The new period of capitalism, which is marked by the emergence of the transnational class, the transnational capitalist class, and transnational finance, is global capitalism. The international order is now transnational and the components of the system have now been incorporated beyond the reach of the nations to be internationally governed, such as the accumulation of wealth, development, class governance, and ties that were controlled within nations. This has strengthened the stability and independence of financial institutions and activities to function. In his theory of world-systems as a capitalist world-economy, Wallerstein argues that the world economic system is made up of the core, periphery, and semi-periphery states which lead to global inequality as some countries benefit from the system and others are exploited. Sklair and Robertson are critiquing Wallerstein in their arguments about global capitalism. There are many aspects of globalization and thus one should not focus only on one aspect to explain globalization, its influence in the society and problems associated with it.
Sklair and Robertson are critiquing Wallerstein. From what I have learned, resources are scarce and this influences corporations to secure labor, advantages, labor, and new markets among other things from other countries. The corporations of a particular country may produce fewer products compared to the demand of the people. This means that the country will import what they do not produce from the countries which produce. Again, if a country produces more than what is demanded in the country, the surplus can be exported to another country. This has influenced the rise of global capitalism because the process of world economic system is now integrated beyond a nation boundary. Sklair and Robinson critiqued Wallerstein because of his focus on the nation’s role in globalization. They argued that he should focus on the new emergence of the global capitalism which is attributed to the growth of the transnational class, transnational capitalist class, and transnational capital.
Sklair and Robertson are critiquing Wallerstein in their arguments because, in his article, “The modern World-System, he focusses on one aspect of the modern world system. Sklair argues that being centric, Wallerstein does not focus on the new aspects which influence global capitalism that has emerged. The emergence of the transnational production which has been shaped by the transnational corporation has been not focused by Wallerstein according to Sklair. Sklair argues that the economic, political and cultural ideology are characterized by a representative institution, cohesive structures of practices, organized and patterned, which can only be properly understood in terms of their transnational effects. This means that the transnational practices are not performed by everyone in the modern world system but by globally oriented and cosmopolitan Chief Executive Officers. Robertson, on the other hand, argues that Wallerstein ignored the cultural dimension in his argument. Robertson claims “In arguing that mine is a cultural perspective on globalization I do not wish to convey the idea that I consider the matter of ‘the forces’ or ‘the mechanisms’ of globalization unimportant”. This is influenced by the Wallerstein argument that the global culture is independent of the capitalist economic processes.
Sklair and Robertson are critiquing Wallerstein by helping him understand that global capitalism will always change. This is because each period globalization is taking another move and this is resulting in many challenges that are being associated with it. This means that instead of focusing on the states and how they influence the economic process in the world, the sociologists should also focus on how the transnational practices and cultural dimension can help people understand the principle forces transforming international economic and political affairs (Gilpin, Robert, and Jean Millis Gilpin). If they only focus on the nations which are exploited and those which benefit, the challenge of global capitalism will always be faced. If Wallerstein also considered the emergence of the new stage of capitalism and the cultural dimension, it would be clear how the states influence the concept.
From the above argument, it is true that there are many aspects of globalization and global capitalism and thus one should not focus only on one aspect to explain globalization, its influence in the society and problems associated with it. Although the global capitalism is resulting in flexibility and freedom of the economic processes, there is a need for further research on the effects of global capitalism to the state power on the economic processes. This is because integrating the economic processes to the global economy means that the nations will be in a way affected. The political power of particular nations to the economic processes may also change with the changes being faced by the global capitalism.
Gilpin, Robert, and Jean Millis Gilpin. The Challenge of Global Capitalism. Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 2002.