Abstract
The chapter is devoted to the main globalization indices proposed to date: in particular those—the great majority—which use the nation-state as their unit of analysis. In this regard, one cannot but point out a paradox reiterated throughout the book: on the one hand, one of the distinctive features of globalization consists in the existence of processes and dynamics that unfold regardless of national borders, thereby gainsaying so-called ‘methodological nationalism’; on the other hand, this same phenomenon is nevertheless usually measured in terms of the nation-state, thereby assuming the perspective of methodological nationalism that is deemed necessary to discard. The chapter pays closest attention to the globalization indices which furnish a multidimensional reading of the phenomenon, thus fully recognizing one of its characteristic features. However, the chapter also makes brief mention of instruments which have measured globalization by considering only one of its dimensions—often, but not always, the economic dimension.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
The version published in 2007 is substantially identical to the ones of 2005 and 2006, with only minor differences in the definitions given to three of the indicators used. Until 2005, by contrast, the number and type of indicators used were often modified from one year to the next.
- 2.
The authors of the index acknowledge that these dimensions capture only some aspects of globalization, and that it would be appropriate to include cultural exchanges as well. They say this is not done, however, because of the lack of reliable data on this dimension (Foreign Policy 2003; p. 63).
- 3.
That is, the maximum value on the basis of which the normalization is performed varies from year to year for each indicator. Previously, only one maximum value (and the minimum value, now not considered) was used for normalization and corresponded to the highest (and the lowest) of all those recorded for the indicator since 1998.
- 4.
The problem is that, for each indicator, the maximum value from year to year may refer to different countries. Yet information on how this ‘scale factor’ is calculated has not been published. Is a reference country taken as the benchmark, or is recalculation made of all the ‘scale factors’ on the basis of the country which, at that particular moment in time, records the highest value for that particular indicator? It is also important to note that, because this procedure is subsequent to normalization on the scale 0–1, it may unduly increase the effective weights in the overall index of the factors for which substantial growth has been recorded in recent years, for example those relative to the technological dimension. Indeed, the United States is given high rankings by the A.T. Kearney/Foreign Policy Magazine Globalization Index precisely because of its good performance on the technological dimension (year of reference 2005), although the latter nominally accounts for just 10% of the overall value of the index.
- 5.
The indicators used in previous versions of the A.T. Kearney/Foreign Policy Magazine Globalization Index, grouped according to the latter’s dimensions, were the following. 2001 Edition: convergence of domestic prices with international prices, international trade as a share of GDP (goods and services); inward- and outward-directed foreign investment, portfolio capital flows, income payments and receipts as shares of GDP (finance); cross-border remittances and other transfers as a share of GDP, minutes of international phone calls per capita, number of international travellers per capita (personal contact); percentage of population online, number of Internet hosts per capita, number of secure servers per capita (technology). 2002 and 2003 Editions: international trade, foreign direct investment and portfolio capital flows, income payments and receipts as shares of GDP (economic integration); international travel and tourism, international telephone traffic, cross-border transfers (personal contact); number of Internet users, Internet hosts, secure servers (technology); number of memberships in international organizations, U.N. Security Council missions in which each country participates, foreign embassies that each country hosts (political engagement). 2004 Edition: international trade, foreign direct investment, portfolio capital flows, investment income (economic integration), number of Internet users, Internet hosts, secure servers (technology); international travel and tourism, international telephone traffic, remittances, and personal transfers (personal contact); memberships in international organizations, personnel and financial contribution to U.N. Security Council missions, international treaties ratified, governmental transfers (political engagement).
- 6.
In reporting the results of the A.T. Kearney/Foreign Policy Magazine Globalization Index, like those of all the other indices presented in this chapter, I show the classification of countries but not the scores obtained. This is both because the datum relative to the score is not always available and because, in the texts to which reference is made, it seems that the data are interpreted predominantly on the basis of the relative positions of states.
- 7.
Where the figure for such a long time interval is available. If the interval considered for the normalization is not specified, one may presume that it is the maximum interval for which the figure is available, or else the authors may have resorted to an estimate.
- 8.
Using the well-known formula: normalized value = (observed value – minimum value)/(maximum value – minimum value).
- 9.
As the authors themselves acknowledge, “panel normalisation has both advantages and disadvantages. The advantage is that with panel-normalized data, we can make meaningful comparison over time for a given country or indeed between countries. A disadvantage, discussed in detail in Lockwood (2004), is that when additional years of data are added to the database, the maximum or minimum value of a variable may change, and those variables affected then have to be re-normalised”. This problem can be solved by fixing, on the basis of past observations and predictions for the future, minimum and maximum invariable thresholds. However, in its turn, this solution has the drawback of identifying a situation of maximum possible globalization, which seems to conflict with the profoundly dynamic nature of a process whose future outcomes at present seem difficult to predict in full.
- 10.
For technical details on this procedure see Lockwood and Redoano (2005).
- 11.
When the CSGR Globalisation Index was published for the first time, the most recent data on which its calculation was based were relative to 2001.
- 12.
Because the normalization was not recalculated on the 0–1 scale on the basis of the new maximum values, some indicators—and consequently the globalization index and the relative sub-indices for some countries—were greater than 1. For this reason, a note posted online on 6 July 2006 (www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/csgr/index/update) stated that a new normalization on a 0–1 scale had been performed on the value of the overall index and on the values of the three sub-indexes. Consequently, two separate normalization operations were performed: the first on the indicators, the second on the index and on the sub-indexes. It would perhaps have been more reasonable to maintain the initial procedure—there is no justification for the fact that this has been changed—and update the values of the indicators used to perform the normalization. Moreover, the overlap between these two different normalization processes makes the data published on the CSGR website, and on which the index is calculated, less comprehensible (and therefore less verifiable). For example, because the normalization is performed separately on the overall index and on the sub-indexes, the value of the former is not equal to the average of the values of the latter. Added to this is the fact that the CSGR researchers have not published the raw data on which the index is based, but instead the data already normalized from 0 to 1. The assumption that the calculations have been correctly performed therefore requires an act of faith in the work of the researchers who have developed the CSGR Globalisation Index.
- 13.
For technical details on this regression see Lockwood and Redoano (2005).
- 14.
As stated in one of the previous notes, the aggregation of the sub-indexes into the overall index comes about before they are normalized on a scale from 0 to 1.
- 15.
When possible, the missing data are estimated by means of a linear interpolation procedure.
- 16.
In the first version of the index, the normalization was performed by considering the minimum and maximum values recorded in the reference year.
- 17.
It certainly comes as no surprise to find that, when globalization is interpreted in terms of the world’s Americanization, the United States is the most globalized country on the planet.
- 18.
In particular, the version of the index published in 2005 included among its indicators “telephone average cost of call to US”, an indicator no longer present in the 2008 and 2010 versions. Moreover, the cultural sub-dimension of globalization was entirely represented by the “number of McDonald’s restaurants (per capita)”. This last indicator remains in the 2010 version of the index, but it is flanked by two further indicators: “the number of IKEA shops (per capita)” and the “trade in books (percent of GDP)”.
- 19.
Unlike the CSGR Globalisation Index, the KOF Index of Globalization does not publish technical details on the procedure followed.
- 20.
In the first version of the index, the weights were calculated solely with reference to the data for the most recent year.
- 21.
Other works, besides those already cited, describing the Maastricht Globalisation Index and the method progressively defined to calculate it, are Martens and Zywietz (2006), Dreher et al. (2008, 2009), Martens and Raza (2008). To be noted is that, although Pim Martens has collaborated in analysis of the measurement of globalization with Axel Dreher, author of the KOF Index of Globalization described in the previous section, the instruments proposed by the two authors are nevertheless different.
- 22.
Instead not considered is the surface area of the country, which is included in the correction factor used for the CSGR Globalisation Index, on the grounds that statistical comparisons show that it has negligible influence on the normalized values of the indicators (Martens and Raza 2009).
- 23.
The attribution of equal weights to both the indicators and the dimensions of the overall index is just as stipulative as the techniques used to construct the instruments described in the previous sections.
- 24.
Moreover, this difference with respect to the previous versions is not expressly mentioned by the authors and, therefore, not explained. The doubt therefore persists as to whether or not changes have been effectively made in this phase of constructing the index.
- 25.
In cases where the maximum value of an indicator corresponds to a minimum level of globalization, the formula becomes: normalized value = (maximum value – observed value)/(maximum value – minimum value) * 10.
- 26.
Further information on the GlobalIndex and its database is available at www.transeurope-project.org/globalindex.
- 27.
For example, commercial flows between two neighboring countries, perhaps both belonging to the European Union, are probably an indicator of regionalization rather than globalization. As said, we shall return to this topic in the next chapter.
- 28.
Unlike in the case of the CSGR Globalisation Index, therefore, these two variables are used alternatively and not simultaneously to determine the correction factor. Moreover, not considered is whether or not the country is landlocked, contrary to what happens in the CSGR Globalisation Index.
- 29.
The NGI has been calculated for 70 countries over the period 1995–2005.
- 30.
The Ernst & Young/EIU Globalization Index considers 60 countries, particularly those characterized by the highest GDP values.
- 31.
In a paper which draws on a previous work by Heshmati (2003).
- 32.
In its first editions, this instrument took the name of the LAGI—Latin America Globalization Index.
- 33.
A further study to be mentioned is that by Al-Rodhan et al. (2006), which proposes a survey scheme—consisting of a series of questions to be submitted to experts—intended to obtain, not a measurement of the level of globalization, but rather an accurate description of the impact on a local, regional and global scale of the reactions by countries to certain specific challenges. The description develops along the political, economic, societal, military, and environmental dimensions.
- 34.
The database can be consulted, upon subscription, at www.oecd.org. See also the books on the topic published by OECD (2005a, b, 2010a, b).
- 35.
Germany’s exclusion is due to the fact that data prior to the country’s unification were not comparable with those subsequent to it.
- 36.
The value of this indicator is subtracted from 1 so as to obtain a variable whose value increases with the level of globalization.
- 37.
On conclusion of this process, the variables treated have an arithmetic mean equal to 0 and a standard deviation equal to 1.
- 38.
Hence, whilst in the case of print media goods both imports and exports are considered, in that of films only imports are considered. The authors justify this choice by stating that it is the exposure of people to foreign ideas and values that constitutes the essence of cultural globalization. And the level of such exposure depends on the cultural products that a country imports, not on those that it exports. However, if this principle holds, one fails to understood why also exports are considered in the case of print media goods.
- 39.
For example, Iceland occupies first place in the classification of countries with respect to the indicator given by the number of films imported per capita, and fourteenth place with respect to the indicator relative to prints media goods. The score that determines Iceland’s position with respect to the overall Cultural Globalization Index is therefore given by (1 +14)/2 = 7.5. In this case, the lower the score, the higher the level of cultural globalization.
References
Agénor, P. R. (2004). Does globalization hurt the poor? International Economics and Economic Policy, 1, 21–51.
Al-Rodhan, N., Stoudmann, G., & Herd, G. (2006). Proposal for a Globalization Matrix: Quantifying Impacts & Responses. GCSP Geneva Centre for Security Policy, June, 19, 1–23.
Andersen, T. M., & Herbertsson, T. T. (2003). Measuring globalization. IZA Discussion Paper Series, 817, 1–18.
Bhandari, A. K., & Heshmati, A. (2005). Measurement of globalization and its variations among countries, Regions and over time. IZA Discussion Paper Series, 1578, 1–47.
Dreher, A. (2002). Does globalization affect growth? Evidence from a new index of globalization, first version. ETH: Swiss Federal Institute of Technology.
Dreher, A. (2005). Does globalization affect growth? Evidence from a new index of globalization. Zurich: KOF, ETH. July version.
Dreher, A. (2006). Does globalization affect growth? Evidence from a new index of globalization. Applied Economies, 38(10), 1091–1110.
Dreher, A., Gaston, N., & Martens, P. (2008). Measuring globalisation. Gauging its consequences. New York: Springer.
Dreher, A., Gaston, N., Martens, P., & Van Boxem, L. (2009). Measuring globalisation–Opening the Black Box: a critical analysis of globalisation indices. Bond University, 32, 1–29.
Ernst & Young (2010). Redrawing the map, Globalization and the changing world of business. Ernst & Young Limited.
Foreign Policy (2001). Measuring Globalization. January–February.
Foreign Policy (2002). Globalization’s Last Hurrah? January–February.
Foreign Policy (2003). Measuring Globalization: Who’s Up, Who’s Down? January–February.
Foreign Policy (2004). Measuring Globalization, The Global Top 20. March–April.
Foreign Policy (2005). Measuring Globalization, The Global Top 20. May–June.
Foreign Policy (2006). The Global Top 20. November–December.
Foreign Policy (2007). The Global Top 20. November–December.
Gwartney, J., Lawson, R. (2009). Economic Freedom of the World: 2009 Annual Report (Economic Freedom Network).
Heshmati, A. (2003). Measurement of a multidimensional index of globalization and its impact on income inequality. UNU/WIDER Discussion Paper, 69, 1–38.
Kluver, R., & Fu, W. (2008). Measuring cultural globalization in Southeast Asia. In T. Chong (Ed.), Globalization and its counter-forces in Southeast Asia. Singapore: ISEAS Publishing.
Lockwood, B. (2004). How robust is the foreign Policy-Kearney Globalisation Index? The World Economy, 27, 507–523.
Lockwood, B., Redoano, M. (2005). The CSGR globalisation index: An introductory guide. CSGR Working Paper, 155.
Martens, P., Raza, M. (2008). An updated Maastricht Globalisation Index. ICIS Working Paper, 08020.
Martens, P., & Raza, M. (2009). Globalisation in the 21st century: measuring regional changes in multiple domains. The Integrated Assessment Journal, 9(1), 1–18.
Martens, P., & Raza, M. (2010). Is globalisation sustainable? Sustainability, 2, 280–293.
Martens, P., & Zywietz, D. (2006). Rethinking globalisation: a modified globalisation index. Journal of International Development, 18, 331–350.
Martens, P., Akin, S. A., Maud, H., & Raza, M. (2010). Is globalization healthy: a statistical indicator analysis of the impacts of globalization on health. Globalization and Health, 6(16), 1–14.
Maslov, S. (2001). Measures of globalization based on cross-correlations of world financial indices. Physica A, 301, 397–406.
OECD (2005a). Oecd economic globalisation indicators. Oecd Publishing.
OECD (2005b). Oecd handbook on economic globalisation indicators. Oecd Publishing.
OECD (2010a). Oecd economic globalisation indicators. Oecd Publishing.
OECD (2010b). Oecd handbook on economic globalisation indicators. Oecd Publishing.
Raab, M., Ruland, M., Schönberger, M., Blossfeld, H. P., Hofäcker, D., Buchholz, S., et al. (2008). Global index: a sociological approach to globalization measurement. International Sociology, 23(4), 596–631.
Randolph, J. (2001). G-Index globalisation measured. World Markets Research Centre.
Riezman, R., Whalley, J., Zhang, S. (2005). Metrics capturing the degree to which individual economies are globalized. CESifo Working Paper, 1450, 1–32.
Schlamberger, N. (2004). Globalization. What, why, and how to measure. Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia.
Schwab, K. (2009). The global competitiveness report 2009–2010. Geneva: World Economic Forum.
Vujakovic, P. (2010). How to measure globalisation? A new globalisation index (NGI). FIW Working Paper, 46, 1–33.
Zywietz, D. (2003). Measuring globalization, Constructing a modified indicator. ICIS—International Center for Integrative Studies.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Caselli, M. (2012). Measuring Globalization: The State-Based Approach. In: Trying to Measure Globalization. SpringerBriefs in Political Science. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2807-3_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2807-3_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-2806-6
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-2807-3
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)