 |
On the Cutting Edge of Globalization
| |
| | Unformatted Document Text:
On the Cutting Edge of Globalization page 28 Rosenau et. al.
Table 26: How would you describe your views on trade issues?
pro-free
trade (
n
=) %
selectively
protectionist
(
n
=) %
protectionist
(
n
=) %
not
sure
(
n
=) %
Chi square
value
(
χ
2
)
Cutting-Edgers
(
n=184
)
(
141
) 76.5 (
37
) 20
(
1
) .5 (
5
) 3
Other Leaders
(n=
537
)
(
338
) 63
(
166
) 31
(
11
) 2
(
22
) 4
df=3;
χ
2
=12.11
p < .01
A more qualified support for other kinds of economic issues was recorded in
response to a question about the way in which faltering economies of other countries should be handled. As can be seen in Table 27, only two- fifths of the Cutting-Edgers and roughly one-third of Other Leaders indicated a readiness to ameliorate the economic problems of Russia and Brazil. Nonetheless, the two groups did not register a statistically significant different reaction to the question.
Table 27: Do you regard the efforts to bail out countries in economic trouble like
Russia and Brazil as . . .
necessary
(
n=
) %
worthwhile
(
n=
) %
questionable
(
n=
) %
Futile
(
n=
) %
unsure
(
n=
) %
Chi square value (
χ
2
)
Cutting Edgers
(
n=168
)
(
67
) 40
(
45
) 27
(
46
) 27 (
7
) 4
(
3
) 2
Other Leaders
(
n=523
)
(
169
) 32 (
127
) 24
(
166
) 32 (
39
) 7 (
22
) 4
df=4;
χ
2
=7.37
p = .118
Turning to the instruments of globalization, the respondents were asked to assess
twelve international actors and the role they play in world affairs. Table 28 presents the reactions and here several striking differences emerge. The Cutting- Edgers ascribed statistically significantly greater importance to six of the actors than did the Other Leaders, presumably a reflection of their greater involvement in global affairs. All six of these actors, moreover, are intergovernmental organizations (IGOs), while the differences for three IGOs, two nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), Amnesty International and Greenpeace, and one national state (the U.S.) were not significant. Interestingly, among the IGOs that did not evoke significant differences were two of the prime institutions designed to control the international economy, the WTO and the World Bank, and that subsequent to the survey became the focus of street protests. Still other insights can be readily discerned if the degree to which the various instruments of international policy are compared. Most noteworthy perhaps is the huge consensus on the importance of the United States: as might be expected of any single-country survey, virtually every respondent of both groups ranked the U.S. as very or somewhat important, a ranking that also suggests a perception held by American leaders of their country’s hegemonic role in world affairs. Contrariwise, only the NGOs evoked substantial proportions of both groups that ranked them as not very important or unimportant. Clearly, leaders tend to put considerable stock in the role of international organizations and institutions and have not been convinced of the efficacy of global civil society.
|
| | Authors: Rosenau, James., Earnest, David., Ferguson, Yale. and Holsti, Ole. |
|
| |
|
|
On the Cutting Edge of Globalization page 28
Rosenau et. al.
Table 26: How would you describe your views on trade issues?
pro-free
trade
(
n
=) %
selectively
protectionist
(
n
=) %
protectionist
(
n
=) %
not
sure
(
n
=) %
Chi square
value
(
χ
2
)
Cutting-Edgers
(
n=184
)
(
141
) 76.5 (
37
) 20
(
1
) .5 (
5
) 3
Other Leaders
(n=
537
)
(
338
) 63
(
166
) 31
(
11
) 2
(
22
) 4
df=3;
χ
2
=12.11
p < .01
A more qualified support for other kinds of economic issues was recorded in
response to a question about the way in which faltering economies of other countries
should be handled. As can be seen in Table 27, only two- fifths of the Cutting-Edgers and
roughly one-third of Other Leaders indicated a readiness to ameliorate the economic
problems of Russia and Brazil. Nonetheless, the two groups did not register a statistically
significant different reaction to the question.
Table 27: Do you regard the efforts to bail out countries in economic trouble like
Russia and Brazil as . . .
necessary
(
n=
) %
worthwhile
(
n=
) %
questionable
(
n=
) %
Futile
(
n=
) %
unsure
(
n=
) %
Chi square
value (
χ
2
)
Cutting Edgers
(
n=168
)
(
67
) 40
(
45
) 27
(
46
) 27 (
7
) 4
(
3
) 2
Other Leaders
(
n=523
)
(
169
) 32 (
127
) 24
(
166
) 32 (
39
) 7 (
22
) 4
df=4;
χ
2
=7.37
p = .118
Turning to the instruments of globalization, the respondents were asked to assess
twelve international actors and the role they play in world affairs. Table 28 presents the
reactions and here several striking differences emerge. The Cutting- Edgers ascribed
statistically significantly greater importance to six of the actors than did the Other
Leaders, presumably a reflection of their greater involvement in global affairs. All six of
these actors, moreover, are intergovernmental organizations (IGOs), while the differences
for three IGOs, two nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), Amnesty International and
Greenpeace, and one national state (the U.S.) were not significant. Interestingly, among
the IGOs that did not evoke significant differences were two of the prime institutions
designed to control the international economy, the WTO and the World Bank, and that
subsequent to the survey became the focus of street protests. Still other insights can be
readily discerned if the degree to which the various instruments of international policy
are compared. Most noteworthy perhaps is the huge consensus on the importance of the
United States: as might be expected of any single-country survey, virtually every
respondent of both groups ranked the U.S. as very or somewhat important, a ranking that
also suggests a perception held by American leaders of their country’s hegemonic role in
world affairs. Contrariwise, only the NGOs evoked substantial proportions of both
groups that ranked them as not very important or unimportant. Clearly, leaders tend to
put considerable stock in the role of international organizations and institutions and have
not been convinced of the efficacy of global civil society.
|
|
 Convention | | All Academic Convention makes running your annual conference simple and cost effective. It is your online solution for abstract management, peer review, and scheduling for your annual meeting or convention. | | Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf. | | Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets! | | Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more! | | Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering. | | Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more! | | Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches! | | Click here for more information. |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
