Given this background, we may begin the comparative analysis of the structure of the four globalization indices presented in the previous chapter by focusing in particular on their dimensions and on the main components on which their cal- culation is based. It can be immediately stated in this regard that there are
1 Further criticisms, not technical but substantial in nature, will be made in the concluding chapter.
M. Caselli,Trying to Measure Globalization, SpringerBriefs in Political Science, DOI: 10.1007/978-94-007-2807-3_4,ÓThe Author(s) 2012
97
significant similarities, or indeed overlaps, among these four instruments. They are similarities which testify—notwithstanding the different and sometimes conflicting interpretations of the concept and processes of globalization enumerated in Chap. 1—that scholars concerned with the phenomenon substantially agree as to what constitutes its essential elements and dynamics. Moreover, the fact this only considered at present are indices which use the state as their unit of analysis indicates that their authors share an underlying set of assumptions; as also does the fact that they consider globalization to be a multi-dimensional phenomenon—a condition imposed in these pages when selecting the instruments regarded as most significant. Another of these shared assumptions is that globalization is also a socially significant phenomenon, which should be studied and measured with tools and techniques devised for the purpose. But probably the key factor in explaining the similarities among the different globalization indices analyzed here—and which makes such similarities much less surprising—is that all of them draw more or less directly on the A.T. Kearney/Foreign Policy Globalization Index, and they sometimes expressly state that they are attempts to improve it without distorting it.
The first comparison to be made, therefore, concerns the main dimensions comprised in the four indices. These are set out in Table4.1.2It is immediately evident that the overlap among the instruments in this regard is well-nigh perfect.
All four indexes, in fact, consider the economic and political dimensions of globalization. Likewise, all four of them consider both the social dimension—
though the A.T. Kearney/Foreign Policy Globalization Index gives it a different name—and the technological dimension of the phenomenon, although the CSGR Globalisation Index and the KOF Index of Globalization consider these two dimensions jointly. The only exception is the Maastricht Globalisation Index, which, unlike the other three instruments, also includes an ecological dimension.
Table 4.1 Dimensions of the main globalization indices: a comparison
ATK CSGR KOF MGI
Economic dimension
Yes Yes Yes Yes
Political dimension
Yes Yes Yes Yes
Social dimension Yes (called ‘‘personal contact’’)
Yes Yes Yes
Technological dimension
Yes Included in the social
dimension
Included in the social dimension
Yes Ecological
dimension
No No No Yes
2 To facilitate the reading of the tables in this chapter, the names of the four globalization indices considered have been abbreviated as follows: ATK (A.T. Kearney/Foreign Policy Globalization Index); CSGR (CSGR Globalisation Index); KOF (KOF Index of Globalization); MGI (Maastricht Globalisation Index).
Because, as was said in the previous chapter, the cultural dimension of glob- alization is particularly difficult to measure,3 none of the above four indices includes it among its fundamental dimensions. Nevertheless, all the instruments comprise indicators and variables that can be entirely or partly related to the cultural aspects of globalization, and which are included in either the social or the technological dimension.
Let us now compare the four globalization indices in somewhat more detail by considering the indicators included in the dimensions just discussed. These indi- cators are set out in Table4.2. It has been decided to restrict the analysis to the level of the indicators, and not to descend to the even more detailed one of the specific variables, because the same indicators can be defined and operationalized in different ways. Besides the fact that such differences are in some cases minimal, considering them would excessively complicate the comparison, without a sig- nificant advantage in analytical terms. Moreover, even if we remain at the level of the indicators, we gain a sufficiently clear picture of the aspects deemed significant by the authors when constructing the globalization indices considered.
Starting with the economic dimension, we observe that the indicators of all four indices include bothtrade(understood as the sum of imports and exports of goods and services as a proportion of GDP) andforeign direct investment; quantities that Sutcliffe and Glyn (1999) identified as the most immediate indicators of global- ization. To these are added—except in the case of the A.T. Kearney/Foreign Policy Globalization Index, which considers the economic dimension to be already adequately covered with trade and foreign direct investment—other indicators intended to quantify, albeit in different ways, the further financial flows that tra- verse the planet. Moreover, in the case of the KOF Index of Globalization, there is a further battery of indicators intended to quantify the constraints imposed by states on financial and commercial flows.
Moving to the political dimension, the only indicator included in all four indices is membership in international organizations. Three indices out of four also useembassies in country(all except the A.T. Kearney/Foreign Policy Glob- alization Index) and participation in UN missions (all except the Maastricht Globalisation Index). Two globalization indices include international treaties among their indicators, while only one index uses governmental transfers, and another trade in conventional arms. These last two indicators are at least partly comprised in some of those used to take account of the economic dimension of globalization.
Comparison as regards the social and technological dimensions is slightly more complicated, given the greater number of indicators used overall, as well as their more marked heterogeneity. In this case, the indicators included in all four indices are telephone traffic, international tourism, and the number ofinternet users. A further five indicators appear in two indices each: remittances (in a third index,
3 To be mentioned in this regard is the Cultural Globalization Index proposed by Kluver and Fu (2008) and discussed in the previous chapter.
4.2 The Components of Globalization Indices 99
Table4.2Indicatorstowhichthemainglobalizationindicesrefer:acomparison DimensionIndicatorATKCSGRKOFMGI EconomicTradeYesYesYesYes ForeigndirectinvestmentYesYesYes,butwithadistinctionbetween FDIflowsandFDIstocksYes PortfolioinvestmentNoYesYesNo Incomepaymentstoforeign nationalsNoaYes,butwiththeadditionof employeecompensationpaidto residentworkersworking abroad
YesNo CapitalflowsNoNoNoYes HiddenImportBarriersNoNoYesNo MeanTariffTradeNoNoYesNo TaxesonInternational TradeNoNoYesNo CapitalAccount RestrictionsNoNoYesNo PoliticalMembershipsin international organizations
YesYesYesYes EmbassiesincountryNoYesYesYes UNmissionsYesYesYesNo InternationaltreatiesYes,butonly multilateralNoYesNo GovernmentaltransfersYesNoNoNo TradeinconventionalarmsNoNoNoYes (continued)
Table4.2(continued) DimensionIndicatorATKCSGRKOFMGI Socialand technologicalTelephonetrafficYesYesYesYes InternationaltourismYesYesYesYes InternetusersYesYesYesYes RemittancesYesYesNob No InternationallettersNoYesYesNo ForeignpopulationNoYesYesNo MigrationflowsNoYes,inflowsonlyNoYes Tradeinbooksand newspaperNoYesYes,butdistinguishingbetween booksandnewspapersNo InternethostsYesNoNoNo SecureserversYesNoNoNo Filmsimportedand exportedNoYesNoNo Householdswitha televisionsetNoNoYesNo Transfers(withoutaquid proquo)NoNoYesNo NumberofMcDonald’s restaurantsNoNoYesNo NumberofIKEAstoresNoNoYesNo EcologicalEcofootprintNoNoNoYes aPartlyincludedintheindicator‘‘Remittancesandpersonaltransfers’’ b Partlyincludedintheindicator‘‘Transfers’’
4.2 The Components of Globalization Indices 101
however, these are partially included in the indicatortransfers, which pertains to the economic dimension), international letters, the proportion of the foreign populationin a country,migration flows, and the trade inbooks and newspapers.
There are then a further seven indicators, each used by only one globalization index: the number of internet hosts and of secure servers, films imported and exported,households with a television set,transfers (without a quid pro quo), the number ofMcDonald’s restaurants, and the number ofIKEA stores. Overall, used in this dimension are indicators which refer mainly to the diffusion of commu- nication technologies, mediated long distance personal relations, global flows of ideas and people, the dissemination of particular cultural models by products.
Finally, as already pointed out, the Maastricht Globalisation Index is the only instrument that includes a further dimension: the ecological one, which is mea- sured in terms of theeco footprint, defined as ecological deficit in global hectares.
This indicator has no counterpart in the other three globalization indices considered.
Overall, therefore, six indicators are considered by all four of the instruments analyzed here: trade and foreign direct investment as regards the economic dimension; membership of international organizations as regards the political dimension;telephone traffic,international tourism, andinternet usersas regards the social and technological dimensions.