Socio-Economic Restructurings of the Local Settings in the Era of Globalization

  • Francisco Entrena
Part of the Social Indicators Research Series book series (SINS, volume 9)


In every society and every era, socio-economic practices are continually under way to organize, manage or restructure the territorial space as a place for people to live and for production. In other words, this space is the result of social processes of construction, deconstruction and reconstruction.1 Localism was a common feature of such processes in all traditional societies. These were a heterogenous mosaic of more or less isolated, highly diversified and plural socio-spatial units, with virtually independent economies untouched by exogenous influences. Each one of these units was characterized by cultural homogeneity and by ways of life inextricably linked to a space, closed as it was to outside influences, all of which nurtured autarchy, conservatism, traditionalism, ethnocentrism and, altogether, narrow localist visions of socio-economic problems and processes. This gave rise to a cyclical and unfaltering concept of time, life and the course of cosmic phenomena, whose stability was seen in the transformations of the natural world with each coming of the seasons and in the everyday sequence of birth, growth, death and regeneration of all living material.2 In its turn, this meant that the processes of formation and reproduction of society usually occurred within its own specific territory and people’s everyday life ran its course in a local spatial scenario. In this space there developed the socialization process which molded people’s ways of thinking, attitudes or behavior patterns; their habitus, indeed, which placed and identified them socially in relation to self and others.3 There was usually a clear correspondence between the spatial field, in which the socio-vital activity of the population was enacted, and the symbolic-cultural framework which determined people’s behaviourial habitus, as the latter usually developed within the former. This explains the localist character usually manifested by this habitus.


Sage Publication Local Setting Globalization Process Traditional Society Risk Society 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Nigel Thrift (1996): Spatial Formations (Sage Publications / Theory, Culture and Society); see especially: On the Determination of Social Action in Space and Time.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Francisco Entrena (1992): “Cambios en la concepción y en la organización del espacio rural,” Revista de Estudios Regionales 34: pp. 147–162, pp. 154–155.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pierre Bourdieu (1989): “Social Space and symbolic power,” Sociological Theory 7: pp. 14–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Martin Albrow (1996): °introduction,”Martin Albrow and Elizabeth King, eds., Globalization, Knowledge and Society (Sage Publications/ISA, London), pp. 3–13, at p. 9.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Alessandro Bonanno (1994): “Globalización de sector agrícola y alimentan o: crisis de convergencia contradictoria,” Bonanno, Alessandro, ed., La globalización del sector agroalimentario (Ministerio de Agricultura Pesca y Alimentación, Serie Estudios, Madrid), pp. 15–49, at p. 17 and following.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Francisco Entrena (1998): “From the credibility crisis of formal organizations to the re-emergence of the group: an ecosystemic approach,” Free Inquiry in Creative Sociology 26 (1), in press.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wider approaches to these theories are to be found in Francisco Entrena (1994): “Las nuevas funciones del agro y el desarrollo rural: del productivismo al énfasis en la calidad,” Rivista di Economia Agraria XLIX (2): pp. 318–337, pp. 323–325. See also Johann Graaff (1996): “Changing ideas in Marxist thought in Southern Africa,” Jan K. Coetzee and Johann Graaff, eds., Reconstruction, Development and People (International Thomson Publishing, Durban, Southern Africa ), pp. 83–105.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    David Held (1991): “A Democracia, o Estado-Nacao e o Sistema Global,” Lua Nova 23: pp. 145–194, p. 179.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Piotr Sztompka (1995): Sociologia del cambio social ( Alianza Editorial, Madrid ), p. 111.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    For an insight into the dynamic and disruptive nature of this world system, Immanuel Wallerstein’s definition is very useful in, El moderno sistema mundial. La agricultura capitalista y los orígenes de la cconomía-mundo europea en el Siglo XVI, Volume I (Siglo XXI editores, Madrid, 1984.) This author conceives the world system as a social system, a system which has limits, structures, groups, members, rules for legitimation and coherence. Its life springs from of conflicting forces which keep it together by tension and pull it apart inasmuch as each one of the groups strives ceaselessly to model it for its own benefit (p. 489.)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Peter Worsley (1984): The Three Worlds: Culture and World Development ( Weidenfeld and Nicolson, Londres ), p. I.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Norbert Elias (1990): La sociedad y los individuos (Peninsula, Barcelona), p. 188 and following.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gilles Lipovetsky (1990): La era del vacío. Ensayos sobre el individualism° contemporaneo (Anagrama, Barcelona ), p. 51.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gianni Vattimo (1986): El fin de la modernidad, Nihilismo y hermenéutica en la cultura posmoderna ( Gedisa, Barcelona), see especially the Introduction and the first session “El nihilismo como destino.”Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Josep Pied (1988): Modernidad y posmodernidad ( Alianza Editorial, Madrid ), p. 37.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Martin Albrow (1996): The Global Age. State and Society Beyond Modernity (Polity Press/Blackwell Publishers Ltd., Great Britain), see especially the Introduction and chapter 9.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ulrich Beck, in Ulrich Beck, Anthony Giddens and Scott Lash (1995): Reflexive modernization (Polity Press. Cambridge); especially chapters 1 and 4.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ulrich Beck, in Ulrich Beck, Anthony Giddens and Scott Lash (1995): Reflexive modernization ( Polity Press, Cambridge ) p. 3.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    See Julian Steward (1979): Theory of culture change (Urbana: University of Illinois Press). For this author, XX century research has gleaned overwhelming evidence to suggest that particular cultures diverge significantly from one another and do not pass through unilinear stages (p. 28.)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Here I am using the very appropriate title of the 34th International Congress to be held at the International Institute of Sociology, University of Tel-Aviv (Israel), from 1 1 th to 15th of July, 1999.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Anthony Giddens (1996): Mas alla de la izquierda y la derecha. El Futuro de las políticas radicals (Ediciones Catedra, Madrid), pp. 13 and 85.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ulrich Beck (1992): Risk Society. Towards a New Modernity (Sage Publications, London.) As is well known, the crux of Beck’s argument is that risk has become a central and defining element of today’s society, in such a way that “while in classical industrial society the logic’ of wealth production dominates the ‘logic’ of risk production, in the risk society this relationship is reversed” (p. 12.)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    See Emilio Lamo de Espinosa (1990): La sociedad reflexiva. Sujeto y objeto del conocimiento sociologico (Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas/Siglo XXI editores, Madrid.) According to this author, “human beings… have the double capacity to think about themselves and their situation (i.e. to produce/create ethnoscience) and to leam what others say about them and their situations (i.e., to speak and to read)” (p. 166.)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Daniel Bell (1977): Las contradicciones culturales del capitalismo (Alianza Universidad, Madrid). This author points out (pp. 21–22) that this vision of society as a fabric or spider’s web, as a more or less closed system, was deeply embedded in the XIX century imagination. It has also been implicit in some of the theoretical sociological developments of this century, for example in the writings of such outstanding authors as Parsons.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Emilio Lamo de Espinosa (1996): Sociedades de Cultura y Sociedades de Ciencia. Ensayos sobre la condición moderna (Ediciones Nobel, Oviedo ), pp. 136–138.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rafael Pardo (1992): “Globalización, cambio disciplinar y teoria sociologica: Notas metodologicas para una Sociologfa del Sistema Mundial,” Carlos Moya, Alfonso Pérez-Agote, Juan Salcedo y José Felix Tezanos, eds., Escritos de Teoria Sociologica. En Homenaje a Luis Rodriguez Ztíniga (Centro de Investigaciones Sociologicas, Madrid), pp. 865–914, at p. 911.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Roland Robertson (1992): “Globality, global culture and images of world order,” Haferkamp y Smelser, eds., Social Change and Modernity (Berkeley, University of California Press), pp. 395–411, at p. 396.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Manuel Castell (1987): “Technological change, economic restructuring and the spacial division of labour,” H. Muegge, Walter B. Stöhr, P. Hesp and B. Stuckey, eds., International Economic Restructuring and the Regional Community (Avebury, Great Britain), pp. 45–63, at p. 58.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Alessandro Bonanno and Karen Bradley (1994): “Spatial Relations in the Global Socio-Economic System and the Implications for Development Planning,” David Symes and Anton J. Jansen, eds., Agricultural Restructuring and Rural Change in Europe (Agricultural University Wageningen, Netherlands), pp. 49–64, at p. 63.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Here I take, though not literally, Henri Lefebvre’s (1976) terminology in, La revolución urbana (Alianza Editorial, Madrid). Lefebvre uses the term heterotopy of space to express his conception of the other place, as against the same place, which he considers to be isotopy (p. 45.)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    William H. Friedland (1994): “Globalization, the State and the Labor Process,” International Journal of Agriculture and Food 4: pp. 30–46, p. 30.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Juan Pablo Pérez Sdinz, “Entre lo global y lo local. Economías comunitarias en Centroamérica,” Sociologia del Trabajo 30: pp. 3–19, p. 3.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Anthony Giddens (1996): Mt. ’s and de la izquierda y la derecha. El Futuro de las políticas radicales (Ediciones Câtedra, Madrid ), p. 88.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Roland Robertson (1993): Globalization. Social Theory and Global Culture (Sage Publications, London), chapter 6.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Talcott Parsons (1976): El sistema social ( Revista de Occidente, Madrid), see especially chapter 11.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    alter B. Stöhr, ed. (1990): Global Challenge and Local Response. Initiatives for Economic Regeneration in Contemporary Europe (London/New York: The United Nations University), see especially the “Synthesis” and the “Introduction.”Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Manuel Pérez Yruela y M’ del Mar Giménez (1994): “Desarrollo local y desarrollo rural: el contexto del programa ‘Leader’,” Papeles de Economia Espanola 60–61: pp. 219–233, p. 225.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Xan Bouzada (1995): “Elementos teóricos relativos al desarrollo comunitario local y a su prâctica en la comunidad autónoma de Galicia,” Papers Revista de Sociología 45: pp. 81–100, p. 83.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Emilio Lamo de Espinosa (1996): Sociedades de Cultura y Sociedades de Ciencia. Ensayos sobre la condición moderna (Ediciones Nobel, Oviedo ), p. 137.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Alessandro Ferrara (1997): “The paradox of Community,” International Sociology 12 (4): pp. 395–408, pp. 400, 404 and 405.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Michel Maffesoli (1995): The Time of the Tribes: The Decline of Individualism in Mass Society (Sage Publications/Theory, Culture and Society), see especially: Foreword by Rob Shields, “Masses or Tribes, The Emotional Community: Research Arguments and Sociality versus the Social, and Tribalism.”Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Francisco Entrena

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations