Globalization in General
1 Overall, Americans see globalization as somewhat more positive than negative and appear to be growing more familiar with the concept and more positive about it. A large majority favors moving with the process of globalization, and only a small minority favors resisting it. Americans view globalization as a process of the world becoming increasingly interconnected. It is seen not only as an economic process, but also as one in which values are becoming more oriented to a global context and international institutions are playing a more central role.
Overall, it appears Americans view globalization as having a mixture of positive and negative elements, with the positive elements just moderately outweighing the negative ones. Asked in the current PIPA poll to rate globalization using a scale with zero being completely negative, ten being completely positive and five being equally positive and negative, the average response was 6.04. A modest majority of 53% rated it above 5, while only 15% rated it below 5. Thirty percent rated it equally positive and negative.
This small majority of positive views reflects some improvement in attitudes about globalization from polls taken in the early 1990s. In 1993, a Market Strategies poll conducted for the Americans Talk Issues Foundation (ATIF) poll found that 41 percent believed globalization to be positive, unchanged from a Market Strategies poll in 1991. Just 14 and 9 percent, respectively, thought globalization to be negative, roughly the same level as today.
Americans also are becoming more familiar with the concept of globalization. In both ATIF polls, more than four in ten said they were not familiar enough with the idea to say how they felt about it or expressed no opinion. In the current PIPA poll, only 29% said they were not familiar with the concept.
Perhaps most significant, in the PIPA poll a strong majority of 61% thought the US government should either "actively promote" globalization (28%) or "allow it to continue" (33%). Only 26% favored trying to "slow it down," and just 9% favored trying to "stop or reverse it."
In the focus groups, there was a general consensus that the US had little choice but to embrace globalization. As one man in the Baltimore focus group said, "[We] can't stop it. If you stop it, if you try and withdraw from it, try and put up borders, try and hide from it, it's going to continue without you. Either you want to be in it and be on top of it or it'll become bigger than you are."
In the PIPA poll, those who wanted to stop or reverse globalization were asked whether they thought the government could do so. A plurality (49%) said it was not possible.
Early in the questionnaire, respondents were asked if they had heard the term "globalization." Seventy percent said they had. Respondents were asked to say what the word meant to them. In various ways, virtually all responses described globalization as a growing interconnectedness of the world. As one respondent said, "It means we've become a more global society, economically and politically, so decisions being made here affect other areas, and other governments' decisions affect us." Said another, "Whatever happens in one country affects all countries." People made similar connections in the focus groups. In Baltimore, one man called it "a big merging of everything & a single culture, a big openness; the Internet & instant communication."
The dimensions of this interconnectedness varied. Most commonly cited was the economic dimension. One poll respondent said, "It means we trade with everybody and everybody trades with us." Another said, "It means that in business everybody all over the world is connected monetarily."
However, this does not mean globalization was seen only, or even primarily, as an economic process. A bit more than half of survey respondents did not mention the economic dimension at all. A substantial number spoke in terms of values and norms. As one respondent said, globalization is "looking at things in terms of the world instead of a single country," while another said it is "all countries united, working for a better world." Others talked in terms of international institutions, for example, defining globalization as "the United Nations and their [sic] influence." In the Battle Creek focus group, one woman said she believed globalization meant "respect for others, not necessarily for changing them but for respecting them where they are & I think that somehow we're all one."
Even though most views of globalization were positive on balance, the focus groups did bring to light some concerns about the increasing interconnectedness of the world. Naturally there was concern about the threats to American jobs that come with the growth of international trade. In addition, some mentioned the faster spread of diseases, such as AIDS, while others brought up the possibility that outsiders may gain too much power in the US or that countries will lose their individual identities. Some participants bristled at the notion of global government. As one man in Battle Creek said, "Globalization as trade is good. Globalization as government is bad." (Source http://www.pipa.org/)
BACK