Does Globalization Foster or Reduce Political Violence?

Globalization has impacted societies around the world in both positive and negative ways. Despite positive changes in certain areas though, there are two significant factors that make the globalized (and globalizing) world a more dangerous place with respect to political violence: 1.) The spread of information and technology greatly increases the risks associated with any given terrorist attack; and 2.) Economic transformations related to globalization have left large portions of society disenfranchised while increasing the polarization of wealth.

Li and Schaub describe how globalization has made the transfer of money across borders literally instantaneous.1 They also discuss how opportunities to transport weapons internationally have grown substantially with the opening of markets and increased trade associated with a globalizing world. These factors have allowed for an unprecedented spread of ideas and technology around the world. This spread of technology has huge implications when considering the risks associated with any given terrorist attack. Today, it only takes one terrorist with the right information and the right tools to potentially kill thousands of people—such a feat 30, 50, or 100 years ago would have taken an army. Globalization has greatly enhanced the likelihood that any of a variety of “weapons of mass destruction”—including nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons—may become accessible to terrorist groups. Therefore, even though Li and Schaub write that, “Economic development of [a] country and its top trading partners reduces the number of terrorist incidents inside the country,”2 they fail to recognize the substantial increase in harmful potential that any single terrorist attack today entails. In short, a terrorist “incident” today is associated with a greater negative downside than at any other time in history.

In addition to the greater negative downside associated with political violence, it is essential to address the question of who is most likely to engage in political violence. Political violence is a form of extremism, and extremism does not appeal to the vast majority of any given population. Rather, it appeals to those on the fringes of society—in many cases, those who society has left behind. As Sandbrook and Romano point out, in the era of globalization, “[Economic] inequality has risen in most countries, and in many cases sharply.”3 Furthermore, any benefits that have been realized from globalization have, on the whole, not touched the groups of society most at-risk for engaging in political violence. In many cases, “fringe” groups may have suffered significantly from the effects of globalization. As these groups see other classes of society gain significant wealth, the sense of relative deprivation—as Sandbrook and Romano argue—becomes a “powerful motivator” for violence.4 Globalization has therefore left out those groups that pose the greatest risk.

Overall, this combination of factors has made the world today a more potent breeding ground for increasingly dangerous terrorists. Globalization has without question brought significant benefits to some people in some parts of the world; but it has its downsides.

---

1.) Li, Quan and Schaub, Drew, in Opposing Viewpoints: The Third World. San Diego, Calif: Greenhaven, 2006: 98.

2.) Ibid, 100.

3.) Sandbrook, Richard and Romano, David, in Opposing Viewpoints: The Third World. San Diego, Calif: Greenhaven, 2006: 107.

4.) Ibid, 109.