Globalization is a conception that includes uncertainty and paradox on its many dimensions from definition to analysis. On one hand, different definitions and analysis excluding other branches are brought up by specialists and scientists; on the other hand, some events that are asymmetric for each other take place in the context of globalization. This process causes some assertions that some specialists introduce globalization as a useful and beautiful thing; by the way, globalization is a main reason of thin line between existence and non-existence for some real lives. While there are some differences of comprehensions and meanings, some economic, cultural and technological factors attain great speed at global scale as a reality. The understanding of the state is one of the phenomenon to which this complexity reflects in the globalization process. In this respect, social policies are formed by the understanding of state in the context of globalization.
Key Words : Globalization – The State – Social Policy
JEL Classification : F02 – H50 – H59
1. The Problematic of Globalization
1.1. Ideological Dimension of Globalization
1.2. Cultural Dimension of Globalization
1.3. Economic Dimension of Globalization
2. Understanding of the State
3. Tends of Social Policy
Today, in the context of globalization,some new tends and conceptions take place in the field of economy, politics or culture. In this way, the understanding of the state also changes; new roles and functions of the state, especially on social policy, are talked about among scholars and politicians. In this respect, we aim to determine general tends of the view of the state and social policy. Firstly, we are reviewing the conception and the process of globalization. Secondly, we are determining tends of the state and society. Lastly, we are evaluating the conception and the practices of social policy.
1. THE PROBLEMATIC OF GLOBALIZATION
The appearance of globalization as a conception may be gone over to the conception of “global village” of Marshall Mcluhan in 1964 (Robertson, 1999: 22). Globalization is described as a phenomenon by many scholars or authors because it is arduous to explain reality of globalization from definition to analysis (Clark and Knowles, 2003: 362), (Sklair, 1999: 148), (Chase-Dunn, 1999: 189). In this way, many economic, politic, cultural, military events are considered in the context of globalization as disconnectedly each other. So globalization phenomenon that is on the basis of wide-scaled explanations and interpretations is an important problematic on core of an evaluation.
Globalization is a controversial conception because there is not agreement among scholars on the societal processes in the substance of globalization (Steger, 2006: 27). So there is a complexity deriving from attributing different meanings to same conception. Many different approaches understanding globalization as reason, consequence and solution route of economic and social problems are exposed (Demir, 2001: 74). There may be paradoxical assertions that are asymmetric for each other in these approaches.
In this respect of the complexity and paradox of globalization, it’s required to develop a definition that could be well-founded for every disciplines and included all societal processes that globalization covers as a meaning. In this base, those four definitions enlighten us to explain the economic, politic, social and cultural tends in all dimensions of globalization.
Table: Main Definitions of Globalization
Manfred B. Steger (2006: 31)
The multidimensional sets of societal processes that create, increase, spread and intensify the interdependency and exchange in the world scale.
Theodore Cohn (2003: 10)
The process that has two major aspects: The broadening and deepening of interactions and interdependence among societies and states throughout the world.
Terry Clark and Lynette L. Knowles (2003: 368)
The process by which economic, political, cultural, social, and other relevant systems of nations are integrating into World Systems.
The spread of economic and social relations by going beyond the borders of nation-states, the intensification of the links among countries and communities and the continual integration process.
In these definitions, the scholars emphasize the societal (holistic) processes that are on the basis of globalization. They don’t restrict the conception of globalization by one view of a social science branch and attract attention to the substantial processes of globalization. In this respect, it’s seen that globalization comprises four underside processes: “Spread worldwide”, “interdependency”, “intensification” and “integration”.
Thus globalization consists of the underside processes that have simultaneousness and complex connectivity in the fields of economy, politics, culture and technology. In this meaning, globalization has paradoxes and counter-forces. John Tomlinson introduces the conception of “complex connectivity” as main component of his proposition that is related to what globalization is, with multidimensionality (2004: 12). He proposes, by this conception, that local decision-making units (individuals, organizations, communities or societies) and their ideological, cultural, economic or political practices are linked each other by a complex network worldwide. In this respect, it’s useful to view globalization as a main process that has different dimensions.
1.1. Ideological Dimension of Globalization
The ideologies as intellectual substructure on the basis of globalization process are liberalism and capitalism. But the conception of neo-liberalism is used more frequently because of considering liberalism as in the world scale by multinational corporations, technological innovations on communication and transportation and international organizations (Cohn, 2003: 100). The conception of “globalism”, that is proposed by Michael Freeden and Manfred B. Steger, doesn’t have maturity as an ideology yet, but a study field is founded as ideology of globalization on the basis of globalism. Steger puts forward and analyse six core claims that found thought system of globalism (2005: 16-26):
Globalization is about the liberalization and global integration of markets,
Globalization is inevitable and irreversible,
Nobody is in charge of globalization,
Globalization benefits everyone (…in the long run),
Globalization furthers the spread of democracy in the world,
Globalization requires a global war on terror.
The claims of Steger point out the thoughts and events that depend on liberalism and capitalism worldwide. The claims related to globalism try to legitimate globalization and its underside processes and are oriented to create public opinion about legitimacy of globalization as every ideology has an aim at legitimacy and settling in minds. In this meaning, globalism constitutes a foundation for originating some value judgements that increase and strengthen the thoughts about globalization in publics.
1.2. Cultural Dimension of Globalization
Culture is another component of intellectual substructure of globalization like ideology, and culture is related to ideology. In cultural side, it’s required to make prototype individuals and/or societies adopting the thought of globalism for that globalization run continually and easily. It means creating a culture. In the cultural substructure, the values, traditions, customs, institutions and the other cultural components that describe life manner of the people are in interactivity with the cultures of other people in the globalization process. In this way, the culture of globalization comes out. This culture causes to originate an understanding that is compatible with globalism and globalization.
According to Roland Robertson, the modern world-system is directed basically by economic processes, but culture is not seen as a secondary fact; the economic face of the world is not understood correctly without guideline of culture (1999: 110-111). In terms of Marxism, culture is supra-structural institution that is created by relations of production. However, the way of relations between economy and culture is from culture to economy in the context of globalization, because, for example, for consuming a Coca-Cola and McDonalds, it’s required to have food culture based on Coca-Cola and McDonalds, or for operating Total Quality Management System, it’s required to have consciousness (a culture) about global competence. In the age of globalization (in other words, in the age of late capitalism), culture is prime guide of social, economic, politic, even psychological reality and post-modernism gets importance as a part of the culture of capitalism (Kumar, 1999: 139-140). By the way, there are some views that get in touch between globalization and modernism, before post-modernism.
Tomlinson states that globalization and modernism are in parallel historically, and complex connectivity is a consequence of the modernism (2004: 52). And Dogan puts forward that globalization depends on individualization and socialization processes of modernism (2000: 90). By the way, science and technology that are institutions of modernism form capitalist production process, and this fact may also be placed on the basis of globalization.
Post-modernism puts globalization into a form in the dimension of consumption. Post-modernism as a culture that explains the meanings of people’s lives, conveys the reflections of life manners to each other in the context of underside processes of globalization. In respect of this reflection, the hegemonic unit’s manner dominates the recessive unit’s manner, and the hegemonic unit is the Western culture generally. The West is formed by American-oriented culture in the age of globalization. While considering the fact that globalization frequently is described culturally as Americanization of the world (Friedman, 2000: 31), it’s seen that American life manner that is consumption-oriented is admitted by the people in any location of the world. George Ritzer, with his conception “McDonaldization of society”, emphasizes the consumption manner (or life manner) that gets globality. This cultural view is related to economy in fact.
1.3. Economic Dimension of Globalization
Though globalization is a comprehensive conception, when the word ‘globalization’ is heard for the first time some events in its economic dimension are thought as a priority in public. Some economic events are evaluated as main issues of globalization; like that a good may be consumed in many locations of the world, entrepreneurs make investment in many different countries, a person may invest in financial securities in any stock exchange of the world, foreign trade volume increases. And the events in other dimensions are excluded. The essential fact, on the basis of these economic events, is market system that liberalizes economic factors, like good, service, worker, entrepreneur, production technology, business methods, product standards, consumption manners, at global scale.
The conception of market economy was used by liberal authors for imagining an impartial view against the critiques on capitalism in 19th century. The capitalism arouse as a conception that was used for describing economic and social system in that period in socialist and/or Marxist literature. In this framework, the conception of capitalism didn’t arise as a theoretical system though the suffix ‘-ism’ (Jessua, 2005: 7-8). In this way, the conception of market economy is more functional than the conception of capitalism in the context of that globalization means local decision-making units are able to reach each other and economic assets worldwide. Nevertheless, the conception of capitalism is prioritized in some philosophical and ideological points.
Marx and Wallerstein put forward that capitalism is a global-scaled system in nature. Marx, with Engels, in the Communist Manifesto, emphasizes that capitalist thought and production process spread all over the world and are admitted in all localities (1997: 46). Besides Marx points out that capitalism is a widespread system that creates a market worldwide (Kazgan, 2000: 337). Immanuel Wallerstein also displays capitalist system as descriptive feature of modern world-system (2004: 46). It’s distinct that globalization runs on the basis of capitalism. And it’s not possible to say that another ideology or system, for example, socialism or conservatism, is able to explain the logic of globalization, especially the logic of spread worldwide and integration.
The economic subject who has capability to get globality easily and functionally is entrepreneur. This fact has two reasons with respect of global processes. Firstly, entrepreneurs can benefit from supranational regulations that support the entrepreneurs’ global status. For example, the World Trade Organization (WTO) undertook a mission for hindering the trade barriers; the World Bank (WB) undertook a mission for financing development projects that is going to be opened to multinational corporations and institutionalizing capitalist system in the Third World and the former socialist countries; the Multinational Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA) undertook a mission for assuring multinational corporations against economic and politic risks. In this framework, multinational entrepreneurs invest and trade at global scale by getting external guarantee. However, there is not an institutionalization that guarantees another economic subject’s global mobility, like workers or migrants.
The second reason of that entrepreneurs get globality easily is resemblance of the forms of production and consumption, and global strong demand. Investment and production in many local markets (in other words, in one global market) require global demand on the goods of related entrepreneur (or firm). It may not be required to found factories and trade networks for working in a local market. On the other hand, there is a production climate included the production devices, business methods and skilled workers for making founding a factory easy in target country.
To understand that globalization is a multidimensional process and depends on multidimensional interactivity of decision-making units would be useful for analysing international relations distinctly. In this point, the political dimension of globalization and the understanding of state, as core issue of this study, in the second part, are evaluated in the light of ideological, cultural and economic dimensions of globalization.
2. UNDERSTANDING OF THE STATE
The understanding of the state may be evaluated, after the main tend in the political dimension of globalization is exposed.
This main tend is weakening of nation-state. Zygmunt Bauman describes nation-state as an institution that combines three features; “economic controlling”, “political authority” and “cultural hegemony” and points out that the residual of nation-state is political authority that is not supported by economic controlling and cultural hegemony (2002: 61). Bauman is right on his proposition substantially, but political authority weakens in the face of some supranational organizations. The subordinating conjunction of the European Court of Human Rights is an example about this issue. But the fact that supranational organizations weaken the economic controlling of nation-states is observed more frequently. In this respect, especially the Peripheral and Semi-peripheral countries don’t found independently economic or social policies. In addition, another reason of the dependence in decision-making is the great source dependency. This weakness causes that multinational corporations increase the investment and trade capacity in these countries.
On the other hand, the Core countries may behave independently on economic controlling. There are two reasons in this point. Firstly, market economy is institutionalized in these countries and there is not an intervention to economy with the exception of crisis signs. Secondly, the Core countries conduct the supranational organizations because they have great macroeconomic power. Even Joseph Stiglitz stresses the American power in the supranational organizations and he calls the USA as “G1” (Group of One) because of its veto power at the IMF (2003: 10). The Core’s economic power causes that market economy (or capitalism) becomes a world-economy. In this respect, even if a world-economy is transformed to a world-empire, it’s possible to found hegemony in a world-economy, and hegemony may exist by great economic power (Wallerstein, 2004: 92). Another requirement of being an economic power is having enormous corporations.
As is understood, there is permeability between global political and economic events. While considering ideological and cultural values and organizations on backside of these events, the understanding of the state in the Peripheral and Semi-peripheral countries is analysed correctly.
The main line of understanding of the state depends on liberal principles and is formed substantially by individualism. James Putzel points out that globalization have two main discourses in this line: Firstly, the discourses of the international organizations (the WB, the IMF, and the WTO) who are promoting policies of economic liberalization, and secondly, the discourse “new individualism” Anthony Giddens put forward. Both discourses share a deep skepticism of the state. For them, the state must undertake the functions of fiscal austerity, privatization and market liberalization that are the three pillars of the Washington Consensus, and the state must develop individualism on the basis of universal human rights (Putzel, 2005: 6-7). A meaning founded by liberalism is placed to the state. This meaning globalizes, and the practices related to this meaning take place in the Third World and the former socialist countries.
The comprehension of liberalism about the state is with respect of the creating a state that would transform the principles of liberalism to the rules. An economist of orthodox liberalism, Adam Smith, proposed that the state must found a lawful system which includes economic freedom, private property rights and contracts as a function (Skousen, 2003: 35). Bernard Rosier, in this issue, criticizes liberal economists because they pretend not to see the history which denotes the fact that capitalism was not in peace without the alliance between merchants and princes, and hasn’t been developing without the support of the state. According to him, the state, for liberal order;
must secure the order against public rebellions that could arise because of unemployment and misery after crisis,
must provide many collective devices that are inevitable for industrial development,
must open, broaden and secure the markets worldwide in respect of colonization, trade agreement and protectionism (1994: 98).
Wallerstein also puts forward that capitalist system wouldn’t work without the state’s guarantee, in his theory of world-system. According to Wallerstein, the state undertook a regulative role in some issues that are related to the corporations acting in capitalist world-economy. He determines that the state could be “hegemonic state” in the condition which it has competence about some issues like property, degree of liberty, degrees and kinds of monopolization, acts of multinational corporations (2004: 76-78). However, the fact of hegemonic state of Wallerstein is not seen possible for the Semi-peripheral countries. The interdependency process and the supranational organizations’ effect demolish validity of the principle of hegemonic state for the Semi-peripheral countries.
The connectivity of individuals, corporations, states and societies in the context of globalization can be explained within the Interdependence Theory that was founded in the perspective of liberalism. In the discourse of this theory that was founded by the social scientists like Richard Cooper, Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye, there is economic and political interdependency between nations in global sphere. Nations responses, by various forms, to the challenge of interdependency that weakens their ability to decide: They may be passive, exploitative, defensive, aggressive or constructive. The constructive behaviours of the states require joint policies and cooperation as a consequence of globalization. International political economy is managed by the institutions in the context of join and cooperation. These institutions are “international regime” and “international organizations” (Cohn, 2003: 100-102).
International regime is defined as a set of principles, norms, rules and decision-making procedures related to convergence between nations in various spheres. Principles and norms, on that regime depend, are transformed to rules and applied to decision-making procedures by international organizations. For example, the principle of liberalization on trade, by the WTO, is transformed to the rules that outlaw import quotas and decrease tariff barriers and applied to the decision-making procedures such as multilateral trade negotiations (Cohn, 2003: 105).
International regime and international organizations are the fundamental factors of globalization in the context of the Interdependence Theory. So it should be to recognize that globalization is managed not by “invisible hand” of orthodox liberalism, but by “visible hand” of the international organizations. The international organizations are evaluated as “supranational” because of the fact that the visible hand breaks the competence of nation-states in decision-making processes.
Founding an order depending on liberalism worldwide via the supranational organizations causes integration, with other words, homogenization. However, in every country, liberalism and capitalism may not cause same outcomes like in the Core (or the West) countries.
While liberalism-capitalism had taken centuries to establish in Europe, the policies towards open economy with the name “structural adjustment” weakened the states in Africa as from 1980s. There have been expanding the circle of underdevelopment and anti-democratic structure. Sub-national and non-state actors access to international markets, enabling both the sale of resources (including narcotics and diamonds) and the purchase of commodities (including weapons), as well as avenues to spirit profits away to banks in European and North American cities hungry for deposits. This created a perverse and vicious cycle: Falling state revenues, leading to increasing ineffectiveness of authority, allowing expanded smuggling, leading to further declines in revenue. With markets overwhelmingly stronger than states, the international organizations’ advice to state leaders about strengthening the regulatory functions of the state seems either disingenuous or entirely naive (Putzel, 2005: 10).
Similar events are experienced in the former socialist countries. Public had deprived of social protection of the state in parallel of transition to capitalism. Private property is seen as plundering former collective property, and private entrepreneurship is seen as barbarity on public, via the financial support of the state (Kagarlitski, 1996: 86-94). Most of these countries accepted the principles and rules of liberalism as member of the WTO; however, they can not escape the spiral of depriving of competitive strength because they have not similar level of industrialization with in the Core countries that are leaders of globalization. It’s advised to integrate to capitalist world-economy and liberalization policies for the former socialist countries (Broadman, 2005: 121-151), and this advice strengthens the multinational corporations’ strategies.
Multinational corporations are described as transnational as from 1970s, especially after the Washington Consensus as from 1980s in parallel of globalization’s acceleration. According to Rosier, transnationalization has two meaning: On one hand, national economies broaden the flows of good, service, capital, person and information to trans-border areas, and economies are opened uniquely in history. On the other hand, the logic of capital accumulation become trans-border for linking to the world markets, and the strategies of enormous corporations become world-scaled strategies (Rosier, 1994: 103). Cohn also explains transnational corporations as a main factor that describes the face of globalization, and he emphasizes these corporations get transnationality as they can decide globally without depending on any location, included their root country (2003: 321).
Transnational corporations cause that liberalism and capitalism is considered worldwide with their functions of spatial spread and logical spread. In this respect, their capacity is great to affect nation-states. However, this capacity is entirely outcome of rationalism because the most important thing related to these corporations is whether the facilities of production and consumption in any location maintain productivity and profitability. Transnational corporations look at globalization as a homo oeconomicus and the meaning of globalization is related to economic goals for them. They see national culture and nation-state with an instrumentalist view.
As an example, there is a case called “Cargill Law” in Turkey. The American multinational firm “Cargill” built a factory on agricultural land, though constructing an industrial building on agricultural land is prohibited with the law. So there has been a trial against the Cargill. Then the president of the USA wanted the Turkish government to remove the discord with respect of the Cargill, and the Turkish government held the “Cargill Law” in favour of the Cargill (TMMOB, retrieved December 15, 2007). In another example, there has been a 15-day strike in the Turkish multinational firm “Sise-Cam” that works in Bulgaria. When he visited Bulgaria, the prime minister of Turkey wanted the minister of Energy and Economy of Bulgaria to prevent the strike and other transaction costs (Yılmaz, retrieved March 29, 2008). As seen in these examples, politics has secondary importance for transnational corporations; the meaning of globalization is that there are not restrictive factors against the capability of investing worldwide. In this point, the states’ existence is used as a substructure factor of arising global corporations, and the phenomenon of “hegemonic state” is questionable.
While the understanding of the state takes shape in the line of liberalism in the context of globalization, the states prefer the actors of market on economic and social policies.
3. TENDS OF SOCIAL POLICY
Today there is the world order that the holistic meaning of the conception of social policy weakens in the context of globalization. The superiority of the principle of individualism against the principle of sociality pushes the conception of social policy to out of agenda on the logic of market system at global scale. In this point, culture is descriptive on social policy as understanding towards human being and his values.
Cultural hegemony that Bauman states as a pillar of nation-state weakens in the context of post-modernism. Individualism taking root damages the socialist (holistic) culture especially in the Eastern world by the effect of post-modernism. On the basis of logic of market originated from the West, individuals put consumerism into the focus of their life as a priority and they alienate even their own society. In this respect, the conception of welfare is compressed in the field of economy by being described as meeting the priorities (O’Neill, 2001: 63), and there is economism within the fact that economic goals and acts damage social values (Fine and Rose, 2005: 190). However, a social policy that covers the holistic meaning of welfare is needed more because of globalization.
There are four tends with respect of the social policy in the context of the conceptions “globalization”, “post-modernism”, “risk society” and the processes related to these conceptions: These tends are viewed on the basis of the conceptions of “capability deprived”, “alienation”, “insecurity” and “social exclusion”.
Capability Deprived – This conception forms the base of Amartya Sen’s poverty theory. Sen puts forward that it’s required to consider what people can do or not and what they can become or not, for understanding the poverty, as opposed to the traditional views that define poverty as not having enough revenue for least needs of a general life. Sen defines poverty as depriving of substantive capabilities. In this respect, it’s required to explain how the relation between revenue level and capabilities is. This relation is affected by age of person, sexuality, social roles, location of residence, epidemiological atmosphere and the other factors that person can’t control or can control partly. These factors describe person’s capability to get revenue and transforming revenue to capabilities (Yuncu, 2005: 5-6).
Alienation – The conception of alienation, in general, is defined as that a person can’t integrate to himself, can’t comprehend the world, can’t perceive a state of belonging to any social organism and being away from environment. The philosophers like Marx, Weber, Veblen were evaluated alienation as a socioeconomic problem that arises in capitalist production process (Durcan, 2007: 2-13). Alienation was deepened because of the fact that capitalist production process widened at global scale in the context of globalization. In addition, alienation is experienced in consumption process. Individuals see themselves as not a free and conscious subject, as an object in the system of needs that is created by the system of production in respect of consumerism that is determined by post-modernism (Baudrillard, 1997: 82-83). Thus absence of personal meaning, namely feeling that the life doesn’t give anything is worth spending time, becomes most psychic problem in the society (Lodziak, 2003: 63).
Insecurity – Security is a need that is related to the individuals, organizations and societies which have physical, intellectual and spiritual energy in order to be able to maintain all actions in peace. In this respect, it’s clear that the social and economic processes which are not democratic, productive and fair cause insecurity. Today security is, on one hand, socioeconomic as with respect of maintaining production, exchange and consumption in peace; on the other hand, socio-cultural as related to national and global relations which values are not in conflict.
The theories that the sociologists like Ulrich Beck, Anthony Giddens proposed in respect of the fact of “risk society” enlighten us on the issue of security. Beck states that every society or individual experiences fear and insecurity, as a consequence of modernization, by facing to risks and threats in every dimension of life (1989: 86-89). Beck also determines that risks spread because of globalization especially on the basis of terror (2002: 46). Giddens evaluates the conception of risk society with the differentiation of “manufactured risks” and “natural risks” (Giddens and Pierson, 2001: 223). Manufactured risks are sampled with science-technology, terror, political actions, fundamentalism, psychological illnesses etc. Natural risks can be explained with the examples like hurricanes, floods, epidemic illnesses, earthquake and confusing seasons. On this base, Francis Fukuyama differentiates the societies as “low secured societies” and “high secured societies” (2000: 9).
Social Exclusion – The conceptions of “social exclusion” and “social inclusion” are used in order to describe and analyse equality in new social order in the context of globalization (Giddens, 2000: 116). Social exclusion has two reasons. First reason is economic. Social classification based on the production and consumption processes is a reason of social exclusion. Poverty is admitted substantially as another reason, too (Altay, 2007: 349). The cultural reason of social exclusion is disrespectful actions towards cultural diversity by causing antidemocratic processes in the context of cosmopolitanism of globalization. On the other hand, social inclusion is provided by an organization or classification, but these events may be a social exclusion. For example, the people that have similar consumption manner may come together in local or global sphere; this event may point out that these people socialize one by one. However, this process may mean that the other people which have different consumption manner are excluded.
The goals of a social policy may be described in respect of these social problems arising in parallel of tend of individualization:
Providing economic talents for individuals in order to develop their capabilities,
Preventing alienation in production and consumption processes,
Securing individuals and society against risks and threats,
Preventing social exclusion.
By the way, Silja Hausermann puts forward four goals of contemporary social policy reforms (2006: 7): (1) increasing labour-market participation; (2) gender equality and individualization; (3) poverty alleviation and (4) cost containment. These goals are on especially economic side of the social problematic. Jose Adelantado and E. Calderon Cuevas also bring forward especially economic dimension of social policy in the context of globalization. They propose that public expenditure and social protection expenditure are compressed by globalization and the growth of income inequality and the risk of poverty occur as the consequences of the weakening of the welfare states’ ability to redistribute income (2006: 374-375). In this way, the conception of welfare denotes only economic meanings, like fiscal austerity of the state, getting a job, employment of female labour. These goals are important, but sociality is more comprehensive fact that requires the attention on sociological, psychological and even anthropological dimensions.
Decision-making units of social policy arise with the exception of social state as a reflection of the main tends in the context of the understanding of the state in the age of globalization. The state adopted the principles of liberalism and determined policies according to this ideology, and constitutes rules towards realising aims of social policy in market system, like of economic policy. In this way, lawful and organizational regulations are made. For example, market actors’ actions are made lawful in respect of private retirement systems, private care houses, private health firms, private security firms and private education firms, and these actions spread rapidly. These firms may be become global-scaled firms by rational-global strategies. Especially the retirement firms make financial investments with accumulated funds worldwide. Even these firms are founded in the fields that are related to social needs; they behave as homo oeconomicus and don’t give up the pure economic motives like capital accumulation and profit. As Adam Smith said for butchers and bakers, the needs of society are met because capitalists pursue their own benefits (Bugra, 1999: 94).
The four social needs are distinct, even the states don’t determine them with a social policy. Another decision-making unit is socio-cultural organizations with the exception of market mechanism. These organizations hinging on culture of solidarity are more important in the Eastern societies than in the Western societies. But in the West, socio-cultural organizations originated with modernization and globalization as the organizations of civil society (Giddens, 2000: 83). Especially religious organizations have an effective role on meeting the social needs. This social mechanism is frequently used in the countries that religious culture is carried onto political sphere. For example, in Turkey, the religious associations and foundations undertake some functions instead of the social state by being supported with the law of income tax. And then the right-side parties are continually elected. On the other hand, religious organizations found trans-border solidarity forms by creating transnational networks, this is important in respect of social policy as dimension of globalization (Putzel, 2005: 12).
The meaning of globalization should be determined especially by nations or nation-states, not only by supra-national organizations or transnational corporations. The social policies should be founded independently by considering local socioeconomic and socio-cultural values. These policies must be included the equality between individuality and sociality, as Stiglitz states that these policies must be between socialism and laissez-faire as a third-way by comprising the principles of “partnerships and complementarities between government and the private sector”, “social justice and democratic processes” and “improving the public sector” (2003: 9-11). And the social policies must be based on the approach of preventive (positive) security of Giddens (2000: 129-132).
Broadman, Harry G., (ed.), (2005), From Disintegration To Reintegration, Washington: The World Bank.
Buğra, Ayşe, (1999), İktisatçılar ve İnsanlar, İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
Cohn, Theodore H., (2003), Global Political Economy: Theory and Practice, USA: Addison Wesley Longman.
Doğan, İsmail, (2000), Sosyoloji, İstanbul: Sistem Yayıncılık.
Durcan, Nergis Melis, (2007), Yabancılaşmanın İnsan Kaynakları Yönetimi Açısından İncelenmesi, (Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi), İzmir: Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
Fine, Ben and Rose, Pauline, (2005), “Education and the Post-Washington Consensus”, (in: B. Fine, C. Lapavitsas and J. Pincus - eds.), Development Policy in Twenty-First Century, Taylor&Francis E-Library.
Fukuyama, Francis, (2000), Güven: Sosyal Erdemler ve Refahın Yaratılması, Çeviren: Ahmet Buğdaycı, İstanbul: Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları.
Giddens, Anthony ve Pierson, Christopher, (2001), Modernliği Anlamlandırmak, Çevirenler: Serhat Uyurkulak ve Murat Sağlam, İstanbul: Alfa Yayınları.
Giddens, Anthony, (2000), Üçüncü Yol: Sosyal Demokrasinin Yeniden Dirilişi, Çeviren: Mehmet Özay, İstanbul: Birey Yayıncılık.
Beck, Ulrich, (1989), “On the Way to the Industrial Risk-Society? Outline of An Argument”, Thesis Eleven, No.23, pp.86-103.
Beck, Ulrich, (2002), “The Terrorist Threat: World Risk Society Revisited”, Theory, Culture and Society, Vol.19, No.4, pp. 39–55
Chase-Dunn, Christopher, (1999), “Globalization: A World-Systems Perspective”, Journal of World-Systems Research, Vol.2, Summer 1999, pp.187-215.
Clark, Terry and Knowles, Lynette, (2003), “Global Myopia: Globalization Theory in International Business”, Journal of International Management, Vol.9, pp.361-372.
Demir, Gülten, (2001), “Küreselleşme Üzerine”, Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, Cilt.56, Sayı.1, ss.73-104.
Hausermann, Silja, (2006), “Changing Coalitions in Social Policy Reforms: The Politics of New Social Needs and Demands”, Journal of European Social Policy, Vol.16, No.1, pp.5-21.
Putzel, James, (2005), “Globalization, Liberalization, and Prospects for the State”, International Political Science Review, Vol.26, No.1, pp.5–16.
Sklair, Leslie, (1999), “Competing Conceptions Of Globalization”, Journal of World-Systems Research, Vol.2, Summer 1999, pp.143-163.
Steger, Manfred, (2005), “Ideologies of Globalization”, Journal of Political Ideologies, Vol.10, No.1, pp.11-30.
Stiglitz, Joseph, (2003), “Globalization and the Economic Role of the State in the New Millenium”, Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol.12, No.1, pp.3-26.
Yuncu, L. Demet, (2005), “İki Yoksulluk Karşılaştırması: A.Sen’in Yapabilirlikten Yoksunluk Teorisi ve Toplumsal Dışlanma Çerçevesinin Karşılaştırılması”, Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Sosyal Politika Forumu, İstanbul.
TMMOB, The Federation of the Chambers of Turkish Engineers and Architects, (2007), http://tmmob.org.tr/modules.php?op=modload&name=news&file=article&sid=2877, Retrieved December 15, 2007