CC BY
28
RUSSIAN JOURNAL OF EARTH SCIENCES, VOL. 9, ES2004, doi:10.2205/2007ES000274, 2007
Risks and gains of globalization for developing countries
A. M. Zgurovsky
National Taras Shevchenko University, Kyiv, Ukraine
Received 17 September 2007; accepted 12 October 2007; published 26 November 2007.
[1] Today the world is changing, interrelating and integrating as fast as never before. This change has an increasing pace and an expanding character. In other words this change is called globalization. Process of globalization is experienced by every region, country, government, man and woman on Earth. It has an objective character and its own pros and cons. But what is the quantitative and qualitative effect of globalization on various states?
What is the effect of this phenomenon on the main countries of our study - United States,
Ukraine and Russia and what are the changes through years 2006 and 2007? To answer that we would have go through a set of calculations and analysis, as follows. Index Terms:
1600 Global Change; 6300 Policy Sciences; 6600 Public Issues; KEYWORDS: globalization, developing countries, globalization indices.
Citation: Zgurovsky, A. M. (2007), Risks and gains of globalization for developing countries, Russ. J. Earth. Sci., 9, ES2004, doi:10.2205/2007ES000274.
Introduction
[2] Globalization, according to an American scholar Helda Mcgrew, is an expansion, deepening and acceleration of interrelations in all aspects of modern human life. It embodies the idea of integration of countries into the world community and their general development. Globalization concerns various fields of personal activity, from culture to crime, from finance to spirituality; therefore it reasonably causes set of discussions and disputes. The globalization becomes the mean of concentration of wealth and power in hands of particular people and groups. In that way, by bringing up some facts, we can see that three richest people in the world hold total wealth which exceeds the prosperity of 47 poorest countries and 475 richest hold fortunes that is bigger than the wealth of the half of the humanity. Correlation between the richest and poorest 1/5 of the world’s population is 1:75. Meanwhile, in 1973 the gap between the profits of the most developed and the least developed countries could have been rated 44:1. Globalization has enabled the developed countries and the largest transnational corporations to take advantage of more powerful productive forces. The large capital used these forces for the further enrichment. As a result, in the beginning of XXI century the gap of the profits between the richest and the poorest among countries has increased to the ratio of 72:1. It is rather a disturbing tendency, taking into account the increase in the amount of the world’s conflicts, growth of the level of corruption, ter-
Copyright 2007 by the Russian Journal of Earth Sciences.
ISSN: 1681-1208 (online)
rorism, crime, lack of access to the qualitative education for a lot of nations, increasing ecology problems and the people’s overall health maintenance.
[3] Such actual problems and tendencies, as recognition of national sovereignty, national idea, national culture, religion, language and overall the entity of a human strictly in the borders of the exact state or territory are gradually being replaced by uncontrollable processes of globalization, unification and integration of all humanity into the organic whole. In this way with every coming day the world is becoming smaller and the human development not depending on its national, ethnical and religious belonging is becoming the society’s main priority that is superior to any governmental or national interests.
[4] This is why we carry out special measurement of globalization that consists of different factors that together evaluate the integration, interrelation and a general change of the country’s development. In 2006 the evaluation was done for 58 countries and the accent was put on three countries of our study - Ukraine, United States and Russia [Zgurovsky, 2007]. In 2007 we carried out a similar calculation for 60 countries in general and in more detail for three countries of our study. In this article we will compare the two sets of data in order to analyze the change and prove the modern tendencies.
Measurement of Globalization
[5] In order to analyze the effects of globalization we need to know how globalized the countries are, but how could
we exactly measure it? There are two systems that give a quantitative and qualitative measurement of globalization. The first was introduced by Swiss Institute of business research (KOF Konjunkturforschungsstel der ETH Zurich; www.kof.ch/globalization/), second was founded by the international organization called Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP) (www.atkearney.com; www.foreignpolicy.com). Both institutions carry out an annual quantitative rating - the index of globalization (Ig). The first system (KOF system) rates 123 countries, while the second (CEIP system) rates only 62.
[6] The index of globalization allows to estimate the scale of integration of vast majority of countries in the world and to compare the different countries in this parameter. The index of globalization in system KOF is determined by three measurements: economic (Ige), social (Igs) and political (Igp). It could also be estimated as the sum of components Ig = 0.34 Ige + 0.37 Igs + 0.29 Igp with corresponding weight factors. In the CEIP system this index is determined by four measurements: economic (Ige), personal contact (Igpc), technological (Igt) and political (Igp). It is also estimated as the sum of the specified components with equal weight factors.
[7] While comparing the measurements of an globalization index in both systems, it is easy to see, that personal and technological measurements in the CEIP system can be reduced to social measurement as it is in the KOF system. Therefore, for further convenience in comparison between two, we will unit personal and technological measurements in one social measurement for the CEIP system.
[8] 1. Economic measurement of globalization (Ige) demonstrates a constant growth of interrelation between people’s needs, on the one hand, and possibility of goods and services production and distribution through the international trade, foreign investments and the spread of transnationalization. Both indexes are determined by the following general indicators: level of trade as the sum of all exports and imports and foreign direct investments as the sum of their inflow and outflow. In the KOF system additional indicators are used: portfolio investments as the sum of absolute cost of their inflow and outflow and incomes of nonresidents from the investments as a percentage of GDP. Economic measurement of globalization of any country is a directly proportional dependence on its political stability and the developed legislature for both of which it takes long time to change and develop. In other words, this parameter is very sensitive to a level of investor’s confidence to receive profits from their investments.
[9] 2. Social measurement of globalization (Igs) is the factor reflecting a degree of integration of the ordinary human being, his/her family, his/her life and work into the international public institutes. This measurement in both systems is estimated by such indicators, as intensity of personal contacts in banking, telecommunication and tourist fields with other countries, a level of international tourism’s development and a level at which man is interacted with mass media and telecommunications. In addition, KOF system takes into account the two following indicators: percentage of foreign citizens in the country and a level of international trade country.
[10] 3. Political measurement of globalization (Igp) reflects political weight and influence of any country allows estimating scale of expansion of political participation. In both systems the specified measurement is quantitatively estimated with use of such general indicators, as: membership of the country in the international organizations and its participation in specified missions of the United Nations Security Council. The amount of foreign embassies in the country is used in the KOF system as an indicator, while the amount of ratified international agreements is used in the CEIP system. A Swiss scholar Axel Drehel considers (see www.kof.ch/globalization/), that political globalization promotes the country’s development with the help of its influence on the world stage. The outcomes of political globalization are less significant than of economic and social globalization, but as a result they more global [Drehel, 2005].
The Analysis of changes of globalization process in years 2006—2007
[11] We are to measure the change in two consecutive years in 2006 for 58 countries in Table 1 and in 2007 for 60 countries in Table 2 with the use of economic, social and political indexes of globalization.
[12] 1. Change in economic index of globalization (Ige). Calculation of economic measurement of globalization for 2005-2006 demonstrates that by the KOF system Luxembourg was on the first place (not determined by the CEIP system), Hong Kong was on the second place (not determined by the CEIP system), Ireland resided on the third place (CEIP-3), Netherlands were on the fourth place (CEIP-6), finally Singapore was the fifth (CEIP-1). The United States resided only on 28 place (CEIP-52). Ukraine occupied the 82 place (CEIP-18) after Argentina and in front of Philippines. Russia occupied the 91 place (CEIP-43) after Albania and before Malawi.
[13] In the 2007 index of economic globalization Luxembourg remains on the first place (not determined by the CEIP system), Singapore has moved from the 5th to the 2nd place (CEIP-1), Ireland is 3rd (CEIP-4), Belgium has moved to the 4th place (not determined by the CEIP system), and finally Estonia moved up to 5th position. Ukraine place (CEIP-17) moved from 82nd to 75th place in front of the African republic of Ghana and after Russia place (CEIP-33). United States are on the 39th place place (CEIP-58) after Botswana and in front of Germany.
[14] Moreover, according to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace organization, the world’s newest economic frontier is BRIC. The acronym, that stands for Brazil-Russia-India-China. By this analysis in just 40 years BRIC economies could be larger than UK, France, Germany, Italy, United States and Japan put together in US dollar terms. Nevertheless, despite all their prominence about their future, today they score poorly on the Globalization Index, in large respect because they have massive populations that are still rural and are isolated from the global economy. Meanwhile,
Table 1. 58 most globalized countries in the world (2006)
Globalization index (Ig) Globalization index dimensions
Country KOF CEIP Economic(/ge) Social(/gS) Political(/gp) Gini Corruption
KOF CEIP KOF CEIP KOF CEIP Index perception
United States 1 4 28 52 1 17 1 31 40.81 7.5
Sweden 2 8 12 14 4 6 5 19 25.00 9.3
Canada 3 6 18 25 2 14 8 14 31.50 8.7
United Kingdom 4 12 27 32 12 11 2 10 35.97 8.7
Austria 6 9 10 13 13 7 12 7 30.50 8
France 7 18 17 28 22 19 3 6 32.74 6.9
Australia 8 13 38 35 3 20 36 25 35.19 8.8
Switzerland 9 3 7 12 9 1 33 23 33.13 8.8
Ireland 11 2 3 3 23 3 24 18 35.90 7.5
Singapore 12 1 5 1 7 5 65 30 42.48 9.4
New Zealand 13 11 13 33 5 12 59 20 36.17 9.5
Finland 14 10 8 20 11 10 34 9 25.60 9.7
Japan 15 28 44 57 8 25 27 15 24.85 7.0
Netherlands 17 5 4 6 18 8 44 8 32.60 8.9
Denmark 18 7 30 29 15 2 15 16 24.70 9.5
Norway 19 14 20 31 10 16 30 17 25.79 8.8
Germany 20 21 35 42 20 21 10 13 38.22 7.7
Israel 22 17 14 19 17 4 71 46 35.50 7
Spain 23 26 16 22 36 22 22 11 32.50 6.9
Czech Republic 24 15 32 11 31 9 28 35 25.40 3.9
Italy 25 27 62 47 35 23 9 6 36.03 5.3
Portugal 26 22 15 44 34 18 43 1 38.45 6.6
Hungary 27 23 26 6 33 30 32 22 24.44 4.8
South Korea 29 30 63 38 27 28 21 45 31.59 4.3
Malaysia 30 19 45 4 42 38 18 49 49.15 5.2
Poland 31 31 61 33 38 26 14 37 31.60 3.6
Greece 33 29 19 55 39 24 42 9 35.37 4.3
Chile 37 34 21 16 47 37 47 30 57.47 7.4
Russian Federation 39 52 91 46 67 43 4 36 45.62 2.7
Slovenia 40 20 40 17 30 13 70 23 28.41 5.9
Turkey 43 56 55 49 61 44 16 47 40.03 3.1
China 44 54 84 26 77 58 6 54 40.30 3.4
Egypt 45 59 74 56 80 47 11 59 34.41 3.3
Argentina 46 47 81 58 49 35 19 20 — 2.5
Slovak Republic 47 25 42 8 48 31 53 7 25.81 3.7
South Africa 48 48 52 48 71 45 29 28 59.33 4.4
Romania 49 35 64 25 54 32 31 27 30.25 2.8
Croatia 50 16 67 7 40 15 49 26 29.00 3.7
Pakistan 54 50 69 53 99 49 17 52 32.99 2.5
Brazil 56 57 71 57 58 46 41 44 60.66 3.9
Panama 58 24 36 3 46 44 93 34 48.50 3.4
Indonesia 59 60 66 50 96 57 26 48 30.33 1.9
India 62 61 104 59 95 50 13 60 37.83 2.8
Kenya 63 49 70 52 108 56 23 38 — 1.9
Ukraine 64 39 82 13 66 40 38 41 28.96 2.3
Peru 65 53 53 54 81 41 52 39 46.24 3.7
Iran 67 62 79 51 76 53 45 61 43.00 3
Mexico 68 42 65 41 59 36 61 31 51.86 3.6
Thailand 69 46 76 14 60 47 54 58 43.15 3.3
Sri Lanka 71 43 46 34 92 42 20 33 34.36 3.4
Venezuela 74 55 76 31 60 51 57 50 49.53 2.4
Nigeria 76 44 102 20 114 55 69 56 50.56 1.4
Philippines 80 32 83 28 73 27 55 42 46.09 2.5
Tunisia 82 37 94 23 82 39 48 40 41.66 4.9
Senegal 86 41 105 40 101 54 40 24 41.28 3.2
Bangladesh 89 58 107 61 107 48 35 53 31.79 1.3
Morocco 90 40 85 21 87 33 58 55 39.50 3.3
Uganda 92 33 43 39 109 34 99 14 37.36 2.2
Colombia 93 51 73 42 74 55 81 51 57.14 3.7
Botswana 95 38 49 30 90 52 112 12 63.01 5.7
Saudi Arabia 123 45 121 45 123 29 62 57 — 4.5
Table 2. 60 most globalized countries in the world (2007)
Globalization index (Ig) Globalization index dimensions
Country KOF CEIP Economic(1ge ) Social(1gs ) Political(1gp) Gini Corruption
KOF CEIP KOF CEIP KOF CEIP Index perception
Belgium 1 — 4 — 3 — 10 — 45.53 7.3
Austria 2 9 7 15 1 5 9 2 28.21 8.6
Sweden 3 10 8 19 6 9 7 9 25.28 9.2
United Kingdom 4 12 10 25 8 10 4 4 38.42 8.6
Netherlands 5 7 10 21 4 6 20 5 33.35 8.7
France 6 23 6 40 14 18 1 1 30.38 7.4
Canada 7 6 18 23 10 7 5 10 32.22 8.5
Switzerland 8 2 22 9 7 1 24 23 31.94 9.1
Finland 9 13 12 31 15 13 21 14 25.86 9.6
Czech Republic 10 16 13 5 11 12 31 35 22.45 4.8
Denmark 11 5 30 8 5 2 16 6 24.70 9.5
Ireland 12 4 3 4 24 4 45 7 36.38 7.4
Portugal 13 24 9 29 22 20 26 3 38.45 6.6
Spain 14 25 21 22 26 24 14 16 32.97 6.8
Germany 15 18 40 41 16 23 6 11 36.73 8.0
Singapore 16 1 2 1 2 3 76 29 42.48 9.4
Hungary 17 20 12 7 25 22 34 20 22.41 5.2
Australia 18 8 27 18 17 17 32 27 35.68 8.7
United States 19 3 39 58 23 19 2 41 41.65 7.3
Italy 20 27 24 50 30 26 8 8 38.75 4.9
Poland 21 33 37 30 28 29 15 25 30.72 3.7
Norway 22 14 42 39 13 16 38 18 25.79 8.8
Malaysia 23 19 35 3 36 21 27 48 51.04 5.0
Greece 24 32 36 56 37 27 30 12 35.55 4.4
New Zealand 26 11 23 35 31 8 56 24 35.79 9.6
Slovak Republic 27 26 43 6 21 34 54 19 22.32 4.7
Israel 29 15 19 20 20 11 92 40 39.22 5.9
Russia 31 47 76 33 39 45 3 36 49.00 2.5
Chile 32 34 15 10 58 40 44 30 58.25 7.3
Croatia 33 22 34 14 40 15 53 32 31.35 3.4
Slovenia 34 17 31 13 33 14 69 15 26.01 6.4
China 37 51 55 28 62 55 11 47 41.49 3.3
South Korea 38 29 62 32 53 28 23 33 35.51 5.1
Japan 40 28 67 62 54 31 18 13 22.72 7.6
Argentina 41 43 68 46 57 44 17 22 — 2.9
Turkey 44 57 52 47 72 51 19 51 34.99 3.8
Romania 45 30 54 11 63 33 29 28 27.01 3.1
South Africa 49 49 51 54 71 48 33 31 56.64 4.6
Ukraine 50 39 75 17 48 41 39 46 25.25 2.8
Brazil 54 52 60 45 86 50 22 44 66.91 3.3
Philippines 55 31 57 26 79 32 41 43 46.09 2.5
Panama 57 21 26 2 49 38 103 39 52.78 3.1
Peru 58 50 58 53 82 54 47 45 51.24 3.3
Thailand 59 45 66 16 78 46 49 57 39.23 3.6
Mexico 61 42 65 36 61 39 64 37 56.24 3.3
Latvia 62 — 25 — 38 — 105 — 26.37 4.7
Egypt 64 55 93 42 91 52 12 59 34.41 3.3
Venezuela 67 59 61 48 68 56 72 52 51.59 2.3
Saudi Arabia 68 44 115 43 34 35 78 56 — 3.3
Nigeria 69 48 78 34 108 57 25 38 40.90 2.2
Morocco 70 40 99 37 75 30 36 53 40.70 3.2
Pakistan 71 56 97 60 88 47 28 55 36.95 2.2
Columbia 72 54 56 51 66 37 85 54 54.05 3.9
Tunisia 73 37 73 27 100 36 46 42 44.21 4.6
Indonesia 78 60 82 52 96 59 37 50 26.35 2.4
India 82 61 105 59 95 58 13 60 33.32 3.3
Sri Lanka 83 46 87 38 81 42 59 58 37.39 3.1
Kenya 85 53 96 55 93 56 40 34 — 2.2
Senegal 88 41 103 49 89 53 43 21 39.99 3.3
Botswana 93 38 38 24 84 60 116 26 64.12 5.6
Uganda 96 36 72 44 99 43 81 17 32.64 2.7
Bangladesh 112 58 108 61 121 62 51 49 26.08 2.0
Iran 115 62 109 57 116 61 55 61 47.30 2.7
Russia’s income per capita is $3000 a year, the wealth of its billionaire’s accounts for 20% of its GDP what is ten times less in the United States. This is due to low level of globalization of Russia; because the globalized the country is the smaller the percentage of wealth of domestic billionaires that accounts for country’s GDP.
[15] While determining the globalization level for the main countries of our study we should also determine the rate at which Ukraine has been developing in the last 14 years and to compare it to two countries which have the greatest impact on it - United States and Russia.
[16] 2. Change in social index of globalization (Jgs). By the KOF system, the first five countries in 2006 in the world were: the US (CEIP-20), Canada (CEIP-17), Australia (CEIP-19), Sweden (CEIP-13) and New Zealand (CEIP-16). Ukraine resides on the 66 place (CEIP-38), which is before Belize and in front of Russia - 67 place (CEIP-42).
[17] First five places in 2007 were mounted by Austria (CEIP-5), Singapore (not determined by the CEIP system), Belgium (not determined by the CEIP system), Netherlands (CEIP-6) and Denmark (CEIP-2). This year Ukraine has improved it’s result by 18 places having occupied the 48th place (CEIP-41) after Jordan and in front of Panama, while Russia ended up on the 39th place (CEIP-45) in front of Latvia and after Croatia. United States are on 23rd place (CEIP-19) in front of Ireland and after Portugal.
[18] United States had the highest level of social globalization which has increased by 70% in the last 14 years, while Ukraine and Russia had been globalizing 7-8 times slower and this much faster than the countries at the bottom of the list. The social development in Ukraine during the period of our study has been critically low, and there have been almost no changes (Figure 1). This fact should be a serious warning for the Ukrainian policy makers, because of the possible increase of social tension and the public dissatisfaction.
[19] Unfortunately, Ukraine is considered to be the one of the main “anti-leaders” among all five threats and already for a long time it doesn’t seem to be attempting any significant actions to get rid of that status. The country is on 4th place in the world in the matter of illegal migration (4.2%). It is on the low position in freedom from corruption scale (2, 3 out of 10 Table 1). And Ukraine is included into 30 most unattractive countries of the world in the matter of money-laundering. The level of illegal use of intellectual property in Ukraine makes up 91% of all usage. On this parameter it is on the 4 place in the bottom of the list, conceding only to China - 95%, Russia and India - 93%. Finally the level of drug usage in Ukraine threateningly grows.
[20] 3. Change in political index of globalization (Igp). Apparently the five world leaders in this measurement are: USA - 1 place (CEIP-31), United Kingdom - 2 place (CEIP-10), France - 3 place (CEIP-6), Russia - the 4 place (CEIP-29) and Sweden - 5 place (CEIP-19). Ukraine is only on 38 place (CEIP-34) after Ghana, but in front of Uruguay.
[21] Meanwhile, the top five list of states in 2007 consists of France (CEIP-1), Unites States (CEIP-41), Russia (CEIP-36), United Kingdom (CEIP-6) and Canada (CEIP-10). Ukraine went down one position this year being 32nd
in the political globalization ranking (CEIP-46) after Kenia and in front of Norway.
[22] Russia, unlike Ukraine, has achieved a significant political integration into the world community. It is one of the most powerful political players in the world, despite of the weak economic and social parameters. This could be explained by Russia’s heritage of Soviet Union’s influence, its participation in the G-8, presence of powerful military potential and rich reserves of natural resources.
[23] Political globalization is also accompanied by various new threats. The largest and the most considerable is the spreading terrorism. But it is difficult to indicate a precise dependence between a level of political globalization and the level terrorism. On the other hand some data published on the Foreigh Policy portal (www.foreignpolicy.com), testifies, that more isolated countries, such as India, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Columbia, etc. are more vulnerable to various kinds of terrorist assaults.
[24] General index of globalization (Ig). Finally, having analysed the economic, social and political measurements of globalization, we can come to the general index of globalization (Table 1). As we can see, the United States are on the first place in KOF system (CEIP-4) due to its first position in social and political globalization. Sweden is on the second position (CEIP-8), Canada on the third (CEIP-6), United Kingdom on the fourth (CEIP-12) and Luxembourg is on the fifth (not determined by the CEIP system). Due to a rather high position of Russian Federation in political globalization, on the general index (Ig) it 39 place (CEIP-52), that first of all shows much more of Russian participation in foreign, rather than in domestic.
[25] Ukraine in KOF system is on 64 place (CEIP-39), behind Kenya and in front of Peru. Here we can see, that it has been globalizing almost in 2.4 times slower than the United States, and in 1.2 times - than Russia (Figure 1).
[26] In order for our study to be more solid we will analyze the phenomenon of globalization using both systems depending on their three measurements. 58 analyzed countries are presented in Table 1 for year 2006 and 60 countries are demonstrated in Table 2 for year 2007, as follows.
[27] We can see that in 2007 United States significantly went down in all three dimensions of globalization. Most of all this concerns social and economic globalization where the US are down by 22 and 11 positions comparing with 2006 respectively. On this basis the United States have moved down from the 1st place in 2006 to the 19th (CEIP - from 4th to 3rd) in 2007 in the general index of globalization. Meanwhile, Russia in the general index went up to the 31st place (CEIP-47) in front of Chile and after UAE, just like the US, both countries clearly concentrate more of their attention to the overseas issues rather than domestic. For United States, one of such issues is the overextended crisis in Iraq along with many other challenges of that character.
[28] Out of three countries of our study, Ukraine is third being on the 50th place in the general index (CEIP-39) in front of Uruguay and after South Africa. In that way, Ukraine has went up 14 positions since last year generally by reason of its improved results in economic and social globalization indexes. This witnesses the constant integration
6.00-
5.00
Economic globalization
4.00
3.00
2.00-
1.00
0.00
(a)
A /V __4
1 ■ ■ ■ 1 7 IV
. 1
♦i
7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00-
Social globalization
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
(b)
r-M ‘'V
1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007
•Ukraine
Russia
■United States
7.00
6.00
5.00 4.003.00
2.00 1.00
Political globalization
0.00
(c)
* 1 r ll f ' m ■
■ ■
8.00
7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00 1.00 0.00'
General globalization index
(d)
r \
N i
jH r-àr-i
I 1
r K*H 'v 1 1
r
r
1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008
•Ukraine
Russia
•United States
Ukraine
Russia
■ United States
Figure 1. The evolution of globalization index within its dimensions. (a) - Economic globalization, (b) - Social globalization, (c) - Political globalization and (d) - General globalization index.
of the country into the world’s society and vice versa, the projects and organizations is insignificant. The potential
advance in living standards and enrichment of its citizens. opportunities of Ukraine go far beyond its tangible achieve-
Unfortunately, due to a high level of political instability the ments. According to the new figures we see that Ukraine
upsurge of Ukraine’s weight on the world’s arena is almost in- globalizes 1.3 times slower than the United States and 1.1
appreciable and its contribution to a number of international times slower than Russia.
Conclusions
[29] As a result, we can see, that the level of integration of the US into the world economy for the last 14 years appeared to be very stable and varied in a range: Ig = (4.30-4.35), whereas Ukraine and Russia, being a transition economies, confidently developed from practically closed to liberal open economy while integrating into the rest of the world. The level of economic globalization of Russia for this period has increased by 310%, and Ukraine - on 640%. In the same period of time United States and Russia have demonstrated a strong position in political weight in the world, which is their heritage since the cold war times. Meanwhile, in social measurement of globalization during last 14 years Ukraine and Russia have showed a poor performance, nevertheless, both countries experienced a slight improvement in the courses of recent years with the first signs of stability and economic growth. United States, though, have always demonstrated significant level of social globalization but in recent years the
marginal rate of its social dimension has decreased due to considerable levels of inequality, corruption, threat of terrorism i.e. Finally, according to our study we are able to conclude that overall Ukraine and Russia, being a developing countries, demonstrate a more significant pace of globalization, while United States’ pace insensibly slows down along with a number of other advanced states.
References
Zgurovsky, A. (2007), Pros and Cons of Globalization,
National Technical University of Ukraine “Kyiv Politechnic Institute”, 16 pp., Polythekhnika, Kyiv.
Dreher, A. (2006), Does Globalization Affect Growth? Empirical Evidence from a new Index, Applied Economics, 38(10), 1091.
A. Zgurovsky, National Taras Shevchenko University of Kyiv, Ukraine, e-mail: sashz000@yahoo.com
