pattern
globalization
that
oliberal
show at least
like
some
con?
most
dimensions
continue
to
because
grow
constituencies
ulations,
tionalist
the
appear
of
significant
theoretical
literature
Future research
productive
cent debate
broad
changes
ization
emerged
as
ter
are
skeptical
taxation.
"In
sum,
vanced
for
the notion
states
to
result
in
Dreher
of tax
that
change
taxation
on
p. 141)
levels
the
ad?
support
is causing
laws in
ways
on lower tax burdens."
that
al?
writes,
in
globalization
concludes
alization inOECD
higher
will
provide no
their tax
convergence
(2005)
(Steinmo
Steinmo 2002).
(2004,
countries
re?
significantglobal?
that globalization
analyses
capitalist
taxa?
of earlier
spending
Campbell
re?
2001). Partly,
a result
a lack of
indicating
in government
state may
increased
that
glob?
and
had no
effect
on
policy
clear
declines
whether
national
finance
lo?
pursuing
a na?
in
isolation
from
Al?
causes
taxes, business
2004,
for this
support
bal?
to
(Campbell
will
of fiscal
is little
acute
environment."
globalization
dimensions
challenge
Babb
of
of overall
and
&
that globalization
tax progressivity
influence
pre?
governance.
area, however,
One
is that there
that inter?
punishes
states
that
taxation in a business-friendly
organize
globalization's
mates
calls
efficiency
That
for
&
welfare
device
states
2005,
(Campbell
pressures
would
be
may
a welcome
and
with
framing
policy
within
gregated
to
welfare
globalization
still
operate
that facilitates
case
studies or small-iV
ical
ment
1999).
though
it
may
discourse
than welfare
vibrant
Polillo &
shows
001,
have
research.
among
polit?
manage?
Guillen 2005).
that international
Economie Globalization
2001).
ismacroeconomic
(Gilpin 2001,
www.annualreviews.org
Even
effects,
to globalization
especially
(2002)
other
social
than ag?
states
welfare
has modest
subject
scientists,
Bearce
of
rather
between
of the state
been
area,
to rhetoric
evolution
as a socially constructed
welfare
state change (Cox
Aspects
One
research
attention
claims
Such
states,
comparisons
globaliza?
addition.
the
More re?
globalization
special
and
2000).
actors filter
and frame
comparisons
2004,
Fourcade-Gourinchas
how political
tion
legiti?
calls
and undermines
as a so?
that
is,
may
globalization
the political
discourse
within
Hirsch
on the wel?
understood
discursive
for
egalitarianism.
matter
more
surrounding
effects
be better
state might
Fiss
globalization
(Helminen 2001,McLure
this literature
earlier
First,
asked whether
trigger
search
the
in two directions.
has
nega?
impossibility
it is not
a ne?
taxation
all cases,
international
cially constructed
conclusion
challenges
on all sides.
on the welfare
the
or
cise
argue
demonstrated
substantial
and
large
"In
taxes,
able
reduced
crises
economic
though
pop?
globalization
clearly
it
because
be
aging
heightened glob?
effects. This
is
welfare
beneficiaries,
to have
tive or positive
tion
of
not
might
ofthe
write,
broader
fare
inertia in thisera of
political
alization
does
2003),
569)
actors
do not
Palme
of
of payments
cal
Others
states toward
Fourcade-Gourinchas
p.
ance
taxation.
pushed
combination
(2002,
the
Overall,
appears
consumption
globalization
monetarism.
or
that
in
Affluent
Thiscontentdownloadedfrom193.0.225.55onSun,17Jan201621:03:41UTCAllusesubjectto
JSTORTermsandConditions
capital
Democracies
319
mobility
exerts
policy,
although
pressure
the
the
influence
of
parties
is
actually
of international
financial
tion
exchange
rates.
management
has
nomic
globalization,
bold
most
conclusions
or
loss
of
scholars
of
the
influenced
caution
by
against
and
ment
innovative
ofWall
financiers,Mosley
international
in
cient
finance
irresponsible.
examine
how
and
globalization
2000,
argument
causes
a shift
in the
of various
1996).
ization
risk
(2003)
(1998)
and
families
the
elevates
turn,
parties.
By
contrast,
globalization
right-wing
elevates
parties,
sup?
although
effect is dampened
generous
state. Some of this research
focuses
on
actors,
and we discuss
the consequences
organized
ventional,
an
intriguing
state. Much
raphy
and urban
studies
example,
related
concept
interp?n?tration
^20
Brady
Beckfeld
for
of this work
For
of
are
literature
consequences
tional
the
analyses
of
the
explores
the
occurs
(Brenner
several
con?
subna?
others,
for
in
geog?
1999, Jessop
scholars
debate
policy.
differentiate
and
also
airline
"glocalization"?the
global
and
the
lo
For
there is a link
crime,
one
tion
shapes
punishment,
incarceration
might
research
but
in this
explore
although
to
globalization's
(Sch?fer
im?
globalization
how
enforcement,
there has
reg?
Clougherty
commitment
study
influence
of
variety
policy,
between
could
con?
influencesdo?
institutional
and
state,
a wide
globalization
states.
be
or macroeco?
example,
mediates
of
not
productively
might
shapes
competition
government's
antitrust
policies
the
need
social policy
state
denational?
logics
direction
Sassen
various
how
the organizing
this
finds that
and
among
to appreciate
functions.
alization
regu?
globalization
but
If
find
the state
administers
globalization
(2001)
how
may
encourages
solely with
mestic
like so
scholars
and
in
nomics,
electricity.
instance,
alters
cerned
ing,
and privati?
state formation
to examine
to
ization
re?
conformity
and
globalization
productive
lates, enforces,
countries,
deregulation,
examining
diffu?
analy?
liberalization,
it
pact.
and developed
argue
inter?
In an
of telecommunications
than
2006,
example,
to a
deregulation.
(2005)
national-level
globalization's
2002).
class
for
For
contributed
of trade cause
ulatory
labor below.
Although
lations
how
welfare
how
developing
Research
Betz
local state
examines
2004).
Elkins
et al.
scholars
greater
&
by a
this
71
capacities
support
Thatcher
neoliberal
(2006),
global?
at
political
Swank
that
claim
for extreme
of
many
politi?
Sassoon
2003,
research
competition
sis of
Rather
of
contends that
workers
in
for Leftist
port
formation
(Green-Pedersen
puts
and,
or
leads
governments
affects
Simmons &
Leibfried
mobilizing
groups
and con?
interest
by glob?
recent
Jessop 2002,
in the
and
interests
transformed
regulationGotham
(Beland 2005,
2000, Clougherty 2001,
zation
globalization
can
and lo?
capitalism.
globalization
Cioffi
al.
et
&
is that
the division
Garrett
shifts do?
Kitschelt
some
(de?
globalization
subnational
elevates
managing
Finally,
Henisz
formation,
are
between
in
sion
theorizes that
governments
Such primitive
national
(Wilensky 2002).
(Berger
cal coalitions
financially
management
2005),
2003).
tributes to
pun?
globalization
macroeconomic
politics
effi?
to, or
though
state capacity
resources
terribly
deemed
even
scholars
is not
193;
primitive accumulation)
facilitate and
actually
p.
globalization
subnational
alization.
state
in differ?
2003,
(2000)
of primitive
how
calities
(Ritzer
Sites
1995).
concept
of
outcomes
areas
invest?
policies
not be overstated
Beyond
Street
responding
So,
influence
mestic
field
monitoring,
states for
ishing
may
study
Robertson
and
monetary
geographic
the
reorganization
and unique
to conflicts
convergence
autonomy
ent
explain
macroeco
international
state
on
liberaliza?
Although
been
in spatial
regulation
on macro
contingent
degree
and
cal, resulting
conditioned
political
policy
state monetary
are
Boix
by party government.
economic
on
effects
globaliza?
polic?
2005).
Glob?
these
dimensions
been
relatively
area.
? Zhao
Thiscontentdownloadedfrom193.0.225.55onSun,17Jan201621:03:41UTCAllusesubjectto
JSTORTermsandConditions
of
less
of the
older
consequences
of
decline
surrounding
the
globalization
employment.
Bluestone
have
and
inequality
for
investment
Some
to
partly
that the
oping
of
the claim
and
that
the
manufacturing
of less
skilled
reduced
and
labor in devel?
manufacturing
in affluent
democracies
em?
(Rees
&
deed,
an
increasing
unmistakable
employment
globalization
in
manufacturing
in all affluent democracies.
Some
results in an
globalization
elasticity
of
the
coincided with
decline
that
argue
in
domestic
& Trindade
increase
labor
demand
Alderson
(Rauch
p.
shows that 2003).
has (1999,an
718)
"[globalization
played
important,
independent
trialization
role
and
Initially,
globalization
causes
manufacturing
entiation,
which
industries
and
causes
of advanced
Despite
this
globalization
influence
industrial
has
at most
small
employment
Several
in
economists
seek
or
1999).
for
the United
to be
Also,
the main
rather
worker
among
such
productivity,
ment
were
globalization
found
in
al.
too
low
of deindustrialization.
involved
impact
democracies,
from
developing
or China
Ultimately,
is
technology,
and economic
actually
rising
develop?
to be more
influential
driving deindustrialization
will
of
than
(Alderson
1999, Golub 1999, Rowthorn
& Wells
1987,Wolf 2004). Responding to
these
(2006)
& Denniston
studies, Brady
to
production,
manufacturing
of
and
to
relocating
the spatialization
to
&
the
influence
industries
(Anderson
Cetina &
2006).
Denniston
on specific
globalization
corporate
practices
pro?
deindustrialization
literature analyzes
of
of
2000). Ultimately,
and
globalization
contribute
related
countries,
firms
productivity gains
appear
highly globalized,
between
both
economies
undermine
competition
of
globalization
As
isomorphism
et
and
al.
2001,
Cioffi
Bruegger 2002,
2000, Collins 2003,
Gereffi 2005, Gotham 2006, Kwon
con?
example,
interviewed
firms
of
ularies
and
variety
iors. For
part
of most
tion
still
(2002)
foreign
U.S.
as a
internationally
(Berger
of
companies
variable
growing
national
capitalism
is
or
in
pay
international?
capital markets.
inferences
for
firm
behaviors
examine
small
globaliza?
large
& Mitchell
specific
altering
Some
the
broad
converge
differences
2001). Others
see if globalization
show
a
implement
or reflect
&
behav?
success. Kurdelbusch
and
product
of this work
draws
question
of whether
remain
revenues,
that
result of
of
examines
and firm
markets
firm
and
vocab?
corporate
et al. (2003)
firms'
predicts
global
uses
literature
Bernard
increasingly
ization
tion
This
demonstrates
Germany
in
of
the
industries
unique
example,
although
illustrate
globalization
practices.
that
members
to
of
schemes
trade
affluent
asMexico
limited.
et
especially
is considered
has mainly
economic
countries
globalization,
cause
investment
the
(Dewatripont
States,
globalization
and
so
unemployment
The level of
greater
moderately
saturation
meanings
that
a (relatively)
on manufacturing
affluent democracies.
claim
specialization
across
countries.
from
move
for
countries."
many
evidence,
however,
of
differ?
involves
deindustrialization.
because
a growth
through
employment
Subsequently,
relationship
manufacturing.
employment
Californian
in the deindus?
is a curvilinear
globalization
Hathcote 2004,Wood
that there
between
mimetic
was undertaken
domestic
countries
trade
employment.
production
replace
pursuit
ployment
of
manufacturing
supported
research
globalization
the "Great
and linked
gambit, many
globalization
the
influence
analyzed
Since
called atten?
(1988)
deindustrialization
of increasing
trends to the
those
the
concerns
of
manufacturing
Harrison &
tion
to
U-turn"
debates
propose
country
a distinct
conventional
firm
to
tradi?
prac?
www.annualreviews.org
vibrant
line of research
Economie Globalization
details
in
Affluent
Thiscontentdownloadedfrom193.0.225.55onSun,17Jan201621:03:41UTCAllusesubjectto
JSTORTermsandConditions
global
Democracies
321
and
contracting
chains
sourcing
historical
narrative
dustries with
scription (Gereffi
Despite
much
there
is no
and thick
de?
these
globalization's
firm
some
scholars
practices
investigate
how
shapes
workers'
experiences,
& Nelson
2004). For
&
find that
Slaughter (2004)
vestment
increased
2000,
example,
foreign
Scheve
direct in?
broadly
of Australian
ence
governments
1983-1996.
managerial
practices
flexible
a Japanese
automotive
Collins
ilarly,
lations
in U.S.
system
paternalist
garment
reemerged
partly
because
production
of
and
cheap
imports.
long
studied worker
this part
Even though
corporate
pecially
workers'
lived
less
practices
unfortunate,
research
is
well-suited
to
es?
studying
& ?
experiences (Gille
Riain
scholars
alization's
to the
tional
consequences
work
on
$22
Brady
Beck Id
gap
glob?
economy
inequality
interest
for
the
in
to
significant
share,
&
Outsourcing
critical
labor and
the
and
out
as
an
inequality
tend to be even
globalization,
arguing
the
that
position
of
of
the power
to
&
2002, Ethier
singled
earnings
undermines
capitalists
in the
increasing
(Bardhan
Osang
increasing
magnifies
that
increasing
and production
is also
of
1999).
decline
industries
2001, Dasgupta
on
the
and
nonproduction
U.S.
in
economic
showing
managers
for cheaper
wages
search
(Brady& Wallace
and
effects on
that
U-turn
re?
formal models
payroll
influence
promi?
the
of
reflects
contributes
between
2005).
subna?
is
(Alderson
1996, Sassen
2001, Taylor
patterns
cities
offer
premium,
workers
with
subnational
for urban
inequality
consequences
countries,
of
skill
the most
concern
Perhaps
the
the study
for the
aforementioned
localities.
nent
connect
en?
on
global
manufacturing
2002).
Urban
con?
of globalization
form,
globalization
is
sociological
and uniquely
is
on firm
behavior. This
that
in
attitudes,
literature
literature
multinational
and
research
Howe
have
and
dimension
blue-collar
at least
sociologists
considering
re?
increase
experiences
this
globalization
rise in offshore
of the globalization
developed
and
the dramatic
the concomitant
key
Sim?
apparel industry
of
The
of citieswithin that
ranking
system;
Economists
(2000), sweatshops
in the U.S.
the
urban
The
of
of labor
this
through
globalization's
factories. According
between
the
of
centered.
animate
and
control
2003).
under
in Indiana.
that
are
and
anti
existed
York, London,
command
economy
governance,
innova?
and
such as New
of
experi?
arrangements
plant
are where
(1995) illus?
that
work
cities
Tokyo
questions
group can be
http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc).
terprises; (c)
the Labor
In an
ethnography,
hegemonic,
controlling,
the superficially
tence
on the
during
Graham
the
union
impact
workers
of
tivecovert
trates
negative
the GaWC
Global
global
(FDI)
employee percep?
tions of insecurity in Britain
in the 1990s.
contends that
McKenna
(2000)
globalization
had
by
at
the global
es?
pecially
(Blair
& within multinational firms
& Wallace
Loy
Jacobs 2003, Brady
Gaston
&
produced
questions,
and network
study group
accessed
on
literature on
further,
globalization
on
consensus
the
in?
progress
clear
impact.
Taking
step
et al.
in selected
income
conclude
to
the Great
that
inequality
have
inflows
openness
increase
actually
positive
They
contributed
increased
developing
exert
inequality.
globalization
of
from
immigration
decreases
fie
Thiscontentdownloadedfrom193.0.225.55onSun,17Jan201621:03:41UTCAllusesubjectto
JSTORTermsandConditions
all
Li (2003) show
inequality,
Zhao
nearly
experienced
whereas
it. Some
researchers
U.S.
show that
economy
has
the globalization
led
of
to increased
the
inequality
&
and reduced worker earnings
(Brady
Wallace 2000, Dasgupta & Osang 2002). By
contrast,
whether
affluent
ity across
Mahler
cannot
to be
appears
moving
in inequality
Differences
between
varieties
under
between
to
tend
far less
affects
work
addresses
gender
inequality
almost
no work
racial
cate a
inequality
single
journals
racial
2004).
worsens
sector,
that
and
&
(2003) con?
the
to
contrast,
tion
less skilled,
duce
pressure
work
hours,
inequality.
By
gender
that although
especially
in?
lengthens
others argue
appears
to hurt
that
gender
increases
globalization
of work
and
inequal?
contend
Jacobs
globaliza?
average,
male
workers, globalization
occupational
segregation
and
tional
re?
occupa?
Black
encounters
it faces
power.
greater
greater
competition
Following
classic
this
discrimination,
likelihood
creases
of
the
gender
relative
There
of women
in that
consensus,
however,
industry.
and
gender
theorists
scruti?
This
work
il?
international
ena
more
like neoliberalism
ologists
and
stand
to make
body
spective
Sklair
economics
tended
empirical
a step
a
ond,
2002). Although
a
to
be somewhat
forward,
science,
disconnected
For
sociologists
it would
connection
Marxism
per?
and political
analyses.
greater
per?
unique
with the conventional
compared
from
has
(e.g., Berberoglu
theory provides
in
soci?
globalization
byMarxism
of
it has
forge
on
Despite
area,
contribution.
greater
sociological theory
take
in this
trade
phenom?
capitalism.
of research
influenced
this
general
be valuable
between
and empirical
to
to
this
soci?
analyses.
Sec?
highlighted by this
of
the most
high
levels
low
levels
fluent
globalized
and
manufacturing
of inequality.
Nevertheless,
democracies
have
manufacturing
equality
has
precise
as
increasingly
So,
and in?
it
is essential
globalization's
impact
of affluent democracies.
may
countries
not
explain
at one
creasing
globalization
changes
within
countries
Glob?
in
point
be?
but in?
time,
matter
over
to
on
differences
might
af?
glob?
has declined
increased.
about
alization
tween
have
employment
alized,
be
countries
of
more
the
to
past few
trade,
theories
competition
discrimination
and
grand
empirically
claims.
re?
the con?
loses market
economic
wages
future
decades.
international
and
&
the
by
globalization?as
the economies
and
may
between
skeptics
investment?and
to lo?
global?
and
Some
In a
and
ological
or reinforces
Blair-Loy
this contributes
af?
identifiablysociological
pace
unable
stratification
globalization
and
globalization
affects
nancial
how
(we were
article in
that
ization
explores
for
exemplifies
spectives
2002), and
area
globalization
been
to
increased in?
modestly
affluent democracies
since the
contrast,
position
Much
persist
at least
globalization
clude
or
suggestions
this
nations
ity,
debate
some consensus.
two
earlier
tween
and
democracies,
crucial. This
of capitalism
within
equality
1970s.
By
fects
global?
variation
heightened
globalization
but
has (Hall
globalization
probably
contributed
crete
nizing
& Soskice
2001),
First,
example,
evidence that
toward
search.
For
affluent
remains
have
and
the enormous
across
inequality
domestic
politics
about
warrant
globalization
attention.
We
inequal?
of
as outcomes
greater
explains
democracies.
explain
in
skepticism
really
(2004) provides
ization
how
been
globalization
equality
reduces
and
of
the
in?
employment
CONSEQUENCES
SOCIETY
Compared
economy,
with
research
comparatively
is no clear
and racial
in
search examines
domain
www.annualreviews.org
where
FOR CIVIL
civil
research
less
society,
globalization
and this
is most needed.
re?
is the
Civil
Democracies
Economie Globalization in
Affluent
Thiscontentdownloadedfrom193.0.225.55onSun,17Jan201621:03:41UTCAllusesubjectto
JSTORTermsandConditions
525
society
encompasses
and
organizations,
and
living
arrangements,
sociated
of
been
Much
unions
(Harrison
uncertainties and
volatility
institutions
like unions
that
labor
or
of
position
2002, Sassoon
Employers
often
in?
Wood
and explicitly
to counter
remarks,
organizations
was
"The
unity
rooted
outflanked
in national
institutional
context."
tant, managers
and employers
globalization
to extract
undermine
organized
organizing
and
& Wallace
2000).
use
of
the
prevent
of workers
(Brady
recruitment
and
deunionization,
Both
cross-national
2007)
and case
however,
comparisons
studies
&
Brady
Schulten
(2002)
and
unionization.
find that
marginal
globalization has,
effects on union
democracies.
Magnani
density
decline
inU.S.
manufacturing
cannot
alization
bor
and
can
organizing.
(1985)
alized
Kay
actually
(2005)
foster
Consistent
classic
account,
highly unionized
countries like theUnited
Brady
the
countriesof Scandinavia
more
Beckfield
at
Lange
in affluent
(2003)
ar?
in unionization
be
by
explained
shows that
glob?
transnational
with Katzenstein
la?
States
do?
than)
remains
appear
open,
to depend
on
is cross-national
to the
labor movement
has been
in
linked
or
general (Smith
(2005)
globalization.
or
of social
Nardi
per
much
of
rather
about
how
area
literature
political
remain far
globalized
(Ebbinghaus
and
(e.g.,
than on
influences
se. This
the
stud?
communication
globalization
ments
these
transnational
movements
1998),
Johnston 2002)
counterhege
of
emergent
international
networks
&
calls
Many
on
literature,
to social move?
Evans
how
social
eco?
move?
is
emerging,
and
just
has only
speculated
to
resistance
globalization
for
scholars
have
neglecting
defense
begun
has been
only
alization
there have
been
resistance
movements,
is that those
movements
to
whereas
emerge,
ongoing
for decades.
some
interesting
tioning
how globalization
ization
social movements
10
there was a
For
globalization's
studies
(Ancelovici
relative
example,
literature on
glob?
Yet,
ques?
triggers antiglobal
's
small,highly glob?
than less
the debate
Evans
a plausible
most,
& Prentice
gue
globalization,
524
Scruggs &
several
matters,
(Ebbinghaus
might
institutions
conclusions
Parallel
2005,
is mixed.
(e.g.,
(e.g., Hassel
Hence,
the comparison
nomic
tion
the union?
that globalization
contributions,
some
monic
from and
to
and
workers.
ar?
specifically
& Van
2002, Kitschelt et al. 1999, Thelen
Wijnbergen
2003,Wilensky 2002). Despite
ments
impor?
concessions
labor
union declines
(2003)
labor market
and what
the threat
density
undermines
contend
globalization
institutions
equally
has under?
historical.
international
Perhaps
triggered
globalization
of unskilled
whether
of nation-class
by an emergent
unionization
& Wallace
openness
that
ization
provide
height?
and union
(1997,
p. 195)
trade
and
union?
declining
organizing
in theUnited
these
production
arrangements
union
mestic
organized
1996,
globalize
and
but alongside
many
corporatism,
international
and
the
labor market
studies
between
scholars
highly global?
to cultivate
trade
suggest
vestment
weaken
of a
ened globalization
that
Bluestone
1988).
(1985) argued
that the
tended
1994).
debated
Al?
ized economy
labor (Nissen
has
the
some
of a connection
mined
to
undermines
though Katzenstein
now
linked
literature,
&
in?
investigated.
often
globalization
ex?
of
Nevertheless,
evidence
as?
the
areas
only modestly
deindustrialization
whether
and other
society.
labor, most
research,
2002).
residence
With
of
organized
have
associations
family,
dimensions
ception
quiry
voluntary
consumption,
impact
on
lack of
2002),
sociological
the environmental
? Zhao
Thiscontentdownloadedfrom193.0.225.55onSun,17Jan201621:03:41UTCAllusesubjectto
JSTORTermsandConditions
transnational labor
social
corporate
like environmental
and
For
(Bartley 2003).
finds
more
that
In
labor
Smith
are
economically
(2004)
participation
movement
examines
changing
regarding
only
begun
culture
affects
is
2003).
Gender
family
and
perspectives
globalization
and
and
polarizations
offer
care
Others
contributes
and
between
the
laborers
(Parre?as
portant
in
of transnational
who work
other
and
in
to them
caring
roles
im?
as
tourism
that
(2000) argues
ing
and
family
globalization
and
intimacy,
relations
&
has
been
his
claims.
paucity
By
of empirical
comparison,
literature
on
in
immigration
the
family
and
gender
in
support
for
is far more
gender
dynamics
(Parrado
&
research on familyand
of
the context
mensions
is
globalization
articleswithin
based on
articles.
and
family
also
yielded
pro?
has
not
in this
culture
cultural
di?
been
Appadurai
as much
led
1996).
on
how
as
investment)
as
domain.
and
on
(measured
trade and
from
been
and has
(e.g.,
focused
ismost
on a wider
society. Aside
globalization
studies
globalization
how often
tion discuss
nomic
eco?
interna?
affects
culture
Maguirre
theoretical
the cultural
globalization,
tween
a greater
and
theory
accounts
of globaliza?
consequences
of eco?
connection
be?
would
empirical analyses
be
productive.
CONCLUSION
Our
review
understanding
tion
reveals
the
substantial
disciplinary
consequences
literature
of
very
few
Searching
few
very
We
our
briefly
hopes
argue
as a tangible,
www.annualreviews.org
our
areas
the com?
profound
for the
general
this
argu?
points
ofthe
trajectory
is best
globalization
empirical
globalization
In
central
review with
that
define
rich, inter?
potentially
globalization.
revisit
in
globaliza?
and
highlight
conclude
our
We
stood
and
The
demonstrates
increasing
we
advances
of
Jour?
globalization
civil
concentrate
not
11A search o?
Abstracts for globalization
or trade We
Sociological
in the journalsDemography,Population Studies,
and the
about
(1995-2006) yielded
on
It has
ments
Family
what
sociologists
nomic
conclusion,
and
one
could
research
of globalization
impacts
ofMarriage
of
there
plex, wide-reaching,
warranted.
nal
of
to
cultural
tional
contributions,
by
literature
by
empirical
researchers
identified,
tended
is
globaliza?
analyses,
to
shortage
aspects
work
of
there
there
literature
Giddens
is transform?
but
of
topics
(but
maids,
(Ehrenreich
sex work.
the
so?
salient work.
these
is the
This
accounts
empirical
because
are
contributions.
be connected
Despite
and
should be able to
globalization
theoretically
striking
how
laborers
as nannies,
could
Maguire
consumption,
neglect
theoretical
and where
has
Hochschild
shapes
of
&
of
sociology,
to
tend
significant
vide
The
affluent
1998). Particularly
In
consump?
consumer
culture
links
the vibrancy
of
con?
economic
ciologists
make
(Litt
gender
provide services
Sassen
as a class
the women
and
who
2005,
tion is
consump?
patterns
the new
Given
economists
much
global
work
examine
to new
issue
and how
variety
practiced
changing
globalization.
how
in a special
scholars
2003).
has
institutions
example,
Society,
Zimmerman
it examines
gender
on gender
prac?
literature
constructed
For
to
tion
globalization
and
gender.11
to develop,
but
gender
(Chow
on
This
globalization
tion
area where
literature
tices
class
do
social
organizations.
limited
how
Smith
in transnational
excellent,
(2004) discuss
temporary
integrated.
however,
affect
countries,
and
globalization
certifications
instance,
regionally
a study of 144
not
&
Research on
responsibility
that transnational
social movements
are
likely
to be organized
among
countries
& Wiest
of
or
of
movements
field.
under?
phenomenon.
as
the
heightening
Economie Globalizationin
Affluent
Thiscontentdownloadedfrom193.0.225.55onSun,17Jan201621:03:41UTCAllusesubjectto
JSTORTermsandConditions
Democracies
325
of international
fined
economic
in this way,
sured
as
the
globalization
of
sum
integration.12
which
are
can be
exports,
(direct
mea?
and
imports,
and
indicators
of
flows
measure
has
past several
shown amarked
increase over
the
decades
in affluent
democracies.
argue
ing,
against
and
against
passing
Research
on
and
the
to
advocate
position
earlier
for a
between
skeptics.
consequences
of
for the
an
global?
emerging
consensus
may
have
but
is
this effect
smaller
probably
than
powerful
effects
may
not
have
state
on the welfare
gener?
of
encourage
studies
and
globalization
systems
and the discourses
surround?
we
ally,
taxation
ing
globalization
globalization.
productive
Besides
scholarship
subnational
politics
suggest
that more
the welfare
examines
and
policy.
research
global
research
and
Finally,
we
on
state
regulation.
that
have shown
in?
globalization
as well. One
of the more
economy
controversial
debates surrounds
manufactur?
ing employment.
Although many
are skeptical
the
fluences
of earlier
&
deindustrialization
model
globalization
with
and
has
provide
a curvilinear
manufacturing
Brady
offer a differentiation
Denniston (2006)
saturation
accounts,
evidence
that
relationship
employment.
Another
and
es?
firm
spe
equality,
although
been
We
empirical scrutiny
empirical
and
greater dialogue
between
grand theorizing,
theory
and
and we re?
work
326
in this direction.
Brady ?
Beckfield
experiences
influence
many
matters
is that
glob?
on
economic
scholars
dispute
as much
in?
that
po?
cross
has
although
ist
Collins
(e.g.,
studies
less work
could
advance
tions
between
as Weberian
By
in?
studies
contrast,
We
suggest
sociological
Marxism,
inequality.
by
developing
theory
account
precise
for the
gender
ex?
almost
how globalization
(e.g.,
research.
on
a few exemplary
2002).
examine
racial/ethnic
of how
affects
sociology
better
connec?
as well
Ritzer
Last, we
by
economy
between within-
tion
under
as domestic
equality,
no
floor
Bonacich &
and social
forces as a source
of
and historical
variation.
There
2004),
note
globalization
emphasizing
and
and
the need
for
matters
the
distinc?
between-country
comparisons.
The
final area
ety, iswhere
One
of our review,
the
exception
globalization
least research
is the
not
really
explain
on civil
has
done.
about whether
labor
that
soci?
been
debate
undermines
unions.
Most
globalization
differences
can?
across
affluent
but that
has
played
globalization
role in the decline
of unionization
that
affluent democracies
have
experienced.
democracies,
some
most
In
tandem,
there
globalization
ments
and other
gender
civil
is a nascent
triggers
in the
society,
significant
of
on
family
we
has
think
society,
and
teractions
alization
attention
between
process?in
Recently,
practice
of
sociologists
can make
by investigating
a wider
including
how
variety of as?
the
realm
of
culture.
encourage
how
emerged. Regarding
influences
civil
on
move?
the cultural
contributions
consumption
literature
antiglobalization
social movements.
literature
globalization
shop
consensus
some
ex?
considerably
pects
12
on the
lived
emerging
has
a smaller
Other
We
on workers'
litical
national
have
economy (e.g.,
alization
of
Scholars
sociologists
state,
national
is needed
well,
experiences
amined worker
of the
empirical
forces.
As
globalization
encom?
neoliberalism
based
theorists
ization
state,
from
empirically
grand
totaliz?
a buzzword
to capitalism?and
concrete,
This
conceptualizations?
as
everything
capital.
generalized,
vague universal
globalization
modernity
the
overly
and
cific industries.
Appelbaum 2000).
networked
We
goods
in?
portfolio)
themselves
of
De?
globalization,
to the
different
dynamics
levels
particular,
Zhao
Thiscontentdownloadedfrom193.0.225.55onSun,17Jan201621:03:41UTCAllusesubjectto
JSTORTermsandConditions
we
and
in?
ofthe
glob?
the
global
and
international
gional,
some
of
appear
to have
ization,
by
tions
re?
state,
changes
indirectly
politics
of
globalization
zational
practices,
labor
Although globalization
democracies,
is
they still
changing
impact
ing
2006,
Wilensky
2002).
that
Given
and closer
from
premises
example,
models
porate
effects
across
disciplines
the
employ
many
unique
economists
con?
with
develop
and cor?
sociolo
is experiencing
as
truly multidisciplinary
community,
making
salient contributions
to
and
why
globalization
democracies.
affluent
argue
an idea,
and measurable
low,
and because
troversy
pirical
there
in need
of
scrutiny,
remain
on
to
is no shortage
further conceptual
globalization
the
but
phe?
directions
many
researchers
globalization
that
empirical
there are
Because
least
We
also a tangible
aspiring
that
at
not just
represents
for
clear
occurring,
globalization
nomenon.
are
study
for af?
matters
certainly
part
of
the
It has become
democracies.
formal
to examine
macroeconomic
performance,
whereas many
Al?
on afflu?
Sociologists,
among
For
re?
is or
countries.
scholarship
productivity.
is
distinct
methods.
and
encourage
globalization
globalization
sci?
com?
globaliza?
of
a separate,
equally
course,
could
be written
on develop?
review
of
fluent
glob?
dialogue
globaliza?
of
of a
how
of
social
study
different perspectives
and
have
in further
collaboration
Various
tion
the
understanding
we see
value
alization,
ences.
multiple
to
tributed
disciplines
picture
countries.
a wave
dif?
among
a more
explicitly focuses
Globalization
affluent
has
field
provide
developing
review
ent democracies,
organi?
remarkably
our
valuable,
competition.
remain
clearer
transforming
institu?
any
and market
is not
though
each
in the
cooperation
should
we appreciate
Finally,
search
on how
economic
and eco?
relations,
advantages
research,
and
to investi?
Because
tion.
the
glob?
striking
in
may mediate
on
prehensive
as
political
so domestic
remain,
comparative
globalization
social scientists
democracies
changes
methods
experiences.
of
institu?
life. Over
ethnographic
workers'
different
not
global?
Alternatively,
differences
systems
and
social
use
gate
environ?
affluent
historical
increased.
cross-national
nomic
Still,
in national
affect
many
experienced
has
effect.
gists
In
does
the contextual
decades,
alization
tions
the
globalization
direct
trigger
and
few
have
society,
shifting
may
past
and
aspects
ment,
level
fol?
of
con?
and
em?
seems poised
sociological
to
agenda.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We are
grateful
to
Ryan Denniston, Simone Polillo, and Mauro Guillen for assistance with data.
LITERATURE CITED
Robbins
Ahmadjian CL,
restructuring
Alderson
AS.
in 1990s
heterodox
AS,
in
Ancelovici
AS,
Nielsen
the
upswing
F.
Organizing
failure,
investment:
or
a test
of mainstream
and
83:81-122
in the world
J. Sociol.
against
in direct
and position
2002. Globalization
Am.
70:451-71
globalization,
Soc. Forces
globalization.
Power
J. 2004.
countries.
2002.
deindustrialization:
of
theories
Beckfield
16 OECD
M.
Japan.
Explaining
109:811-51
Alderson
1999. Explaining
??;.64:701-21
Alderson
AS.
2004.
Alderson
GE.
city
system.
income
Am.
J. Sociol.
inequality
trends
107:1244-99
globalization:
the case
of ATTAC
in France.
Polit.
Soc.
30:427-63
www.annualreviews.org
Economie Globalization
in
Affluent
Thiscontentdownloadedfrom193.0.225.55onSun,17Jan201621:03:41UTCAllusesubjectto
JSTORTermsandConditions
Democracies
527
Anderson
C,
of
Appadurai
PJ.
2001. Globalization
southern
textiles. Soc. Probl.
48:478-98
A.
Cultural
1996.
at
Modernity
Large:
Minn.
and
Dimensions
of
the
uncertainty:
Globalization.
G.
2003. Lineages
York:
Empire,
Debating
myths
The
and
Baldwin RE.
Inst.
York:
constituent
economic
principles
of
in historical
globalization
AD,
Howe
T.
2003.
private
DK.
2001. Globalization
Certifying
regulation
DH.
forests
in the
and
Beckfield
J.
and
apparel
2002. Monetary
of
restructuring
rate
2006. European
J.
system.
2005. Insecurity,
Beland D.
Sociol.
Theory
Berberoglu
B.
Press
Bernard AB,
2005.
citizenship
Globalization
R.
J, Jensen
Stud.
inequality.
Gender
Brady
D.
Soc.
Change.
politics.
Diversity
Lanham,
Annu.
D,
Plants
Importing equality?
D,
Brady
The
work
Lexington
Capitalism.
and
Ithaca,
productivity
impact
of
and
alization
B.
328
Brady ?
Org.
NY:
Cornell
Univ.
in international
globalization
the care
on
deficit
trade.
dis?
gender
among
stock?
and Youth in
Society.
R.
Work
M.
2006. Economic
democracies.
M.
2000.
economy
Soc. Forces
Spatialization,
or solidaristic?
Occup.
34:67-101
2005.
Economic
Am.
Sociol.
Rev.
Assessing
2001.
Theory Soc.
Globalization
policies
globalization
globalization,
85:297-329
foreign
explanations
and
for unionization
the welfare
state in
70:921-48
industrialization
direct
investment
states,
1976-1996.
Soc. Forces
79:67-100
1999. Beyond
state-centrism?
Space, territoriality,
studies.
and macroeconomic
53:38-73
democracies.
Denniston
American
Brenner N.
Int.
Books
hours,
international
World Polk.
economic
J, Seeleib-Kaiser
democracies,
1975-2001.
D, Wallace
Burgoon
RP.
the
1960-1993.
Institutional,
affluent
in affluent
protection.
17:230-49
Beckfield
affluent
Brady
faces of state
multiple
MD:
Rev.
and Global
S. 2003.
governments,
nations,
E, Appelbaum
across
Brady
monetary
Routledge
Partisan
2007.
the
and
Globalization,Uncertainty
in advanced
Bonacich
rise of
35:194?220
2000.
the
HP,
C.
study
The
the
globalization:
DC:
a case
and
institutions
Polk.
parallel paths?
crimination.
Ind. Labor
Relat. Rev. 57:540-59
Blair-Loy
M,
Jacobs JA. 2003. Globalization,
New York:
Washington,
112:895-904
JB, Kortum
2004.
brokers.
Trade.
social movements,
political
income
the
and
and
and
1996. National
Eaton
Blossfeld
perspective:
during downturns:
fields.
Comp.
Boix
New
23:25-41
S. 2000. Globalization
S, Dore
domestic
and
Sociol.
states,
products
trade-off.
integration
Am.
city
forest
stability
factories:
and
divergence:
autonomy?exchange
Berger
Routledge
pp. 29-42.
Berger
Balakrishnan,
Int. Econ.
Bardhan
Bearce
ed. G.
Verso
Bairoch P. 2000.
Bartley
In
of empire.
Univ.
Minneapolis:
Press
restructuring
and
and deindustrialization
and labor outcomes
geographical
in the
scale
in
glob?
28:39-78
and welfare
compensation:
disentangling
the ties
55:509-51
?
Beckfield Zhao
Thiscontentdownloadedfrom193.0.225.55onSun,17Jan201621:03:41UTCAllusesubjectto
JSTORTermsandConditions
that
bind.
Cameron
DR.
1978. The
Am.
Polit.
72(4):1243-61
Sei. Rev.
Campbell
ofthe
expansion
Change
public
economy:
and Globalization.
comparative
Princeton, NJ:
analysis.
Princeton
Univ.
Press
Myths
Press
KK,
Bruegger
Am.J.
Sociol.
Chase-Dunn
U.
C, Gills
system:
2002.
Global
social
B.
2005. Waves
movements
and
C, Kawano
in the world
gration
Chorev N.
Chow
Y, Brewer
Am.
Gender
matters:
Collins
JL.
JL.
globalization
global
2000.
Sociol.
studying
Trade
Rev.
airline
2002.
Mapping
Soc.
2003. Threads:
2001.
I,
The
R,
Lutz
Germany
the
construction
2002.
2000.
the
Int. Rev.
Econ.
change
inte?
in the
21st
century.
in
corporate
competition
policy:
an
32:459-78
globalizing garment
and
wages:
Social Construction
Finance
14:237-58
Evans
P. 1997. The
eclipse
federalism:
the United
States
and
in the OECD:
evidence
from
NJ:
Princeton
a new
indicator
of
5:400-20
Trade.
ofFree
and trade
Appl.
Princeton,
unions:
Univ.
Press
examination
comparative-historical
of
55:121-39
globalisation:
ofthe
from U.S.
33:374-405
Globalization,
further evidence
11:1-16
financial
Stud.
taxation
Manag.
thesis. Econ.
Press
and
2002. Globalization
2005.
domestic
Stud.
gender
relative
Finance
Comp. Polit.
Public Finance
convergence
WJ.
2005,
of
structural change
and
of
imperative.
Internationalization
Ehrenreich B, Hochschild
Ethier
world
and
Sapir A, SekkatK.
2006. The
B.
of an
Globalization
at the crossroads.
integration.
F.
law,
Int. Bus.
labormarket:
global
New
York: Oxford
Univ.
Dreher
A. 2005. Globalization
Ebbinghaus
Robinson
and social
autonomy
Gender,
industries.
S.
Dewatripont M,
Duina
capitalist
&
16:921-40
social
T.
Osang
manufacturing
Deeg
in the
See Applebaum
globalization
state,
industry.^.
Chicago Press
Dasgupta
markets.
65:77-95
The
and
Cox RH.
and resistance
studies.
globalization
globalization?
J. Law
2001. Globalization
industry. Gender
Collins
of financial
Soc. 27:572-600
JA.
empirical
TheorySoc. 34:317-55
2003.
BD.
system.
2005. The
EN.
of
critical
pp. 45-54
Chase-Dunn
microstructures:
107:905-50
trade,
state? Reflections
York:
on
Books
Metropolitan
and
technology,
Int. Rev.
wages.
stateness
in an era
of
Econ.
globalization.
P.
2005. Counterhegemonic
globalization:
RR
Feenstra
AM
Afford,
R. 2000.
Hicks,
The
MA
Impact
Am.
social movements
in
the
Trade
on
Wages.
Chicago:
Sociol. Rev.
con?
Janoski,
of International
transnational
In The
Univ.
Chicago
Press
and sensemaking of an
70:29-52
www.annualreviews.org
Economie Globalization
in
Democracies
Affluent
Thiscontentdownloadedfrom193.0.225.55onSun,17Jan201621:03:41UTCAllusesubjectto
JSTORTermsandConditions
52p
Fligstein
N.
2001.
The Architecture
Fourcade-Gourinchas
alism
Frank
Hironaka
J.
Gao
B.
2001.
G.
Garrett
Sociol.
we
stand:
Japans
Knox,
Economic
1998. Partisan
D.
G, Mitchell
2001.
in
creed:
Press
paths
change
New
to neoliber
environment
and
the
Univ.
over
Cambridge
and
Univ.
taxation
labor-market
Cities
in a
Univ. Press
Press
York:
and
Swedberg,
Press
in the OECD.
of
effects
governance
Smelser,
In World
Cambridge
spending
organization,
ed. NJ
research.
York:
Cambridge
government
economy:
the natural
city
New
New York:
Sociology,
Univ.
liberal
and
of world
pp. 21-47.
Structural
of Economic
nation-state
a decade
Dilemma.
the
65:96-116
Globalization,
Handbook
The
Rev.
PJ Taylor,
Politics
NJ: Princeton
of
108:533-79
2000.
Am.
1995. Where
ed. PL
Markets.
Princeton,
of
2002. The
rebirth
J. Sociol.
Schofer E.
century.
World-System,
SL.
Am.
A,
twentieth
Friedmann
Garrett
Babb
in four countries.
DJ,
the
M,
globalization.
In
development.
pp.
160-82.
The
Princeton,
Press
R.
Gilpin
Golub
SS.
Gordon
1999.
D.
Labor
global
tures ofAccumulation,
Cambridge
Gotham
Graham
L.
1995. On
C.
in Denmark
debates
Hall
Am.
the Line
2001. Is
WL,
Hardt
states,
science
Reich,
reconsidered:
Ithaca,
success:
big
from
1973
literature.
Oxford Univ.
NJ.
2001.
and political
A.
of capital
at Subaru-Isuzu.
Small
York:
Mitchell
M, Negri
Hargittai
pp.
292-305.
Struc?
New
globalization
NY:
Annu.
Cornell
Univ.
party politics
and
York:
the U.S.
to 2000.
Rev.
Press
and governing
Socio-Econ.
Rev.
or feeble? A
Sociol.
the
economy
1:411-37
critique
of five
key
27:235-60
Press
Globalization
activities.
or national
Bus. Polit.
capitalism:
large
MA.
2001.
B.
1988. The
firms,
national
3:5-19
E, Centeno
Inst.
Enterprise
foundation?
In Social
New
strategies,
PA, Soskice D.
Hansen
McDonough,
Am.
DC:
Washington,
or crumbling
112:231-75
the Netherlands
in the social
Advantage.
circuit
J. Sociol.
2003.
and
Guillen MF.
Kotz,
secondary
sector.
Green-Pedersen
new edifice
Press
2006. The
estate
economy:
ed. DM
Univ.
KF.
real
Trade.
1994. The
Introduction:
defining
global
geography.
Am.
Behav.
Sei.
44:1545-60
Harrison
B, Bluestone
Hassel
A,
Schulten
example
Held
of
T.
the German
D, McGrew
Stanford
Helminen
M.
A,
Univ.
2001.
Fisc. Doc.
Great
metal
Goldblatt
Press
Finland's
York: Basic
J.
system
of central
Soc.
27:486-522
1999.
Global
under
Books
collective
Transformations.
the pressure
of
bargaining:
Stanford,
globalization.
Bull.
the
CA:
Int.
55:17-21
frastructure
Econ.
Perraton
imputation
New
industry.
D,
U-Turn.
1998. Globalization
reform,
1977-1999.^7^.
2005. The
Sociol. Rev.
Beckfield Zhao
Thiscontentdownloadedfrom193.0.225.55onSun,17Jan201621:03:41UTCAllusesubjectto
JSTORTermsandConditions
Hicks
Democracy
C. 2005.
A, Zorn
expansion
and
Economic
in affluent
globalization,
the macro
1978-1994.
democracies,
economy,
59:631-62
Int. Org.
Huber E, Stephens JD. 2001. Developmentand Crisis oftheWelfare State.Chicago: Univ. Chicago
Press
International Monetary
Fund
(IMF).
ton,DC: IMF
H, Lange P,
Capitalism.
Kittel
New
Marks
York:
H.
B, Winner
G, Stephens JD.
Cambridge
Univ.
2005. How
globalization-welfare
Sociol. Rev.
Palme
alization:
is
revisited.
politics
J. 2003. New
state
Press
Continuity
pooled
Eur.J.
and
analysis
Polit.
Res.
in
Change
in
Contemporary
political economy?
The
44:269-93
66-3X7-15
welfare
1999.
reliable
state nexus
81:445-71
Soc. Forces
approach.
Kitschelt
regress
and
in
class
politics
18 countries,
in
the context
1975-1995.
Am.
of
austerity
Polit.
and
Sei. Rev.
glob?
97:425
46
Kurdelbusch
A.
2002. Multinationals
and
the rise
pay in
Germany.
of variable
8:325-49
Kwon
HK.
2004.
in theUnited
Lee
CS.
2005.
OECD
institutions,
Markets,
International
countries,
MK.
JS, Zimmerman
Gender Soc. 17:156-65
Magnani
E, Prentice
D.
manufacturing.
VA.
McKenna
Labor
2004.
developed
McLure
2003.
globalization:
industrial
adjustments
decline
in
16 affluent
84:71-88
perspectives
globalization
on
gender
reduce
and
carework:
unionization?
an
introduction.
Evidence
from
U.S.
10:705-26
globalization,
a cross-national
Labour
7:71-104
CEJ.
2001.
Did
Econ.
under
deindustrialization
Soc. Forces
2003. Global
Economic
countries:
B. 2000.
Rev.
migration,
1962-1997.
Litt
Mahler
and politics
Ind. Relat.
Eur. J.
responses
Globalization,
to
tax
domestic
politics,
study. Comp.
Polit.
and
income
national
inequality
in the
37:1025-53
the Australian
globalization:
rules
and
Stud.
experience.
sovereignty.
Bull.
Asia
Pac.
Bus.
Int. Fisc.
Doc.
cross
55:328-41
Meyer
LB.
national
2003. Economic
investigation
globalization
of
occupational
and women's
sex
segregation
status
in
the
labor market:
and inequality.
Sociol.
Q.
44:351
83
Miller
TC.
North
2001.
Am.
Impact
J. Econ.
of globalization
Finance
12:219-42
on U.S.
wage
inequality:
implications
for
policy.
www.annualreviews.org
Economie Globalization in
Affluent
Thiscontentdownloadedfrom193.0.225.55onSun,17Jan201621:03:41UTCAllusesubjectto
JSTORTermsandConditions
Democracies
331
Mosley L.
Nardi
PM.
1998. The
observations
Nissen
B.
about
2002.
O Riain
globalization
Europe
Unions
S. 2000.
of
the gay
a focus
on
with
in a Globalized
States
lesbian
socio-political
Italy.
Sociol.
Perspect. 41:567-86
Environment.
and markets
in an
and
Armonk,
era
of
NY:
movement:
some
Sharpe
globalization.
Annu.
Rev.
Sociol.
26:187?
213
Parrado
E, Flippen
CA.
2005. Migration
The
international
and gender
among Mexican
women.
70:606-32
Parre?as
RS.
2005.
See
globalization.
Piazza
JA.
2005.
trialized
Globalizing
MF.
S, Guillen
central
bank
2005.
Ind. Demoer.
26:289-314
Globalization
independence.
2005. Critical
Pyle JL.
2005, pp.
globalization,
countries. Econ.
Am. J.
domestic
work
and
237-47
union
density
State.New
Welfare
pressures
Sociol.
and
and
strikes
in
15 indus?
the state:
the worldwide
spread
of
110:1764?802
studies and
globalization
labor: paid
reproductive
quiescence:
of
division
& Robinson
Applebaum
See
gender.
Applebaum
&
Robinson 2005,
pp.249-58
Rauch
V.
JE, Trindade
2003.
Rees
Information,
The
U.S.
international
textile
and apparel
industry
democracy,
and
substitutability,
and
in the
income
of
age
globalization.
inequality:
an
empirical
Statesand theWorld
Welfare
Am.
globalization.
Economy.Maiden,
MA: Polity
Ritzer
G.
2003.
Rethinking
globalization:
glocalization/grobalization
Sociol.Theory 21:193-209
Ritzer G.
Robertson
R.
1995.
Modernities,
Robinson
ed. M
WI.
Soc.
Rodrik
Glocalization:
Featherstone,
2001. Social
30:157-200
D.
1998. Why
time-space
open
CA: Pine
pp. 25-44.
economies
something/nothing.
Forge
homogeneity-heterogeneity.
Lash,
Robertson,
and globalization:
the rise
theory
do more
Oaks,
and
and
have
of
London:
a transnational
larger
governments?
In
Global
state.
Theory
Polk.
Econ.
Sage
J.
106:997-1032
Rosen
EL
Rowthorn
Univ.
Ryner M.
2002. Making
Sweatshops.
JR.
R, Wells
Press
1999. Neoliberal
1987.
S. 2001.
Sassen
2nd ed.
S. 2006.
and
The Global
City:
Scheve
RK.
K,
J. Polk
332Brady
2005. Understanding
Slaughter
MJ.
2004.
Calif. Press
and Foreign
Its Discontents.
New
Trade. New
social
of Swedish
York:
New
Years
Globalization.
Economic
NJ:
From Medieval
to Global
London:
Fontana
of Socialism.
Lanham,
insecurity
and
MD:
the
York:
Cambridge
Econ.
democracy.
Ind.
Press
Princeton
Univ. Press
Sassoon D.
1996. One Hundred
Schafer
De-Industrialization
globalization
Demoer.
20:39-79
Sassen
S. 1998. Globalization
Sassen
Berkeley: Univ.
Princeton
Assemblages.
Rowman
globalization
&
Univ.
Princeton,
Littlefield.
of
Press.
production.
Sei. 48:662-74
?
Beckfield Zhao
Thiscontentdownloadedfrom193.0.225.55onSun,17Jan201621:03:41UTCAllusesubjectto
JSTORTermsandConditions
3rd
NJ:
ed.
Am.
SchmidtVA.
Scruggs
L,
Lange
union
P.
density.
Seeleib-Kaiser
2002. Where
J. Polit.
M.
2001.
Sites W.
political
2000.
Globalisierung
2004. The
economy.
Primitive
Am.
1998. Globalization
500.
World
Syst.
ments.
Wiest
connections
2002.
MD:
JB. 2004.
Rev.
Frankfurt:
Campus
the case
global engagement.
ofthe
California
Its Alternatives.New
Sociol.
Fortune global
integration
J.
Globalization
and Resistance:
Transnational
Dimensions
of Social Move?
& Littlefield
Stud.
Black
and
between
Rowman
J,
on
influences
transnational
Steinmo
S. 2002. Globalization
Polit.
Stewart
institutions,
10:255-85
H.
Lanham,
Globalization,
2001.World
Exploring
Res.
thj, Johnston
Smith
Polit.
SmithDA, Timberlake M.
Sei. 44:1656-78
J. 2004.
gone?
2002. Globalization:
Capitalism and
Press
Smi
the members
Sklair L.
Smith
all
und Sozialpolitik.
globalization?
Theory 18:121-44
Sklair L.
have
64:126-53
association.
Soc. Forces
and taxation:
challenges
35:839-62
Globalization,
Polit.
Econ.
cities,
and
racial
84:621-52
to the Swedish
inequality
welfare
at the dawn
global
state. Comp.
21st
ofthe
century.
31:11-32
SwankD.
New
Swank
York:
Cambridge
D, Betz HG.
Europe.
Swank
2003.
Socio-Econ.
D,
Steinmo
Taylor
Am.
2003. World
PJ.
2006.
and
Institutions,
the welfare
The
new political
Sei.
paths
economy
of taxation
M.
2004. Varieties
in
change
Thelen
European
Wijnbergen
K, Van
and beyond.
Therborn
G.
Tilly
C.
2000.
2003.
Western
B.
Feminism
1997. Between
HL.
2002.
Wolf M.
2004. Why
two
in
advanced
capitalist
global
inter-city
internationalized
Comp.
paradox
Polit.
Stud.
Sociol.
relations. Am. J.
world:
domestic
institutional
37:751-80
of globalization:
labor
relations
historical waves,
regional
in
Germany
36:859-80
dimensions,
effects,
normative
15:151-79
In
empire.
in a
Class
global
Globalization
R.
cities?Amsterdam
Debating
Soc.
Princeton,
Berkeley:
Works.
2001.
Empire,
age. Econ.
and Market.
Rich Democracies.
NA, Michalowski
tale of
in an
2003. The
Stud.
Globalizations:
nebulous
Wilensky
Wonders
C.
Int. Sociol.
A
York: Verso
S. 2002.
Walby
of capitalism
telecommunications.
Comp. Polit.
governance.
inWestern
to understanding
112:881-94
Thatcher
populism
46:642-55
Network:A Global
Parallel
States.
DevelopedWelfare
1:215^1-5
J. Polit.
City
in
PolicyChange
Press
Globalization,
Rev.
S. 2002.
democracies.
Taylor PJ.
Univ.
New
Bodies,
and Havana.
Univ.
ed. G Balakrishnan,
pp. 26-28.
New
31:533-57
NJ: Princeton Univ.
Press
Calif. Press
Haven,
CT:
borders,
and
Yale Univ.
sex tourism
Press
in a
globalized
world: a
www.annualreviews.org
Economie Globalization in
Affluent
Thiscontentdownloadedfrom193.0.225.55onSun,17Jan201621:03:41UTCAllusesubjectto
JSTORTermsandConditions
Democracies
333
Wood
A. 1994.
Yuasa M.
Zhu
Zukin
334
Brady
North-South
Trade, Employment
2001. Globalization
Bus. Rev.
Y.
2004.
8:80-101
Responding
and
to the
challenges
Beckfield
JS. 2004.
flexibility
Consumers
and
and
in the
Inequality.
Clarendon
Oxford:
textile/apparelindustry
of globalization:
consumption.
human
Annu. Rev.
of
Japan.
resource
Sociol.
? Zhao
Thiscontentdownloadedfrom193.0.225.55onSun,17Jan201621:03:41UTCAllusesubjectto
JSTORTermsandConditions
Asia Pac.
development
30:173-97
in