You are on page 1of 25

The Consequences of Economic Globalization for Affluent Democracies

Author(s): David Brady, Jason Beckfield and Wei Zhao


Source: Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 33 (2007), pp. 313-334
Published by: Annual Reviews
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/29737765
Accessed: 17-01-2016 21:03 UTC

YouruseoftheJSTORarchiveindicatesyouracceptanceoftheTerms&ConditionsofUse,availableathttp://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTORisanotforprofitservicethathelpsscholars,researchers,andstudentsdiscover,use,andbuilduponawiderangeofcontentinatrusteddigital
archive.Weuseinformationtechnologyandtoolstoincreaseproductivityandfacilitatenewformsofscholarship.FormoreinformationaboutJSTOR,
pleasecontactsupport@jstor.org.

Annual Reviews iscollaboratingwithJSTORtodigitize,preserveandextendaccessto Annual Review of Sociology.

http://www.jstor.org

Thiscontentdownloadedfrom193.0.225.55onSun,17Jan201621:03:41UTCAllusesubjectto
JSTORTermsandConditions

The

of

Consequences
Economic Globalization
for Affluent Democracies
David

andWei

Brady,1 Jason Beckfield,2


of

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

28223; email: wzhaol@uncc.edu

Annu. Rev. SodoL

Keywords

2007.33:313-34

First published onlioe is ? Review

inAdvtnce on

April4,2007
The Amuul Review ofSociology is online at

economic
Abstract
In recent

"fly "W**-*11111""*W|i|ffMf *py

the

state, inequality,

10.n467annurcvjoa33.040406.131636

2007 AmmtlReviews.
by

labor

economic globalization has


decades,

Tnis trade* dots

Copyright?

sociology, political sociology,

in
grown significantly

affluentdemocracies. Taking this as a point of departure, we review social


science research on the consequences of economic globaliza?

tionfor the state, the economy, and civil


We advocate for a
society.
concrete position of
between the grand theorists
empirical scrutiny,

All lights icsetveo

0360-0572/07/0811-0313$20.00

and earlier empirical skeptics, andmeasure economic globalization as


entists
theheightening of internationaltrade and investment.Social sci?
have
in
debates
such
as
engaged
lively
surrounding
topics
how
state,politics,
deindustrializa
tion,
globalization
and affectsthewelfare
labor.
the themes that
inequality,
organized
Among
emerge from these
debates are the distinct values of within- and between

and theneed for a

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

course, there have been earlier waves


and the

wave of increased

globalization,
present
began even before 1960. At least for afflu?

democracies, however, the present

of economic

global? ization probably

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

integration. See Beckfield (2006) and Duina (2006) on the


distinction between
and
regionalization

514

Brady

els of

trade

Beckfield

? Zhao

globalization.

of GDP

by

For

extremely

tapered

has

rose from 66.4%

high

amongWest

example,

in 2000 (and 151.9%

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

in 2003. Also, thismean

ness grew from 63.7%

States

in 2000

contrast, Japan

rose

(and
from

20.6% in 1960 to 28.5% in


1981 before
declining to 16.0% in 1993 and 22.0%
in
2003.
Panel B
vestment

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?

tion rose from 53.4%


of GDP
in 1975 to
a
of 136.1% in 2000 before
peak
declining
100.5%

flows

in

2003. This

in

the

Western

Europe

slowly

outside

driven

countries
and Ireland.

Netherlands,
rose
from

globalization

was

European

58.6% to 162.7% in 2000


Total
more

mean

levels of investment

small West

like Belgium,

GDP)

(Brady et al. 2005) for 19 affluentdemocracies

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

only exception may


Figure

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

occurring (Guillen 2001). By 2007,


ing

onto

an

average

(117.8%

started

lower

Western

in

2003).

and

Europe.

of

rose
Nev?

the United

States doubled from


in 2000 (31.9% in
in 1977 to
2003).3 Japan rose from 25.3%
ertheless,

18.2% in 1960 to 37.0%

Because portfolio and direct investmentdata are unavail?


startPanel B there.

able formost countries before 1975,we


It is important to note that themean

has a differentN at

investment data.
1989,
the
Switzerland in 1983, and Ireland in 1990. However,

different time points because ofmissing

Japan enters the series in 1977, New Zealand in

mean and trend are not significantlydifferent if any com?


bination of these countries is dropped.
3
there are many
Within the United States,
interesting
States has had a trade deficit
trends.Although theUnited
(net investment+
since
net
net
1975,
globalization
trade)

Thiscontentdownloadedfrom193.0.225.55onSun,17Jan201621:03:41UTCAllusesubjectto
JSTORTermsandConditions

Panel A. Trade Openness, 1960-2003

?W.Europe
Mean

i{r*5r^r^ri^*^

?{&?$r^ ^&

t$rt$r$P<f$*

Panel B, Total Globalization. 1975-2003


180
160
140

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

published (Guillen 2001, Riain


2000, Berger 2000).We concentrate on

has been positive fourtimes since 1989. Although there is

great concern about direct investment outflows from the


direct investment

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

United States (e.g., toChina orMexico),

in economic

globalization

31.5% in 1985, but declined to 17.6% in 1993,


before rising to 28.8% in 2003.
Before

larger

4We furthernote that even though globalization of labor or


via
is a
of
we
mainly
exclude thatimmigration
Becausecomponent
of itsdistinct globalization,
people

topic.

literature,

immigrationwarrants stand-alone treatment. Second, we


include
and
but
economics, political science,
the sociological 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

the gap with

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?

whereas Sassen (2006)

high impact,

introduces
We

(1999)

rise of

century,

system in the sixteenth


of globalization

impact
Rather, we

on

strictly

developing

concentrate

on

economic globalization in the latterhalf of the


twentieth

century

conceptualize

causes

this

the

by high extensity,high intensity,high

countries.

Fourth,

of globalization,

only on the latter

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

2005, Berberoglu 2005,


et al. 1999, Kellner 2002, Schaefer

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

offer four reasons

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

ternational economic exchange and the flow


goods,
and
services, people, information,
capital across national
boundaries. We oper

CONCEPTUALIZATION
MEASUREMENT
The

concept

of

AND

globalization

ployed for

has

been de?

ationalize

wide-ranging purposes (Appadurai

1996, Guillen 2001, Sklair 2002). As Held

tional
refer

economic

investment.

to this more

specific

ferring
5
We

urge caution indrawing inferencesforaffluentdemoc?


and devel?

racies from samples that include both developed

oping countries. For


71

countries,Polillo

alization,

bank

&

more

example,

compelling

analysis

Guillen (2005) emphasize thatglob?

than domestic politics,

using

triggered

based on

independence. However,

theirmodels

in a

theirdata

of

central

reestimations of

(which theygraciously

with us), this conclusion is less clear when

shared

the sample is re?

stricted to the 23 affluentdemocracies. Some globalization

measures become

one measure

significantly
events, and domestic

insignificant,

reduces central bank


factors become more
Monetary Fund

independence
influential.Although

(IMF) lending

full sample, none of the affluentdemocracies

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

2004, Fligstein 2001, Gilpin 2001, Held et al.


The
for
1999, Therborn
2000).
skepticism
existence

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,

(2001, p. xi) write,

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

progressively declined. The


and
exchange?money,

with

global?

primary factors of
technology, people and

increasing ease across national bound?

aries; hence thenation-state has less and less power to regu? late
these flows and impose itsauthorityover the economy."

7Arrighi (2003, p. 32) writes, "Most problems arise from Hardt

andNegri's heavy reliance on metaphors and theo?


ries and systematic avoidance of empirical evidence.While many
readers will undoubtedly be taken in by the erudi?

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

both the nodes

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

find sociological criticsof grand theorists like

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

(Giddens 2000) lack em?

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,

erswill be put off by statements of fact unbacked

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

hearmore about how Empire's causes produce their effects, itwould


be wise to retain ameasure of scepticism."

et al.

how

8For example, Blossfeld


(2005) study
ization alters life course
transitions.But, their use
term
is not well
For
globalization

developed.

global?
of the

them, glob? alization

encompasses (a) internationalization of markets;


intensified
and
(b)
competition, deregulation, privatization,
of
networks and

liberalization; (c) spread global


knowledge via new
information and communication technologies; and
(d) rising importance ofmarkets. The firstand thirdfitmost definitions
of globalization, but the second and fourth are

differentMore.
the
do not actu?
test
importantly,
chapters
ally
the effectof

quite

globalization. Instead, they presume

manifests

globalization
through increasing uncertainty? even though
this is never really established. The authors do not actually measure
but
measure
globalization
prox?

ies

(e.g. part-time work, unemployment, manufacturing

employment) that may or may not be linked to actual


globalization. Hence,
globalization.

the volume is

only loosely linked

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.

the richest debates

regards

concerned

on

about

global?

the welfare

globalization

state.
has pos

volume
ingly

evidence on heightening tangible international


exchange is now beginning to be collected and dis?
as
seminated to the research community by such projects
the International Networks Archive, housed at
Princeton University. The archive can be accessed at
http://www.princeton.edu/~ina/.

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

Negri 2001). Others

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

(Burgoon 2001, Castles 2004, Kittel &


et
2005,Wilensky 2002). Brady
al.
(2005)

fects

examine

of a wide

sures

both

that

have one overall

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?

linear and nonlinear

variety

for several

state
not

9This

in

austerity.

higher levels,
sociologists
tended

among

1998).

that domestic
source of

ferences.

One

2001, Sklair 2002).

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

(Chorev 2005, Robinson


Yet,

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

ear effect on the welfare

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

people, capital, information, goods,

(Alderson 2004).

levels

becomes

specific

? Zhao

Thiscontentdownloadedfrom193.0.225.55onSun,17Jan201621:03:41UTCAllusesubjectto
JSTORTermsandConditions

contributed
dimensions

2001).

ofthe welfare state (Garret& Mitchell


Also,

labor

but

some suggest globalization

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

tablished political forces.


Most

in the

pattern
globalization

that

oliberal

show at least

like

some

con?

strained growth since the


state

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

effects for welfare

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

2002, Swank 2002, Swank &


Some

state may

increased

that

glob?

countries actually led to


capital

and

had no

effect

on

policy
clear

declines

whether

national

finance

lo?

pursuing

a na?

in

isolation

from
Al?
causes

taxes, business
2004,

2001), it remains debat?

for this
support

bal?
to

(Campbell

will

of fiscal

is little

acute

environment."

globalization

dimensions

challenge

Babb

of

of overall

Garrett & Mitchell

and

&

that globalization

tax progressivity

influence

pre?

governance.

area, however,

One

is that there

for the argument


actually

that inter?

punishes

states

that

taxation in a business-friendly

organize

manner (Mosley 2003).


Second,

globalization's

mates

calls

efficiency
That

for

&

welfare

device

states

2005,

(Campbell

pressures

would

be

may

a welcome

best be done with

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

Schmidt 2002, Seeleib-Kaiser


also

claims

Such

states,

comparisons

globaliza?

addition.

the

(Campbell 2004, Ryner


actual

More re?

globalization

special

and

2000).

actors filter

and frame

comparisons

2004,

Fourcade-Gourinchas

how political

tion

legiti?
calls

and undermines

& Babb 2002, Therborn


search on

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

(Iversen 2001). Hence,

not

might

ofthe

write,

broader

fare

inertia in thisera of

political
alization
does

1980s (Korpi &

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.

2001, &Gaston & Nelson 2004,Hall & Soskice 2001,


Hicks Zorn 2005, Swank 2002). Yet, Brady et al.
(2005) find littlesupport for these
claims

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?

that the network


institutional

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

(2004) show 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?

the role of the

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

1999, Pierson 2001, Rieger


One

some

(de?

globalization

subnational

elevates

managing
Finally,

Henisz

formation,

are

between

in

sion

its influence should

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

(Polillo & Guillen

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

rived from Marx's

invest?

(2003) shows that the

policies

not be overstated
Beyond

Street

responding

So,

influence

mestic

field

monitoring,

states for

ishing
may

study

Robertson

and

monetary

sovereignty (Boix 2000, Deeg & Lutz 2000).


In one

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

(2000) finds that

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

CONSEQUENCES FOR THE


ECONOMY
One

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

1994,Yuasa 2001). 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

to debunk claims thatglobalization drives job


loss

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

&

(Alderson 1999, Brady

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

duction (Brady& Wallace

both

economies

undermine
competition

of

globalization
As

isomorphism

et

and

al.

2001,

Cioffi

Bruegger 2002,
2000, Collins 2003,
Gereffi 2005, Gotham 2006, Kwon

con?

2004, Zhu 2004). This work provides


and is vincing
is not a
globalization
myth
actually
Sklair
occurring.
(1998),
evidence that

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

Dore 1996, Hansen

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?

tices (Ahmadjian & Robbins 2005, Hassel &

Schulten 1998, Kogut & Walker


nally,

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

(Miller 2001). Sociologists


more

managers
for cheaper
wages

search

2000). Alderson & Nielsen

(Brady& Wallace

(2002) find that outward direct investment,


imports

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

search on global cities (Sassen 2001) and world


cities (Friedmann 1995), much of it conducted by
the Globalization andWorld
?

skill

the most

concern

Perhaps
the

the study
for the

aforementioned
localities.

nent

connect

en?

and (d) the consequences

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

than the literature

considering

re?

increase

experiences

this

globalization

rise in offshore

of the globalization

developed
and

the dramatic
the concomitant

key

inequality (Feenstra 2000, Golub

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

toBonacich & Appelbaum

cities are bound

between

(2003) demonstrates the exis?

the

of

centered.

animate

and

control

2003).

under

in Indiana.

that

are

and

& Beckfield 2004, Castells


2001, Smith &
Timberlake

anti

existed

York, London,

command

economy

governance,

innova?

and

such as New

cern (a) the identificationof rostersof global cities;


the
of
(b)
form
the system intowhich

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

&

(Taylor 2003, 2006; cf.Alderson Beckfield 2004,


Beckfield & Alderson 2006; research

produced

questions,

and network

study group

accessed

on

literature on

further,

globalization

on

consensus

the

in?

2002, Rosen 2002).

progress

clear

impact.
Taking
step

et al.

in selected

income

conclude

to

the Great

that

inequality

the affluent democracies

have

since the 1970s. Reuveny &


FDI
trade

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,

there has also

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?

study of the fi?

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

gender inequality (Meyer 2003).


Brainerd (2004) find thatwhen a U.S. in?
dustry

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

2005, Robinson 2001,

take

in this

trade

phenom?

capitalism.

of research

influenced

this

general

be valuable

between

and empirical

one of the nuances

to
to

this

soci?

analyses.

Sec?

highlighted by this

area is the distinction


between
withinand
between-country
comparisons.
For
example,
many

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

equality (Collins 2002).

pace

unable

stratification

but see Stewart

globalization

and

globalization

analyzed how economic

affects

nancial

how

(we were

article in

that

ization

explores

for

exemplifies

lustrates the benefits of distinguishing be?

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

the clear merits

nations

(Collins 2002, Pyle 2005,Walby

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

on the state and the

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

that the bulk ofthe

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.

ies focus more


ization

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

form(Chase-Dunn & Gills


Al?
Evans (2005) criticizes
though
globalization
2005).10

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

1998) fail to find an association between glob?


alization

institutions

conclusions

Parallel

2005,

is mixed.
(e.g.,

(e.g., Hassel

Hence,

(and maybe less

the comparison

nomic

The empirical evidence linkingglobaliza?

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

States.Western (1997) finds

openness

that

ization

provide
height?

and union

in the 1980s. Baldwin


gues

(1997,

ization (Alderson 2004). As Western

p. 195)

trade

and

union?

declining

organizing

in theUnited

these

production

to avoid high labor costs and lessflexiblework

arrangements

union

mestic

organized

1996,

globalize

and

but alongside

many

corporatism,
international

and

the

labor market

studies
between

(Lee 2005, Piazza 2005). Brady


(2000) find that increased FDI

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

movement in affluentdemocracies, although therehas been somework


on how globalization is linked to the spread and diffusionof
environmentalism globally (Frank et al. 2000).

? 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

the topical focus of this review.

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

see Zukin &

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

for future research.

review with

that

define

rich, inter?

potentially
globalization.

revisit

in

globaliza?

and

highlight
conclude
our

We
stood

and

The

demonstrates

increasing
we

advances

of

for affluent democracies.

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

Flippen 2005). More

Giddens
is transform?
but

of
topics

(but

maids,

(Ehrenreich

sex work.

the

so?

salient work.

these
is the

This

accounts

empirical

because

are

2003). Wonders & Michalowski


(2001) reveal how globalization
fosters and
sex

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

global cities and the international


(typically
female)

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,

(2005) show that trade and FDI

affect

countries,

and

globalization

advancing rapidly (Ritzer 2004).


an
recent
review,
Zukin

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

organizing (Kay 2005),

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

inward and outward


vestment,

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

state has generated


on the welfare
state. Globalization
a modest
influence on the welfare

consensus
may
have

but

is

this effect

smaller

probably

than

the impact of established political and social


Although

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

tablished lines of inquiry include studies of


practices, corporate behavior,

and

es?

firm

spe

equality,

although

been

We

empirical scrutiny
empirical

and

greater dialogue

research rather than

between

grand theorizing,

theory

and

and we re?

fer the reader to the special issue of theAmerican Behavioral

work
326

Scientiston globalization (Hargittai & Centeno 2001) for

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

this research shows

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.

In this era of increasing

encourage

how

emerged. Regarding

influences

civil

on

move?

the cultural

contributions

consumption

literature

antiglobalization

social movements.

literature

globalization

view the field as more urgently in need of concrete

shop

consensus

some

ex?

suggest that further

considerably

pects
12

on the

lived

emerging

has

a smaller

Other

We

on workers'

litical
national

have

economy (e.g.,

alization

of

Scholars

sociologists

globalization would be beneficial.

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

ferentfromeach other (Duina

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

and local levels (Gereffi 2005).

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

success? Am. Sociol.

a test

of mainstream

and

83:81-122
in the world

and the Great U-turn:

J. Sociol.
against

in direct

and position

2002. Globalization
Am.

70:451-71
globalization,

Soc. Forces

globalization.
Power
J. 2004.

countries.

2002.

Am. Sociol. Rev.

deindustrialization:

of

theories
Beckfield

16 OECD

M.

Japan.

Explaining

109:811-51
Alderson

2005. A clash of capitalisms: foreign shareholders and corporate

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.

Schulman MD, Wood

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

2003. The Decline ofU.S. Labor Unions and theRole

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

2000. Behind theLabel. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press

democracies.

Denniston

American
Brenner N.

Int.

Books

Polk. Sei. ?>-A?>-62

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

Klijzing E, Mills M, Kurz K. 2005.

2000.

the

futureof scholarship on the

HP,

C.

study

Am. Sociol. Rev. 71:964?85

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,

Polk. Soc. 31:433-64

112:895-904

JB, Kortum

2004.

Black SE, Brainerd E.

brokers.

Trade.

social movements,

political

income

the

and

and

and

1996. National

Eaton

Blossfeld

perspective:

during downturns:

fields.

Comp.

Am. Econ. Rev. 93:1268-90

Boix

New

23:25-41

S. 2000. Globalization

S, Dore

domestic

and

Sociol.

states,

products

trade-off.

integration

Am.

city

forest

stability

Beckfield J,Alderson AS. 2006.Whither


world

factories:

and

divergence:

autonomy?exchange

Berger

Routledge

pp. 29-42.

realities. Int. Sociol. 15:197-214

ofCalifornia. GrowthChange 32:217-3 5

Berger

Balakrishnan,

Int. Econ.

Bardhan

Bearce

ed. G.

Verso

Bairoch P. 2000.

Bartley

In

of empire.

Univ.

Minneapolis:

Press

Applebaum RP, Robinson WI, eds. 2005. Critical Globalization Studies.New


Arrighi

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

JL. 2004. Institutional

public

economy:

and Globalization.

comparative

Princeton, NJ:

analysis.

Princeton

Univ.

Press

Castells M. 1996. The Rise


Network
London: Blackwell
ofthe
Society.
Castles F. 2004. Future oftheWelfare State: Crisis
and Crisis Realities.New York: Oxford
Univ.
Cetina

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:

Int. Sociol. 18:443-60


Cioffi
JW. 2000. Governing
governance.
Clougherty

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

and skill in the

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

AR. 2003. GlobalWoman. New

Globalization,

further evidence

11:1-16

financial

Stud.

taxation

Manag.

thesis. Econ.

World Polit. 53:463-98

1999. Trade andJobs inEurope:Much Ado AboutNothing?

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

in theGlobalApparel IndustryChicago:. Univ.

and

Sapir A, SekkatK.

2006. The
B.

of an

Globalization

at the crossroads.

integration.
F.

law,

Int. Bus.

labormarket:

global

Labor and Power

New
York: Oxford
Univ.
Dreher
A. 2005. Globalization

Ebbinghaus

Robinson

since 1795: waves

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

test on the world

Cox RH.

and resistance

studies.

globalization

globalization?

J. Law
2001. Globalization

industry. Gender

Collins

of financial

Soc. 27:572-600

JA.

empirical

the virtual societies

institutionalproject of neo-liberal globalism: the case of theWTO.

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.

World Polit. 50:62-87


Evans

P.

2005. Counterhegemonic

globalization:

temporaryglobal political economy.

RR
Feenstra

AM

Afford,
R. 2000.

Fiss PC, Hirsch


emerging

Hicks,

The

MA

Impact

Am.

social movements

in

the

Trade

on

Cambridge Univ. Press

Wages.

Chicago:

discourse of globalization: framing

Sociol. Rev.

con?

Janoski,

Handbook ofPolitical Sociology,ed. T


Schwartz, pp. 655-70. New York:

of International

PM. 2005. The


concept.

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.

the Global Economy.

Structural

Rev. Int. Econ. 12:769-92


Gereffi
G.
2005. The
global

of Economic

nation-state

a decade

Dilemma.

the

65:96-116

Globalization,

Eur. J. Polit. Res. 39:145-77


Gaston
N, Nelson
D.
2004.

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,

NJ/New York: Princeton Univ. Press/Russell Sage Found. 2nd ed.


GereffiG, SpenerD, Bair J. 2002. Free Trade and UnevenDevelopment.Philadelphia, PA: Temple
Univ.

Press

Giddens A. 2000. RunawayWorld. New York: Routledge


Gille Z, ? Riain S. 2002. Global
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 28:271-95
ethnography.

R.

Gilpin
Golub

2001. Global PoliticalEconomy.Princeton,NJ: Princeton Univ. Press

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

2001. Empire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press

E, Centeno

Inst.

Enterprise
foundation?
In Social

2001. Varieties ofCapitalism: The InstitutionalFoundations ofComparative

New

strategies,

globalization civilizing, destructive,

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.

Costs and International

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

and the future

industry.
D,

Henisz WJ, Zelner BA, Guillen MF.


330Brady

U-Turn.

1998. Globalization

reform,

1977-1999.^7^.

2005. The
Sociol. Rev.

worldwide diffusionofmarket-oriented in?


70:871-97

Beckfield Zhao

Thiscontentdownloadedfrom193.0.225.55onSun,17Jan201621:03:41UTCAllusesubjectto
JSTORTermsandConditions

Hicks A. 1999. Social

Hicks

Democracy

C. 2005.

A, Zorn
expansion

and

Welfare Capitalism. Ithaca,

Economic

in affluent

globalization,

the macro

1978-1994.

democracies,

NY: Cornell Univ. Press

economy,
59:631-62

Int. Org.

and reversals of welfare:

Huber E, Stephens JD. 2001. Developmentand Crisis oftheWelfare State.Chicago: Univ. Chicago
Press
International Monetary

Fund

(IMF).

2006. International Financial Statistics Database. Washing?

ton,DC: IMF

H, Lange P,

Capitalism.

Kittel

New

Marks

York:

H.

B, Winner

G, Stephens JD.

Cambridge

Univ.

2005. How

globalization-welfare

Kogut B,Walker G. 2001.The


Am.
Korpi W,

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

smallworld ofGermany and thedurabilityofnational networks.

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,

States and inGermany

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

in the 1990s. Comp. Polit. Stud. 37:88-113


and union

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

2003. Global Capital andNational GovernmentsNew.

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

York: Cambridge Univ. Press

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.

Am. Sociol. Rev.

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?

York: Oxford Univ. Press

the state:

the worldwide

spread

of

110:1764?802

studies and

globalization

labor: paid

reproductive

quiescence:

Pierson P, ed. 2001. TheNew Politics of the


Polillo

of

division

& Robinson
Applebaum

See

gender.

Applebaum

&

Robinson 2005,

pp.249-58
Rauch

V.

JE, Trindade

2003.

Econ. Rev. 93:775-91


K, Hathcote
J. 2004.

Rees

Information,
The

U.S.

international

textile

and apparel

Glob. Econ. J. 4:1-22


Reuveny
R,
2003. Economic
openness,
Li Q.
analysis. Comp.
Polk. Stud. 36:575-601

industry

democracy,

Rieger E, Leibfried S. 2003. Limits toGlobalization:

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.

2004. The Globalization ofNothing. Thousand

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

and the crisis

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

New York, London, Tokyo. Princeton,

Territory, Authority, Rights:

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,

2002. The Futures ofEuropean Capitalism.New York: Oxford Univ. Press

Lange

union

P.

density.

Seeleib-Kaiser

2002. Where

J. Polit.

M.

2001.

Sites W.

political

2000.

Globalisierung

2004. The

Simmons BA, Elkins Z.


national

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

York: Oxford Univ.

citynetworks and hierarchies, 1977-1997. Am. Behav.


global

integration

J.

and political mobilization.

Globalization

and Resistance:

Transnational

Dimensions

of Social Move?

& Littlefield

D. 2005. The uneven geography of global civil society: national and

Stud.

Black

and

Sei. Rev. 98:171-89

between

Rowman

J,
on
influences
transnational
Steinmo
S. 2002. Globalization
Polit.
Stewart

institutions,

10:255-85

H.

Lanham,

Globalization,

State and locale in neoliberal

2001.World

Exploring

Res.

thj, Johnston

Smith

Polit.

and the corporations:

SmithDA, Timberlake M.
Sei. 44:1656-78
J. 2004.

gone?

globalization of liberalization:policy diffusion in the inter?

2002. Globalization:
Capitalism and

Press

Smi

the members

Int.J. Urban Reg. Res. 22:195-15

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

SutcliffeB, Glyn A. 1999. Still underwhelmed: indicatorsof globalization and theirmisinter?


pretation. Rev. Radie. Polit. Econ. 31:111-32

SwankD.

2002. Global Capital, Political

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

state and right-wing

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

Urban Analysis.London: Routledge

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

Soc. Probl. 48:545-71

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

Japan.J. World Bus. 39:337-48


S, Maguire

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

You might also like