![]() ![]() Globalization stimulates the economic growth of towns and implicitly of interdependences among them, which means that supra-national links become stronger than the national ones. Therefore globalizing processes have to stop before the threshold (economic, cultural or political) wherefrom globalization generates localisation. Indigenising currents are the arbiter of the rural, of the traditional and of autarchy, while the globalizing stream represents the urban and especially cosmopolitan towns. ![]() ![]() Thus, the argument of heterogeneity is increasingly opposing the globalizing stream, cultural identities inducing indigenising currents that stand up against the globalizing stream. ![]() At the same time, the tendency of autochthonous traditional elements to enter the globalizing stream is ever so obvious. Services, political-administrative and financial-banking activities tend to be discharged inside town, production units being pushed to the outside, hence suburbanisation and urbanisation of the rural environment.įrom a cultural viewpoint, the boundary between heterogeneity imposed by the autochthonous substrate and cultural heterogeneity, which is the outcome of globalizing fluxes, is one of the most controversial issues in interpreting the ever more frequent cultural interactions. On the other hand, globalizing fluxes bring about complex changes in the urban structure and in physiognomy as well, that is greater ethnical and social diversity which results in the segregations of the urban space – of its texture and the quality of the built-up stock, also of services, and of the cultural landscape, ending up in the creation of cosmopolitan towns. The importance of national capitals tends to be overcome by metropolises which discharge international functions and host the headquartes of profile institutions and organisations. As a result, towns have actually become cores of polarisation of these fluxes. Moreover, the multilateral connextions among economic, cultural and political globalization reduced the state’s political power and control instruments.Īgainst this background, the proliferation of regional, international and transnational actors, of government and non-government organisations and institutions has increased the number and volume of global interactions (economic, political, technological, legislative, communication, etc.), of permeability and at the same time diminished the state’s capacity to produce the political tools capable to maintain a good management of globalizing fluxes. The development of transnational companies and organisations has eroded the distinctions between domestic and foreign business, between local and regional economies, on the one hand, and the global economy, on the other, a situation favouring multilateral negotiations regarding the processes of integration. Instead of the assertion of national states, characteristic of the early 20th century, what we are witnessing now is the emergence of a denationalisation trend, the establishment of a system of global governance, capable to sustain and redefine the power of states, and of a global interdependent system very vulnerable to resources, technologies, as well as ethnicity, culture, religion, etc. The collapse of the communist political system and of the bipolar world order has created the premises of generalised economic, political-ideological or cultural globalizing connextions, a phenomenon associated with the proliferations of the increasingly more powerful transnational companies and supra-national organizations. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |