Системний аналіз сучасних тенденцій глобалізації
The process of globalization was studied for 60 counties for the period of 2006–2007 using the system of economic, social and political dimensions. It was shown that the process is of objective character and has both certain advantages and some risks. A comparative analyses of qualitative and quanti...
Збережено в:
| Дата: | 2018 |
|---|---|
| Автор: | |
| Формат: | Стаття |
| Мова: | Англійська |
| Опубліковано: |
The National Technical University of Ukraine "Igor Sikorsky Kyiv Polytechnic Institute"
2018
|
| Онлайн доступ: | https://journal.iasa.kpi.ua/article/view/127659 |
| Теги: |
Додати тег
Немає тегів, Будьте першим, хто поставить тег для цього запису!
|
| Назва журналу: | System research and information technologies |
| Завантажити файл: |  |
Репозитарії
System research and information technologies| _version_ | 1867334337796505600 |
|---|---|
| author | Zgurovsky, А. |
| author_facet | Zgurovsky, А. |
| author_institution_txt_mv | [
{
"author": "А. Zgurovsky",
"institution": null
}
] |
| author_sort | Zgurovsky, А. |
| baseUrl_str | http://journal.iasa.kpi.ua/oai |
| collection | OJS |
| datestamp_date | 2018-04-11T11:12:54Z |
| description | The process of globalization was studied for 60 counties for the period of 2006–2007 using the system of economic, social and political dimensions. It was shown that the process is of objective character and has both certain advantages and some risks. A comparative analyses of qualitative and quantitative characteristics of the globalization process was made for three counties: the united Sated of America, Ukraine and Russia and the current tendencies of their development were defined. |
| first_indexed | 2025-07-17T10:23:47Z |
| format | Article |
| fulltext |
© A. Zgurovsky, 2007
Системні дослідження та інформаційні технології, 2007, № 2 105
УДК 504.052
SYSTEM ANALYSIS OF RECENT TENDENCIES OF
GLOBALIZATION
A. ZGUROVSKY
The process of globalization was studied for 60 counties for the period of 2006–
2007 using the system of economic, social and political dimensions. It was shown
that the process is of objective character and has both certain advantages and some
risks. A comparative analyses of qualitative and quantitative characteristics of the
globalization process was made for three counties: the united Sated of America,
Ukraine and Russia and the current tendencies of their development were defined.
INTRODUCTION
Globalization, according to an American scholar Helda Mcgrew, is an expansion,
deepening and acceleration of interrelations in all aspects of modern human life. It
embodies the idea of integration of countries into the world community and their
general development. Globalization concerns various fields of personal activity,
from culture to crime, from finance to spirituality, therefore it reasonably causes
set of discussions and disputes [1]. The globalization becomes the mean of con-
centration of wealth and power in hands of particular people and groups. In that
way, by bringing up some facts, we can see that three richest people in the world
hold total wealth which exceeds the prosperity of 47 poorest countries and 475
richest hold fortune that is bigger than the wealth of the half of the humanity. Cor-
relation between the richest and poorest 1/5 of the world’s population is 1:75 [2].
Meanwhile, according to the World Bank, in 1973 the gap between the profits of
the most developed and the least developed countries could have been rated 44:1.
Globalization has enabled the developed countries and the largest transnational
corporations to take advantage of more powerful productive forces. The large
capital used these forces for the further enrichment. As a result, in the beginning
of XXI century the gap of the profits between the richest and the poorest among
countries has increased to the ratio of 72:1. It is rather a disturbing tendency, tak-
ing into account the increase in the amount of the world’s conflicts, growth of the
level of corruption, terrorism, crime, lack of access to the qualitive education for a
lot of nations, increasing ecology problems and the people’s overall health main-
tainance [3].
Such actual problems and tendencies, as recognition of national sovereignty,
national idea, national culture, religion, language and overall the entity of a hu-
man strictly in the borders of the exact state or territory are gradually being re-
placed by uncontrollable processes of globalization, unification and integration of
all humanity into the organic whole. In this way with every coming day the world
is becoming smaller and the human development not depending on it’s national,
A. Zgurovsky
ISSN 1681–6048 System Research & Information Technologies, 2007, № 2 106
ethnical and religious belonging is becoming the society’s main priority that is
superior to any governmental or national interests.
This is why we carry out special measurement of globalization that consists
of different factors that together evaluate the integration, interrelation and a gen-
eral change of the country’s development. In 2006 the evaluation was done for 58
countries and the accent was put on three countries of our study – Ukraine, United
States and Russia [4]. In 2007 we carried out a similar calculation for 60 countries
in general and in more detail for three countries of our study. In this article we
will compare the two sets of data in order to analyse the change and approve the
modern tendencies.
MEASUREMENT OF GLOBALIZATION
In order to analyse the effects of globalization we need to know how globalized
the countries are, but how could we exactly measure it? There are two systems
that give a quantative and qualitive measurement of globalization. The first was
introduced by Swiss Institute of business research (KOF Konjunkturfor-
schungsstel der ETH Zurich) [www.kof.ch/globalization/], second was founded
by the international organization called Carnegie Endowment for International
Peace (CEIP) [www.atkearney.com; www.foreignpolicy.com]. Both institutions
carry out an annual quantitative rating — the index of globalization ( gI ). The
first system (KOF system) rates 123 countries, while the second (CEIP system)
rates only 62.
The index of globalization allows to estimate the scale of integration of vast
majority of countries in the world and to compare the different countries in this
parameter. The index of globalization in system KOF is determined by three
measurements: economic ( geI ), social ( gsI ) and political ( gpI ). It could also be
estimated as the sum of components gpgsgeg 29,037,034,0 IIII ∗+∗+∗= with
corresponding weight factors. In the CEIP system this index is determined by four
measurements: economic ( geI ), personal contact ( gpcI ), technological ( gtI ) and
political ( gpI ). It is also estimated as the sum of the specified components with
equal weight factors.
While comparing the measurements of an globalization index in both sys-
tems, it is easy to see, that personal and technological measurements in the CEIP
system can be reduced to social measurement as it is in the KOF system. There-
fore, for further convenience in comparison between two, we will unit personal
and technological measurements in one social measurement for the CEIP system.
Economic measurement of globalization ( geI ) demonstrates a constant
growth of interrelation between people’s needs, on the one hand, and possibility
of goods and services production and distribution through the international trade,
foreign investments and the spread of transnationalization. Both indexes are de-
termined by the following general indicators: level of trade as the sum of all ex-
ports and imports and foreign direct investments as the sum of their inflow and
outflow. In the KOF system additional indicators are used: porfolio investments
System analysis of recent tendencies of globalization
Системні дослідження та інформаційні технології, 2007, № 2 107
as the sum of absolute cost of their inflow and outflow and incomes of non-
residents from the investments as a percentage of GDP. Economic measurement
of globalization of any country is a directly proportional dependence on its politi-
cal stability and the developed legislature for both of which it takes long time to
change and develop. In other words, this parameter is very sensitive to a level of
investor’s confidence to receive profits from their investments.
Social measurement of globalization ( gsI ) is the factor reflecting a degree
of integration of the ordinary human being, his/her family, his/her life and work
into the international public institutes. This measurement in both systems is esti-
mated by such indicators, as intensity of personal contacts in banking, telecom-
munication and tourist fields with other countries, a level of international tour-
ism’s development and a level at which man is interacted with mass media and
telecommunications. In addition, KOF system takes into account the two follow-
ing indicators: percentage of foreign citizens in the country and a level of interna-
tional trade country.
Political measurement of globalization ( gpI ) reflects political weight and
influence of any country allows to estimate scale of expansion of political partici-
pation. In both systems the specified measurement is quantitatively estimated with
use of such general indicators, as: membership of the country in the international
organizations and its participation in specified missions of the United Nations
Security Council. The amount of foreign embassies in the country are used in
the KOF system as an indicator, while the amount of ratified international
agreements are used in the СЕІР system. A Swiss scholar Axel Drehel
[www.kof.ch/globalization/] considers, that political globalization promotes the
country’s development with the help of its influence on the world stage. The out-
comes of political globalization are less significant than of economic and social
globalization, but as a result they more global [5].
THE ANALYSIS OF CHANGES OF GLOBALIZATION PROCESS
IN YEARS 2006 – 2007
In order for our study to be more solid we will analyse the phenomenon of global-
ization using both systems depending on their three measurements.
We are to measure the change in two consecutive years in 2006 for 58 coun-
tries in table 1. and for 60 countries in table 2. with the use of economic, social
and political indexes of globalization.
1. Change in economic index of globalization ( geI ). Calculation of eco-
nomic measurement of globalization for 2005-2006 demonstrates that by the KOF
system Luxembourg was on the first place (not determined by the СЕІР system),
Hong Kong was on the second place (not determined by the СЕІР system), Ire-
land resided on the third place (СЕІР – 3), Netherlands were on the fourth place
(СЕІР – 6), finally Singapore was the fifth (СЕІР – 1). The United States resided
only on 28 place (СЕІР – 52). Ukraine occupied the 82 place (СЕІР – 18) after
Argentina and in front of Philippines. Russia occupied the 91 place (СЕІР – 43)
after Albania and before Malawi.
A. Zgurovsky
ISSN 1681–6048 System Research & Information Technologies, 2007, № 2 108
T a b l e 1 . 58 most globalized countries in the world (2006)
Globaliza-
tion index
( gI )
Globalization index dimensions
Economic
( geI )
Social
( gsI )
Political
( gpI )
Country
KOF CEIP
KOF CEІP KOF CEIP KOF CEIP
Gini
Index
Corrup-
tion
percep-
tion
United States
Sweden
Canada
United Kingdom
Austria
France
Australia
Switzerland
Ireland
Singapore
New Zealand
Finland
Japan
Netherlands
Denmark
Norway
Germany
Israel
Spain
Czech Republic
Italy
Portugal
Hungary
South Korea
Malaysia
Poland
Greece
Chile
Russian Federation
Slovenia
Turkey
China
Egypt
Argentina
Slovak Republic
South Africa
Romania
Croatia
Pakistan
Brazil
Panama
Indonesia
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
15
17
18
19
20
22
23
24
25
26
27
29
30
31
33
37
39
40
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
54
56
58
59
4
8
6
12
9
18
13
3
2
1
11
10
28
5
7
14
21
17
26
15
27
22
23
30
19
31
29
34
52
20
56
54
59
47
25
48
35
16
50
57
24
60
28
12
18
27
10
17
38
7
3
5
13
8
44
4
30
20
35
14
16
32
62
15
26
63
45
61
19
21
91
40
55
84
74
81
42
52
64
67
69
71
36
66
52
14
25
32
13
28
35
12
3
1
33
20
57
6
29
31
42
19
22
11
47
44
6
38
4
33
55
16
46
17
49
26
56
58
8
48
25
7
53
57
3
50
1
4
2
12
13
22
3
9
23
7
5
11
8
18
15
10
20
17
36
31
35
34
33
27
42
38
39
47
67
30
61
77
80
49
48
71
54
40
99
58
46
96
17
6
14
11
7
19
20
1
3
5
12
10
25
8
2
16
21
4
22
9
23
18
30
28
38
26
24
37
43
13
44
58
47
35
31
45
32
15
49
46
44
57
1
5
8
2
12
3
36
33
24
65
59
34
27
44
15
30
10
71
22
28
9
43
32
21
18
14
42
47
4
70
16
6
11
19
53
29
31
49
17
41
93
26
31
19
14
10
7
6
25
23
18
30
20
9
15
8
16
17
13
46
11
35
6
1
22
45
49
37
9
30
36
23
47
54
59
20
7
28
27
26
52
44
34
48
40,81
25,00
31,50
35,97
30,50
32,74
35,19
33,13
35,90
42,48
36,17
25,60
24,85
32,60
24,70
25,79
38,22
35,50
32,50
25,40
36,03
38,45
24,44
31,59
49,15
31,60
35,37
57,47
45,62
28,41
40,03
40,30
34,41
–
25,81
59,33
30,25
29,00
32,99
60,66
48,50
30,33
7,5
9,3
8,7
8,7
8
6,9
8,8
8,8
7,5
9,4
9,5
9,7
7,0
8,9
9,5
8,8
7,7
7
6,9
3,9
5,3
6,6
4,8
4,3
5,2
3,6
4,3
7,4
2,7
5,9
3,1
3,4
3,3
2,5
3,7
4,4
2,8
3,7
2,5
3,9
3,4
1,9
System analysis of recent tendencies of globalization
Системні дослідження та інформаційні технології, 2007, № 2 109
India
Kenya
Ukraine
Peru
Iran
Mexico
Thailand
Sri Lanka
Venezuela
Nigeria
Phillippines
Tunisia
Senegal
Bangladesh
Morocco
Uganda
Colombia
Botswana
Saudi Arabia
62
63
64
65
67
68
69
71
74
76
80
82
86
89
90
92
93
95
123
61
49
39
53
62
42
46
43
55
44
32
37
41
58
40
33
51
38
45
104
70
82
53
79
65
76
46
76
102
83
94
105
107
85
43
73
49
121
59
52
13
54
51
41
14
34
31
20
28
23
40
61
21
39
42
30
45
95
108
66
81
76
59
60
92
60
114
73
82
101
107
87
109
74
90
123
50
56
40
41
53
36
47
42
51
55
27
39
54
48
33
34
55
52
29
13
23
38
52
45
61
54
20
57
69
55
48
40
35
58
99
81
112
62
60
38
41
39
61
31
58
33
50
56
42
40
24
53
55
14
51
12
57
37,83
–
28,96
46,24
43,00
51,86
43,15
34,36
49,53
50,56
46,09
41,66
41,28
31,79
39,50
37,36
57,14
63,01
–
2,8
1,9
2,3
3,7
3
3,6
3,3
3,4
2,4
1,4
2,5
4,9
3,2
1,3
3,3
2,2
3,7
5,7
4,5
T a b l e 2 . 60 most globalized countries in the world (2007)
Globalization
index
( gI )
Globalization index dimensions
Economic
( geI )
Social
( gsI )
Political
( gpI )
Country
KOF CEІP
KOF CEІP KOF CEІP KOF CEІP
Gini
Index
Cor-
ruption
percep-
tion
Belgium
Austria
Sweeden
United Kingdom
Netherlands
France
Canada
Switzerland
Finland
Czech Republic
Denmark
Ireland
Portugal
Spain
Germany
Singapore
Hungary
Australia
United States
Italy
Poland
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
–
9
10
12
7
23
6
2
13
16
5
4
24
25
18
1
20
8
3
27
33
4
7
8
10
10
6
18
22
12
13
30
3
9
21
40
2
12
27
39
24
37
–
15
19
25
21
40
23
9
31
5
8
4
29
22
41
1
7
18
58
50
30
3
1
6
8
4
14
10
7
15
11
5
24
22
26
16
2
25
17
23
30
28
–
5
9
10
6
18
7
1
13
12
2
4
20
24
23
3
22
17
19
26
29
10
9
7
4
20
1
5
24
21
31
16
45
26
14
6
76
34
32
2
8
15
–
2
9
4
5
1
10
23
14
35
6
7
3
16
11
29
20
27
41
8
25
45,53
28,21
25,28
38,42
33,35
30,38
32,22
31,94
25,86
22,45
24,70
36,38
38,45
32,97
36,73
42,48
22,41
35,68
41,65
38,75
30,72
7,3
8,6
9,2
8,6
8,7
7,4
8,5
9,1
9,6
4,8
9,5
7,4
6,6
6,8
8,0
9,4
5,2
8,7
7,3
4,9
3,7
A. Zgurovsky
ISSN 1681–6048 System Research & Information Technologies, 2007, № 2 110
Norway
Malaysia
Greece
New Zealand
Slovak Republic
Israel
Russia
Chile
Croatia
Slovenia
China
South Korea
Japan
Argentina
Тurkey
Romania
South Africa
Ukraine
Brazil
Phillippines
Panama
Peru
Тhailand
Mexico
Latvia
Egypt
Venezuela
Saudi Arabia
Nigeria
Morocco
Pakistan
Columbia
Тunisia
Іndonesia
Іndia
Sri Lanka
Kenia
Senegal
Botswana
Uganda
Bangladesh
Iran
22
23
24
26
27
29
31
32
33
34
37
38
40
41
44
45
49
50
54
55
57
58
59
61
62
64
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
78
82
83
85
88
93
96
112
115
14
19
32
11
26
15
47
34
22
17
51
29
28
43
57
30
49
39
52
31
21
50
45
42
–
55
59
44
48
40
56
54
37
60
61
46
53
41
38
36
58
62
42
35
36
23
43
19
76
15
34
31
55
62
67
68
52
54
51
75
60
57
26
58
66
65
25
93
61
115
78
99
97
56
73
82
105
87
96
103
38
72
108
109
39
3
56
35
6
20
33
10
14
13
28
32
62
46
47
11
54
17
45
26
2
53
16
36
–
42
48
43
34
37
60
51
27
52
59
38
55
49
24
44
61
57
13
36
37
31
21
20
39
58
40
33
62
53
54
57
72
63
71
48
86
79
49
82
78
61
38
91
68
34
108
75
88
66
100
96
95
81
93
89
84
99
121
116
16
21
27
8
34
11
45
40
15
14
55
28
31
44
51
33
48
41
50
32
38
54
46
39
–
52
56
35
57
30
47
37
36
59
58
42
56
53
60
43
62
61
38
27
30
56
54
92
3
44
53
69
11
23
18
17
19
29
33
39
22
41
103
47
49
64
105
12
72
78
25
36
28
85
46
37
13
59
40
43
116
81
51
55
18
48
12
24
19
40
36
30
32
15
47
33
13
22
51
28
31
46
44
43
39
45
57
37
–
59
52
56
38
53
55
54
42
50
60
58
34
21
26
17
49
61
25,79
51,04
35,55
35,79
22,32
39,22
49,00
58,25
31,35
26,01
41,49
35,51
22,72
–
34,99
27,01
56,64
25,25
66,91
46,09
52,78
51,24
39,23
56,24
26,37
34,41
51,59
–
40,90
40,70
36,95
54,05
44,21
26.35
33,32
37,39
–
39.99
64,12
32,64
26,08
47,30
8,8
5,0
4,4
9,6
4,7
5,9
2,5
7,3
3,4
6,4
3,3
5,1
7,6
2,9
3,8
3,1
4,6
2,8
3,3
2,5
3,1
3,3
3,6
3,3
4,7
3,3
2,3
3,3
2,2
3,2
2,2
3,9
4,6
2,4
3,3
3,1
2,2
3,3
5,6
2,7
2,0
2,7
In the 2007 index of economic globalization Luxembourg remains on the
first place (not determined by the СЕІР system), Singapore has moved from the
5th to the 2nd place (СЕІР – 1), Ireland is 3rd (СЕІР – 4), Belgium has moved to the
4th place place (not determined by the СЕІР system), and finally Estonia moved
up to 5th position. Ukraine place (СЕІР–17) moved from 82nd to 75th place in front
of the African republic of Ghana and after Russia place (СЕІР–33). United States
are on the 39th place place (СЕІР–58) after Botswana and in front of Germany.
System analysis of recent tendencies of globalization
Системні дослідження та інформаційні технології, 2007, № 2 111
While determining the globalization level for the main countries of our study
we should also determine the rate at which Ukraine has been developing in the
last 14 years and to compare it to two countries which have the greatest impact on
it — United States and Russia (Graph 1a).
2. Change in social index of globalization ( gsI ). By the KOF system, the
first five countries in 2006 in the world were: the U.S. (СЕІР–20), Canada (СЕІР
– 17), Australia (СЕІР – 19), Sweden (СЕІР – 13) and New Zealand (СЕІР – 16).
Ukraine resides on the 66 place (СЕІР – 38), which is before Belize and in front
of Russia – 67 place (СЕІР – 42).
First five places in 2007 were mounted by Austria (СЕІР – 5), Singapore
(not determined by the СЕІР system), Belgium (not determined by the СЕІР sys-
tem), Netherlands (СЕІР – 6) and Denmark (СЕІР – 2). This year Ukraine has
improved it’s result by 18 places having occupied the 48th place (СЕІР – 41) after
Jordan and in front of Panama, while Russia ended up on the 39th place (СЕІР –
45) in front of Latvia and after Croatia. United States are on 23rd place (СЕІР –
19) in front of Ireland and after Portugal.
United States had the highest level of social globalization which has in-
creased by 70 % in the last 14 years, while Ukraine and Russia had been globaliz-
ing 7–8 times slower and this much faster than the countries at the bottom of the
list. The social development in Ukraine during the period of our study has been
critically low, and there has been almost no changes (Graph 1b). This fact should
be a serious warning for the Ukrainian policy makers, because of the possible in-
crease of social tension and the public dissatisfaction.
Unfortunately, Ukraine is considered to be the one of the main “anti-leaders”
among all five threats and already for a long time it doesn’t seem to be attempting
any significant actions to get rid of that status. The country is on 4th place in the
world in the matter of illegal migration (4,2 %). It is on the low position in free-
dom from corruption scale (2,3 out of 10 tab. 1). And Ukraine is included into 30
most unattractive countries of the world in the matter of money-laundering. The
level of illegal use of intellectual property in Ukraine makes up 91 % of all usage.
On this parameter it is on the 4 place in the bottom of the list, conceding only to
China – 95 %, Russia and India – 93 %. Finally the level of drug usage in Ukraine
threateningly grows.
3. Change in political index of globalization ( gpI ). Apparently the five
world leaders in this measurement are: USA - 1 place (CEIP – 31), United King-
dom – 2 place (СЕІР – 10), France – 3 place (СЕІР – 6), Russia – the 4 place
(СЕІР – 29) and Sweden – 5 place (СЕІР – 19). Ukraine is only on 38 place
(СЕІР – 34) after Ghana, but in front of Uruguay.
Meanwhile, the top five list of states in 2007 consists of France (СЕІР – 1),
Unites States (СЕІР – 41), Russia (СЕІР – 36), United Kingdom (СЕІР – 6) and
Canada (СЕІР – 10). Ukraine went down one position this year being 32nd in the
political globalization ranking (СЕІР – 46) after Kenia and in front of Norway
(Graph 1c).
A. Zgurovsky
ISSN 1681–6048 System Research & Information Technologies, 2007, № 2 112
Russia, unlike Ukraine, has achieved a significant political integration into
the world community. It is one of the most powerful political players in the world,
despite of the weak economic and social parameters. This could be explained by
Russia’s heritage of Soviet Union’s influence, its participation in the G–8, pres-
ence of powerful military potential and rich reserves of natural resources.
Political globalization is also accompanied by various new threats. The larg-
est and the most considerable is the spreading terrorism. But it is difficult to indi-
cate a precise dependence between a level of political globalization and the level
terrorism. On the other hand the data displayed on the [www.foreignpolicy.com],
testifies, that more isolated countries, such as India, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Co-
lumbia, etc. are more vulnerable to various kinds of terrorist assaults.
Graph 1a. Economic globalization
0,00
1,00
2,00
3,00
4,00
5,00
6,00
1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007
Ukraine Russia United States
Graph 1b. Social globalization
0,00
1,00
2,00
3,00
4,00
5,00
6,00
7,00
1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007
Ukraine Russia United States
Graph 1c. Political globalization
0,00
1,00
2,00
3,00
4,00
5,00
6,00
7,00
1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007
Ukraine Russia United States
Graph 1d. Globalization index
0,00
1,00
2,00
3,00
4,00
5,00
6,00
7,00
8,00
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
yearsUkraine Russian Federation United States
Graph 1d. Globalization index
Graph 1a. Economic globalization Graph 1b. Social globalization
Graph 1c. Political globalization
Fig. 1
System analysis of recent tendencies of globalization
Системні дослідження та інформаційні технології, 2007, № 2 113
4. General index of globalization ( gI ). Finally, having analysed the eco-
nomic, social and political measurements of globalization, we can come to the
general index of globalization (table 1). As we can see, the United States are on
the first place in KOF system (СЕІР – 4) due to its first position in social and po-
litical globalization. Sweden is on the second position (СЕІР – 8), Canada on the
third (СЕІР – 6), United Kingdom on the fourth (СЕІР – 12) and Luxembourg is
on the fifth (not determined by the СЕІР system).
Due to a rather high position of Russian Federation in political globalization,
on the general index (Ig) it 39 place (СЕІР – 52), that first of all shows much
more of Russian participation in foreign, rather than in domestic.
Ukraine in KOF system is on 64 place (CEIP – 39), behind Kenya and in
front of Peru. Here we can see, that it has been globalizing almost in 2,4 times
slower than the United States, and in 1,2 times – than Russia (Graph 1d).
We can see that in 2007 United States significantly went down in all three
dimensions of globalization. Most of all this concerns social and economic glob-
alization where the US are down by 22 and 11 positions comparing with 2006
respectively. On this basis the United States have moved down from the 1st place
in 2006 to the 19th (CEIP – from 4th to 3rd) in 2007 in the general index of global-
ization. Meanwhile, Russia in the general index went up to the 31st place (CEIP –
47) in front of Chile and after UAE, just like the US, both countries clearly con-
centrate more of their attention to the overseas issues rather than domestic. For
United States, one of such issues is the overextended crisis in Iraq along with
many other challenges of that character.
Out of three countries of our study, Ukraine is third being on the 50th place
in the general index (CEIP – 39) in front of Uruguay and after South Africa. In
that way, Ukraine have went up 14 positions since last year generally by reason of
its improved results in economic and social globalization indexes. This witnesses
the constant integration of the country into the world’s society and vice versa, the
advance in living standards and enrichment of its citizens. Unfortunately, due to a
high level of political instability the upsurge of Ukraine’s weight on the world’s
arena is almost inappreciable and its contribution to a number of international
projects and organizations is insignificant. The potential opportunities of Ukraine
go far beyond its tangible achievements. According to the new figures we see that
Ukraine globalizes 1,3 times slower than the United States and 1,1 times slower
than Russia.
CONCLUSIONS
As a result, we can see, that the level of integration of the U.S. into the world
economy for the last 14 years appeared to be very stable and varied in a range:
)35,430,4( −=gI , whereas Ukraine and Russia, being a transition economies,
confidently developed from practically closed to liberal open economy while in-
tegrating into the rest of the world. The level of economic globalization of Russia
for this period has increased by 310 %, and Ukraine —on 640 %. In the same pe-
riod of time United States and Russia have demonstrated a strong positions in po-
A. Zgurovsky
ISSN 1681–6048 System Research & Information Technologies, 2007, № 2 114
litical weight in the world, which is their heritage since the cold war times.
Meanwhile, in social measurement of globalization during last 14 years Ukraine
and Russia have showed a poor performance, nevertheless, both countries
experienced a slight improvement in the cources of recent years with the first
signs of stability and economic growth. United States, though, have always dem-
onstrated significant level of social globalization but in recent years the marginal
rate of its social dimension has decreased due to considerable levels of inequality,
corruption, threat of terrorism i.e. Finally, according to our study we are able to
conclude that overall Ukraine and Russia, being a developing countries, demon-
strate a more significant pace of globalization, while United States’ pace in-
sensibly slows down along with a number of other advanced states.
REFERENCES
1. Helda Mcgrew [www.dushkin.com/online].
2. International Life. — 2001. – № 1. — P. 58.
3. Conference of the United Nations considering trade and investments, 2006.
4. Zgurovsky A. Pros and Cons of Globalization. — Polythekhnika; Kyiv: 2007. —
57 p.
5. Axel Drehel [www.kof.ch/globalization/].
Received 16.11.2006
From the Editorial Board: the article corresponds completely to submitted
manuscript.
|
| id | journaliasakpiua-article-127659 |
| institution | System research and information technologies |
| keywords_txt_mv | keywords |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2025-07-17T10:23:47Z |
| publishDate | 2018 |
| publisher | The National Technical University of Ukraine "Igor Sikorsky Kyiv Polytechnic Institute" |
| record_format | ojs |
| resource_txt_mv | journaliasakpiua/32/ba304e6580a1473f158ac7dea3c6e632.pdf |
| spelling | journaliasakpiua-article-1276592018-04-11T11:12:54Z System analysis of recent tendencies of globalization Системный анализ современных тенденций глобализации Системний аналіз сучасних тенденцій глобалізації Zgurovsky, А. The process of globalization was studied for 60 counties for the period of 2006–2007 using the system of economic, social and political dimensions. It was shown that the process is of objective character and has both certain advantages and some risks. A comparative analyses of qualitative and quantitative characteristics of the globalization process was made for three counties: the united Sated of America, Ukraine and Russia and the current tendencies of their development were defined. Исследован процесс глобализации в 60 странах мира за 2006–2007 гг. в системе экономического, социального и политического измерений. Показано, что этот процесс имеет объективный характер. Ему присущи как определенные преимущества, так и некоторые угрозы. Проведен сравнительный анализ качественных и количественных характеристик процесса глобализации на примере трех стран: Соединенных Штатов Америки, Украины и России. Определены современные тенденции их развития. Досліджено процес глобалізації у 60 країнах світу за 2006-2007 рр. у системі економічного, соціального і політичного вимірів. Показано, що цей процес має об’єктивний характер. Йому притаманні як певні переваги, так і деякі загрози. Проведено порівняльний аналіз якісних та кількісних характеристик процесу глобалізації на прикладі трьох країн: Сполучених Штатів Америки, України та Росії. Визначені сучасні тенденції їх розвитку. The National Technical University of Ukraine "Igor Sikorsky Kyiv Polytechnic Institute" 2018-04-02 Article Article Peer-reviewed Article application/pdf https://journal.iasa.kpi.ua/article/view/127659 System research and information technologies; No. 2 (2007); 105-114 Системные исследования и информационные технологии; № 2 (2007); 105-114 Системні дослідження та інформаційні технології; № 2 (2007); 105-114 2308-8893 1681-6048 en https://journal.iasa.kpi.ua/article/view/127659/122433 Copyright (c) 2021 System research and information technologies |
| spellingShingle | Zgurovsky, А. Системний аналіз сучасних тенденцій глобалізації |
| title | Системний аналіз сучасних тенденцій глобалізації |
| title_alt | System analysis of recent tendencies of globalization Системный анализ современных тенденций глобализации |
| title_full | Системний аналіз сучасних тенденцій глобалізації |
| title_fullStr | Системний аналіз сучасних тенденцій глобалізації |
| title_full_unstemmed | Системний аналіз сучасних тенденцій глобалізації |
| title_short | Системний аналіз сучасних тенденцій глобалізації |
| title_sort | системний аналіз сучасних тенденцій глобалізації |
| url | https://journal.iasa.kpi.ua/article/view/127659 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT zgurovskya systemanalysisofrecenttendenciesofglobalization AT zgurovskya sistemnyjanalizsovremennyhtendencijglobalizacii AT zgurovskya sistemnijanalízsučasnihtendencíjglobalízacíí |